Posts by Susan James

Sarah Hall53 said:Maybe we end up with the standard routine, or maybe we get stuck with John Doe—where the teacher just decided, out of nowhere, to hand out straight A's to the entire school last year... or who knows, maybe the principal felt some sudden urge to play hero for some random kid after getting that letter, and that was just the final straw that broke the camel's back.

We also face losing some truly incredible teachers.
To be honest, that’s the part that really worries me. I mean, kids can always try to make up for grades during entrance exams, but what good is an exam if there wasn't anyone there to actually teach them the material in the first place?

It's just a vicious cycle.
The state will probably introduce standardized national testing just to fix all those inflated grades, but by then, the students won't have had anyone to actually learn from...

mellowskipper said:

I suppose I should mention—though it’s probably irrelevant—that chiquita. kaže:
Well, I suppose I should finally weigh in—three days before the deadline, just when the whole thing is pretty much a done deal.

The situation we’re facing right now is—well, it's grim, I suppose—because less than half of us are actually making the cut. It’s a mess. Take Boda, for instance—their kid isn't even going to hit the required GPA threshold to get into that school they've been aiming for. It’s just... it's frustratingly difficult, I guess.

I’ve had several discussions with the homeroom teacher and the department heads—just endless back-and-forth—but honestly? It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. A heart of stone just stays hard, I guess. No matter how much you try to reason with them, some people just refuse to budge.

So, go ahead—tell me, you educators—you people who look down on someone like me, just a common laborer, a cog in the machine, an uneducated grunt—what exactly is it about being a professor that makes you think you’re somehow incapable, or perhaps just unwilling, to see the bigger picture? What is it that makes you refuse to actually help a child when they need it? I guess it’s just easier to sit up there on that pedestal, playing God while you enjoy the little power trip of being the one to hand out the discipline. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems pretty obvious.

I don't quite grasp that specific part—it’s a bit fuzzy to me—and, I guess, I can't help but wonder... why would someone actually be like that? It's honestly pretty baffling.

I wonder if people actually fear themselves—not just in a philosophical sense, but the tangible stuff—you know? Like, fearing that version of yourself that exists somewhere between the heavens and the earth... or perhaps more practically, fearing that enraged parent waiting right outside the school doors after class is over—or even just a sudden bolt of lightning from a clear blue sky. It's all quite unsettling, I suppose. Maybe.

What kind of people are these, exactly? Could someone please explain this to me?

This is truly a nightmare—an absolute disaster, really. I would suggest you write directly to the Principal—you need to lay out the whole situation clearly, provide a thorough explanation, and demand that they step up and actually help the child.

That is really poor advice. It’s exactly this kind of thinking that drives great teachers out of the education system. I noticed you posted this before chiquita mentioned they were being asked to account for their work all year long.

Do you actually realize what most principals do when they get letters from parents?
Don't you see that teachers end up facing pressure to bump up grades? We saw the whole circus last year in honors classes... or we end up with an artificial surplus of A's during enrollment, which isn't just an issue for chiquitino's child—it affects everyone else too.

I honestly don't know how you imagine a principal "helping" a student. 🤷
Grading criteria are made clear to every student at the start of the school year (if the teacher doesn't state them directly, parents usually go over them, and they're often available online; not to mention that older kids know exactly what each teacher's style is, even if the teacher is new to the district).
Every kid has the entire school year to improve their grades, fix mistakes, or ask for extra credit... look, if it doesn't work out, it just means they weren't cut out for it.

In what universe is a principal going to visit a teacher on June 16th and ask them to re-test a student for the entire school year on June 19th or 21st, just because they received a polite letter—or a threat—from a parent?

Sarah Hall53 said:I was just thinking—what if they actually got rid of those elective grades? You know, the ones where kids just coast through? It’d be so much better if you were just left with the real stuff, like your actual math or geography scores, maybe a B in English or history, instead of being padded out by easy A's in art, music, gym, shop class, or religion...

