EDITORIAL: No wrong answer

‘ ‘ ‘ At Pittsburgh Public Schools, when students are wrong, they’re also half right. ‘ ‘ ‘ … ‘ ‘ ‘ At Pittsburgh Public Schools, when students are wrong, they’re also half right. ‘ ‘ ‘ Some teachers and parents are skeptical about a Pittsburgh Public Schools policy that gives students at least a 50 percent minimum score for all assignments and tests. School officials insist, however, that the policy, which has been in place for several years, will encourage students to improve their grades. ‘ ‘ ‘ District spokeswoman Ebony Pugh told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, ‘We want to create situations where students can recover and not give up … It’s not grade inflation. We’re not saying, ‘Give people passing grades.” ‘ ‘ ‘ By policy standards, students receive an ‘A’ for grades within the 100 percent to 90 percent range, a ‘B’ for grades within the 89 percent to 80 percent range, a ‘C’ for grades within the 79 percent to 70 percent range, a ‘D’ for grades within the 69 percent to 60 percent range and an ‘E’ for grades within the 59 percent to 50 percent range. The district does not issue ‘F’ grades. ‘ ‘ ‘ This policy has obvious advantages. ‘ ‘ ‘ By instituting a minimum score, students are likely to be encouraged to work harder and to become more invested in their academic success. The plan is particularly useful to low-achieving students who, after receiving an ‘F,’ lose the motivation to try harder. ‘ ‘ ‘ The plan seems especially useful in elementary school, where grades do not matter as much as they do in high school, as students prepare for college. A failing grade in elementary school, where a student starts developing and honing a work ethic, could hurt a child’s will to learn, discouraging children at a time when encouragement is key to improving a student scholastically. ‘ ‘ ‘ So perhaps this policy should only be in place in elementary schools. ‘ ‘ ‘ Because it is also riddled with disadvantages, it is unclear whether the plan helps students more than it hurts them. While it could be beneficial to low-achieving students, it can be detrimental to high-achieving students, lowering their incentive to do well. ‘ ‘ ‘ Judy Leonardi, a retired district home economics teacher, told the Post-Gazette that the policy could cause high-achieving students to become lazy, knowing that they are always guaranteed at least 50 percent. Leonardi said she was opposed to the idea that students can ‘walk in the door, breathe the air and get 50 percent for that.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ The debate surrounding this policy draws attention to the failing state of our nation’s education system. More often than not, it seems that schools are responding to poor grades and low attendance with Band-Aid solutions that bend the rules rather than actually educate the students. ‘ ‘ ‘ Rules can be changed, and grading scales can be altered, but no matter what, the truth is that some students are not learning. The government needs to start taking notice of struggling students and give schools enough funding so they can institute the most necessary school reform: hiring good teachers and paying them accordingly. ‘ ‘ ‘ Thankfully, until then, we can all rest easy knowing that no child is being left behind.