Exactly! 🤣
By then, students wouldn't be coasting through high school with perfect GPAs; instead, we'd see much more realistic grades starting from the middle school years...
Or, on the flip side, the pressure on the teachers would just intensify right from the start. 😂

Sarah Hall53 said:haha, how exactly are you supposed to pull off a 4.0 GPA when you're stuck dragging along Cs in math and physics? 😂

Well, they won't necessarily need straight As 🤣
they'd focus on what actually matters for their goals. 🤷

And if you think removing grades for elective subjects is a good idea—if we stop grading things like those or decide they don't count toward a GPA—just imagine how much interest would drop in VJ.

rowdypanther12 said:But why aren't they looking at the decimals right now?
A 4.9 in fifth or sixth grade ends up being less than 80 points on those calculators. 🤔

Well, I guess you could say that's true.
That’s exactly why people start obsessively hoarding straight A's as far back as fifth grade. When you're looking at your GPA, every single decimal point matters. Even a small win, like pulling a 5 in VJ class, can be the thing that finally nudges your average up. 🥳)

Maiken suggested that we should start using decimal points for individual course grades too. 😲

says:

Not to mention that grades really should be calculated to two decimal places. Right now, it’s way too easy to just round a 3.5 up to a 4.0. Keeping decimals would prevent that frantic end-of-semester scramble where kids sitting at a 4.3 or 4.4 fight tooth and nail for an A, essentially putting them on the same level as students who maintained a steady 4.8 or 5.0 all year long. I honestly can't wrap my head around why they won't just implement two decimal places. This current simplification puts so much unnecessary pressure on teachers at the end of the term, and it feels totally unfair to the kids who have been consistently high achievers. So many people are calling for this change, yet it keeps getting ignored—I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that. 🤔 Have we ever actually used two decimal places in the American grading system? I don't recall it ever being a thing, though I haven't looked closely into the history. 🤔

Switching to two decimal places for GPA would just cause a massive wave of straight A's starting as early as elementary school, whereas before it was mostly just middle and high schoolers.
Because that second decimal point could seriously change a student's class rank.
You really have to think about what you want for your kid.

I personally feel like every child deserves the right to have a bad day, a rough test, or a chance to do a retake...
In my opinion, using those extra decimals would just lead to more kids skipping school, followed by a spike in medical excuses.
We really need to rethink how elective credits are graded (or at least stop weighing non-core subjects so heavily).

rowdypanther12 said:

says:
I've never heard of a school making those kinds of final decisions, just individual professors coming to their own conclusions.

Yeah, you're right. I got the impression from Sarah Hall53 that they don't handle grading or conclusions that way at her school.
Maybe I should rephrase: why is it that some professors decide things arbitrarily while others don't? 😁

Honestly? It’s because some of them actually have the backbone🍿
to stand by their subject matter and how they choose to grade effort, progress, and everything in between...

Or, if you look at it from a different angle, some just plain dislike kids and want to make their lives miserable.
It really just depends on how you view it. 🤣

urbantinker8 said:It does happen, I suppose.
But you'd probably need the entire class to be on the same page about it, which isn't really common since quite a few kids sign up for language tracks specifically because they need those physics or chemistry credits for college later on.

That's why I said I wasn't sure if it had happened yet—in my graduating class, it didn't happen for those exact reasons.
Even just one student being against it can stop the whole thing. Plus, teachers usually end up with fewer teaching hours if students drop a subject, so that definitely plays a role in the negotiations...😬

Yeah, you can tell from the Seattle track that they're heading off to all sorts of different colleges. They might not be as numerous as the STEM kids, but they're definitely moving on.

urbantinker8 said:As far as I can recall, if you're attending a specialized language high school, they usually let you swap out chemistry or physics for a third foreign language once you hit your junior year.

On paper, that rule has been around for about 30 years, but honestly, I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually done it in practice. Most students just stick with their third language and keep up with the science requirements.

rowdypanther12 said:True, but picking a college before you even know your score feels a bit like ordering dinner at a restaurant without checking the prices first.😂

I don't think that comparison quite fits.

Personally, I think it’s healthy for both the applicants and the universities to see how much interest there is.
Basically, if students can see how much competition they're facing, they can make smarter moves. They might decide to aim for a different GPA, pivot their strategy, or even decide a certain school isn't the right fit for them this year. It gives them a chance to prepare better.
From my perspective, if I were running an admissions office, knowing the volume of applicants would be huge. It helps with everything from organizing staffing and campus space to gauging how difficult the entrance exams should be based on the crowd size...

redridge13 said:You mentioned earlier that there aren't any kids who don't struggle when transitioning to high school.
- Give me a break. There are plenty of kids who breeze through without the midnight cram sessions, the mental breakdowns, or parents losing their minds.

If we had actual entrance exams—instead of this current mess—my kid would have been able to enroll in the school they actually wanted. Instead, they got placed based on a GPA that shouldn't carry nearly as much weight, especially when you consider how inflated grades can be at some fancy private prep school in downtown Manhattan compared to elsewhere.🙂

And let me tell you, speaking as a parent of kids who didn't get into their first-choice schools, I have heard it a thousand times. I've dealt with people being incredibly condescending, claiming my "golden child" took a spot away from some kid from a rough neighborhood or a tiny rural town outside of Philly, with comments like, "Well, we all know what kind of grading standards they have over there," and other such garbage.

Honestly, I totally agree with you—going back to localized entrance exams is the only fair way to handle this.🙂

I didn't actually say that. Take another look at what you quoted.
I'm really trying to explain here that everything works out fine when a child stays within the standard framework—when they hit the averages and fit perfectly into what the Department of Education sees on paper, making the jump to high school without a hitch. The issue arises when a child doesn't fit that mold, and believe me, those kids exist!
It becomes a massive problem when parents start measuring themselves against the Department of Ed's metrics. In every case I've personally seen (even if it's not official data, just hearing success stories or seeing the statistics they push during open houses), that's gone way too far.

And you actually gave a great example of how certain "correlations" between middle school success and high school performance can make some elementary schools look amazing while labeling others as failing, even when some kids are actually thriving in a different way. We've talked about other threads regarding how little sense those connections actually make.
Plus, those kinds of conclusions are dangerous—they lead to false security or even bullying/mocking others (you wouldn't tease a kid if someone hadn't told you that their 'B' is worth more than your 'A' 🙄 just because they go to a school described by the Department of Ed as "rigorous"... or just rumored to be rigorous. The reality is often totally different.

The added reality is that kids who don't have as many educational resources at home can go incredibly, incredibly far if they happen to stumble upon an amazing teacher who recognizes their potential... much further than the kids who have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

redridge13 said:I think you're blowing things out of proportion; there are plenty of kids who transition to high school without any issues, without studying day and night, or ending up in therapy.
I know a kid who came from a pretty rough middle school—bad neighborhood, zero structure—and ended up at one of the most prestigious high schools in Washington, D.C.
On the initial placement exams, this kid was one of the best, even outperforming the "legacy" kids from wealthy families and elite private schools.
In the end, they breezed through high school, finishing as one of the top three students in the class.
Nothing extra was done during middle school, and they didn't even go to private tutors.
So, it really comes down to the individual kid. Based on their background and social status, this student shouldn't have stood a chance.
What that kid actually lacked was confidence during testing compared to the loud, arrogant kids who walked in acting like they owned the place (even though they had zero foundation).

72 isn't terrible, but unfortunately, it's not enough for most of the major high schools in Washington, D.C.
I don't think high schools in any other American city have entry thresholds like this.

I'm not exaggerating at all. In fact, your example just proves that the SER is useless when it comes to evaluating a struggling middle school.
And honestly, those types of kids *should* be getting into the "better" schools.
That’s why I believe the entrance exam should be conducted by the actual school you're applying to.
Forget about these standardized National Exams and all that nonsense.

Michelle Nelson4 said:The hype surrounding the idea that this is "the best school in America for the National Exam" 😂
is actually based on data that’s barely four years old—and even then, they didn't even have these specific stats for half of that time.
It's pretty well known that this whole craze really kicked off maybe two or three years ago. Before that, nobody was even talking about it, let alone fighting for a spot in these schools (unless you count one specific institution that's been steady for over 30 years 😁).

Sure, some schools definitely hold onto a certain "tradition" of excellence. They have their own track records with competitions, college acceptance rates, and famous alumni. There's no denying that.
Parents who graduated from those "top-tier" institutions often have a tendency to send their kids to the exact same schools. And honestly, that’s been a reality for over 30 years. In my own class, there was a kid whose mom went to that school, and even her grandma! It was a whole crowd of students whose parents were former alumni or even teachers; I'm talking about a high school here.
Some people are just too critical. For others, following that path is just a natural, expected family tradition... so please, don't be completely dismissive of it either. It was the same way back in my day.

Washington, D.C. has grown significantly. There are more people interested in high schools now simply because there are more of them concentrated in the same area (it doesn't mean fewer kids are being born; it's more about people moving in from the suburbs), combined with this intense pressure for higher education where people act like anything other than a prestigious high school is a failure.

How did families from outside Washington, D.C. choose a high school for their child? How did they decide before this national ranking system existed (as you mentioned, it hasn't been around long)? How did they pick in 2003, 2010, or 2013—back when this scoring method was introduced to replace entrance exams because there was already a massive influx of straight-A students who didn't actually have the depth to back it up?

I didn't have kids in school during those specific years, but I have worked with children and moved in circles with parents of school-aged kids. I've overheard all sorts of nonsense regarding why they chose one school over another... You might say it's just hearsay, but it's the truth. When you look at things from the other side of the statistics, this current "scientific" ranking system feels just as irrelevant as it was back then... or perhaps even more damaging for a kid wondering why everyone in that top table could make the cut while they couldn't.
A lot of parents can't handle that, so they push their kids in all sorts of ways (watching what their colleagues do, listening to rumors, pressuring teachers, or even begging for lowered standards...).
It isn't just unfair to the student; it's a disservice to the kids who miss out because of a tiny decimal point. It's a disservice to a system that isn't quite right because it raised the bar so artificially high. You can see in this thread how parents themselves are essentially feeding this broken system, allowing it to swell under the guise of "excellence."

Nothing is truly different today than it was at the turn of the century or in 2013; it's just that the madness started in 5th grade instead of 7th. And now, we have the direct result of the former Secretary's policies, laid out in black and white with colorful charts, claiming you *must* attend certain schools because the national exam is everything... screw actual knowledge, and especially screw mental health.

On the flip side, since this ranking system exists, it can actually be useful to encourage a child who didn't make it into a "top" high school. It shows them that if they work hard at their school, they can still get into a great college and that all is not lost... Knowledge matters, and most universities accept students from all kinds of different high schools, which the rankings clearly show.

Sometimes, it's just about having a single shift, a great cafeteria with decent meals (🙄), a school right around the corner, or cool exchange programs and trips... Aside from things being subject to change (like after an earthquake or a pandemic), kids often care less about the prestige than we think. It's good to listen to them, maybe even just hear them out and support them. Some kids are willing to commute two hours just to get away from their neighborhood, while others desperately want to stay close to home and hate being driven around by their parents. And that's perfectly okay, provided the parent has the capacity to accept it.

stormymarlin22 said:I mean, a B in PE or even in history or a foreign language can be easily made up by a solid entrance exam score, which can carry up to 10 points. And let's be real, schools like prep academies are still high schoolers—they have to grind through history, languages, and everything else, plus they really need to nail down those study habits. But looking at what Sher says, it seems like kids in those top-tier schools still pull incredibly high GPAs, especially in the most competitive ones. So, I guess they don't actually run into much trouble getting into high school.

Nowadays, you can make up ground with the entrance exam. Up until about a year ago, some schools allowed for a different path, though it was tougher—just 5 points from the exam, plus points for medical issues, socioeconomic status, or academic competitions. Even now, the margin is so thin that a kid really has to crush that exam. Those tiny decimals matter, especially when you consider how much grades from 5th and 6th grade can mess up the final ranking.

Regarding American History.
First off, middle schools vary wildly in their standards. After that whole School for Life project and the push for teacher autonomy, the results have shifted; what kids actually learn and what they need to know for a grade 'A' varies. This leads to a massive wave of 'A's that might not actually be earned, or 'B's that would easily be 'A's in a different middle school.
The kids know this.

Secondly, this constant pressure to be "excellent" at absolutely everything is just overkill. Does a programmer really need to be a master of English literature, or is being very good enough? Seriously, "very good" is plenty! Especially when you think about kids who are naturally gifted in math—for them, numbers are a much more intuitive way to express themselves than words. Does a future doctor, who likely goes through a STEM-focused high school, really need to memorize every single historical date perfectly? Or is it okay if they just know them well, or even just okay? (Though, personally, I think it's better if they don't know *too* much, so they don't get caught up in political medicine).

Sure, high school is supposed to provide a broader education, and that's how it should be. But it isn't normal for half a classroom to be perfect at everything. Unless, of course, we've lowered the bar for what "excellence" means.
And I'm afraid we have. At this rate, an 'A' is becoming the new 'C'.

It’s hard to say who actually struggles with the transition to high school. That’s the kind of data SER doesn't provide, so it stays invisible to the average person.
Those are the kids who are studying from dawn till dusk. First, they have to fill the gaps left by their middle school, and then they have to pick up the intense study habits that high school demands. Those kids are out there.
Then there are the kids who just give up and move to "easier" schools.
And then there are the kids who end up seeing a psychiatrist... first in secret, and then later asking for special accommodations in school at the expense of their own well-being. If it's even one child per generation, that's too many.
There are other statistics kids fall into, but I won't go there. A parent really needs to understand their own child's specific needs and personality.
SER gives us averages and the majority view. And it's great when a kid fits right in. But what happens when they don't?

nimblelynx7 said:Maybe in some utopia that's true, but in America, the objective is to grab an A by any means necessary because that's the only thing that guarantees a future. As we all know, anything less than an A is a massive risk; a C is barely better than a zero. No intelligent person wastes time studying for "knowledge" alone, because nobody actually cares about what you know.

It's like when Joe was playing poker and realized everyone else was playing fair—that's exactly when he started losing his shirt.

It’s not really that they don't want to learn for knowledge's sake, because you can see that in some places, people actually *do* test for actual understanding.
And honestly, it's a good thing they ask—they should probably ask even more often.

At the end of the day, students in high school need to build on those foundations. They need certain core skills and need to be sitting in the same classrooms as kids who actually have some competence.

It’s such a shame that getting a C (especially in a minor subject) puts a kid at risk of being denied entry into a STEM program that actually has the capacity for them. It's frustrating that kids who would crush it in math, physics, or computer science can't get into those specialized tracks because computer science isn't even weighted heavily, and if they trip up on PE—and I know plenty of these kids!—they're out. Even if they excel in foreign languages or find themselves in a classroom dominated by a specific political clique or even biology, they don't stand a chance at even qualifying for the entrance exams.
And there have been—and still are—cases where kids from STEM programs get pushed into general tracks because physics becomes too much, or they struggle for four years straight because they never developed study habits, sometimes ending up in mental health facilities simply because their parents picked the school for them.

I think this "elite" hype surrounding certain schools was manufactured by a specific circle of parents. They feel pressured to enroll their kids in their old alma maters, or the schools their friends' kids go to, or whichever school is ranked best nationally on the news after they move from a rural area into a major city like Chicago... then the cycle of extra tutoring and pressure on teachers begins, regardless of the child's actual aptitude or how they'll handle the workload in high school.

Jose Wells3 said:Here’s how I always frame the argument:

If there is just one kid in a class who can actually navigate this broken system and pull top grades without private tutors, constant parental hand-holding, or any extra help—just pure independence—then the system isn't impossible. It just means some people need to actually put in the work, find better study habits, or simply accept that nothing happens without effort.

As for high school? If you aren't independent, you're headed straight for disaster.

But fine, I'll admit it: those were the clients who kept me in business. Once moms realized they could just pay for a tutor to fix their kid's grades, the money started flowing. By Friday, I was usually tipsy and high on their dime. Honestly, I treated myself to plenty of luxuries back then because money was tight. Let them think what they want.

Does that sound condescending? I couldn't care less if it does; it’s just the truth. Real intelligence is about being resourceful when things get messy. Any smart kid spends the first month scanning the teachers, figuring out their personalities, and learning how to play the game. And if a teacher is terrible? Well, everything you need is in the textbook. If someone can't even finish high school by reading the books and managing their own learning, they have zero chance at a university. Period.

I agree with your last point completely, word for word. My only tiny disclaimer is that school textbooks can be pretty terrible, but luckily we have the power of Google and other resources to fill the gaps.

Regarding those students you used to tutor: would you actually offer your services to them if they were direct competition to your own child starting school?

stormymarlin22 said:I honestly doubt those public high schools set up a unified entrance exam just to make things easier for parents. It’s more likely they did it because the sheer volume of applicants makes individual testing a logistical nightmare. Even so, I guess everything will eventually trickle back down to the individual schools.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure. There were plenty of news stories and articles about how hard it was for parents to drive their kids around since one exam was at 9 AM and another wasn't until noon.

Sure, there are tons of kids applying (I know a few who applied to almost every STEM school just to satisfy their parents' curiosity, even though they already knew where they wanted to go), but you don't need to fix that manually. The buildings are big enough—honestly, you just need to print the papers and make sure the kids are supervised.
The exams varied in difficulty depending on the specific problems given, but besides that, I think the kids really benefit from seeing how the teachers treat them during the entrance process. It creates that "halo effect" which is actually pretty important when you're choosing the hallways you'll be walking through for the next four years. Last year, when it was like 108 degrees outside, one school actually banned kids from bringing water bottles because they assumed they'd spill, or maybe they thought they were explosive devices like on an airplane—though even on a plane, you can bring water, you just have to buy it at the terminal.

redridge13 said:@Michelle Nelson4
The whole system is a total joke.
If you ask me, they should bring back entrance exams—make grades worth 40% and the exam 60%, then we’d actually be getting somewhere...
They scrapped them under the guise of "reducing student stress" (yeah, right?), and now we’re stuck dealing with this absolute madness regarding GPA and grading inflation.

Honestly, if they just brought back those entrance tests, it would help weed out some of the issues we're seeing with dyslexia diagnoses and all the other nonsense currently flooding the schools.

The dyslexia epidemic isn't going away because those students still take their own specific assessments, plus they get special accommodations in elementary school (which leads to "better" grades)🥳
My sincere apologies to people actually struggling with dyslexia—I know they exist and are being underserved by this situation, even if I get called heartless here for speaking up about kids with learning difficulties)

I don't want to get too bogged down in debating everyone, but if parents start obsessing over grades starting in 5th grade and forcing kids to study just for the sake of a number (or even calling teachers to nag about them), aren't we just creating the exact situation we have now? We end up with a bunch of kids who have 🤔
maximum points on paper, but
actually lack a solid foundation of knowledge.

Regarding the link I shared (before the discussion veered off track), that was essentially a bit of self-promotion about why she’s choosing a private high school. Her other option would be moving back to her home state, which she mentioned on her profile, but that isn't happening because everyone needs to live in 😬 New York City.
It was a similar story two years ago when a journalist wrote about her own child. She was going to enroll her regardless; she just ended up getting a lot of attention for it. Though, from my experience working with college students, not all private schools are bad—some are actually excellent.

The experiment of looking at cumulative GPA over all four years, calculated to two decimal places, started about a decade ago (as noted at the start of this thread, the author predicted these outcomes quite well 😢).
Back then, it might have made sense to look at more than just 7th and 8th grade, but year after year, we see how flawed relying on total GPA is. Kids miss out because of a tiny 0.03 difference, which could easily come down to whether they took a specific elective like PE, a second foreign language, or computer science. It might make more sense to look at math specifically for STEM tracks over all four years, or a continuous foreign language for humanities tracks... you could even include computer science from 5th and 6th grade since it's mandatory.

When they stopped giving extra credit for second languages and music programs, it put that entire generation of students at a huge disadvantage because those points used to be the deciding factor for enrollment.
Before that change, even with a total of 60 points, kids could get into STEM programs with Cs in social studies or Bs in PE because they had straight As in their core subjects.
Back then, you didn't see these tiny decimal differences or the impact of 5th and 6th-grade grades.
(Actually, during the rush to get into certain schools, there was an increase in students qualifying through hardship credits or special circumstances because there were simply too many kids with perfect scores.)

Interestingly, throughout this whole period, tutoring and parental help haven't gone away; if anything, this obsession with boosting grades has intensified. Extra credit points weren't brought back because if you give points for things like music or a second language, it becomes a matter of what a parent can afford, which discriminates against some families. This kind of "help," however, doesn't depend on parental wealth and doesn't create such an uneven playing field. 🤔 🥱

I honestly don't know how else to fix this, other than through entrance exams. For instance, at a specialized academy in Chicago, you can see that lately, kids with Cs in English in 8th grade are getting in because they can make up for it on the exam, which is great!

An entrance exam should account for at least 30% of the score (if you ask me, it should be 60%). It should focus on the specific subjects that the school deems important for its curriculum. To avoid the chaos of parents having to drive to dozens of different locations, the exam should be standardized for all STEM schools. And everyone who wants to take it should be able to, regardless of their current point total. Right now, with only 10 points available, a student with 72 points should be doing their best and hoping that the kids with 80 points don't show up to the exam. Or, if they do, that they don't earn more than one extra point. (Though if they have the same number of points, I assume the higher exam score wins.)

I also think schools should have the autonomy to award extra points for other criteria if they believe it will make enrollment easier while still ensuring they select the highest quality students.

Sarah Hall53 said:But what about the kids who just don't care for English and have zero interest in learning it?
I’ve had several students pass through my classroom who were sitting at a C in English—sometimes with me, sometimes with another teacher—but they were absolute rockstars in their elective German classes. This was back in my "Attila the Hun" phase, honestly, when I used to demand the exact same level of rigor in German as I did in English. I didn't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes or causing drama over teaching hours back then, though I did make one little concession—I realized that by the 7th or 8th period, these kids were just exhausted and hungry, so I'd let them snack on something small as long as they weren't making a mess of the room. They didn't even choose English themselves; the school just forced it on them as part of the curriculum. Yet, they somehow performed much better in German, which ended up helping their GPA for college applications.
At least your kid is lucky enough that they can probably knock out French in high school—I assume they're taking it because it was required for certain university tracks. Edit: Sorry, I mixed up some names there—George Steinbrenner 🤦 isn't even in their target admissions area, and the easiest way to handle that is to enroll them in a French track. The kids who actually want to focus on their primary language usually opt for English. My students, though... they couldn't catch a break with English, and to make matters worse, some schools don't even offer German as a second foreign language option anymore. Just my luck.
And really, your colleague could have made a different choice—they could have gone with English without the extra after-school programs.

She didn't have a choice because not all grade levels offer the after-school program, and she really needed it. The school made that a requirement.
And she’s definitely not the only one.
Honestly, pushing non-English languages is just a way to protect jobs. The primary language gets more instructional hours, and unlike electives, it doesn't depend on whether students are interested in it. Everyone picks English if it's an elective because they need it for high school, even if it doesn't count toward their GPA.
There's a huge difference between parents who really push a language—where you see how much faster kids learn when it's their first language—and kids who just end up in a class because the school decided so. Looking at the big picture for the student, it seems pretty silly to give points for a subject they aren't going to continue in high school. You should be rewarding the language they actually stick with. In your case, a kid who plans to keep studying German could use those German grades for their high school applications, especially if they don't like English and find a school where German is the main focus. 🤷