Grading Freshmen

silverpuma542 said:That’s a beautifully written post, but I think it’s a bit too idealistic and utopian for our American school system. I have always absolutely loathed that classic teacher cliché about "warming your seat." Everything I ever learned just by sitting there warming my seat evaporated into thin air, whereas everything I learned through trial and error—sketching, deducing, doing, and teaching others—is what actually stuck in my brain.

I honestly believe that during the first four years of Elementary School, we should be teaching mnemonic techniques instead of just shoving massive piles of raw data into kids' heads. Unfortunately, even in the sciences, you still run into teachers who get genuinely angry if a student reaches a conclusion through their own logic rather than reciting the textbook verbatim. They’ll snap at you, "You didn't learn it right, you're just doing it your way," as if they value the ability to parrot a book more than the actual result.

This is exactly why we end up with students who will never realize they could grasp concepts easily—like understanding why -270 degrees is the same as 90 degrees by simply visualizing turning left three times or right once to land on the same spot. It's why some won't see that kitchen tiles can act as a coordinate system, or fail to realize that the floor and the ceiling are just two points in space, or struggle to memorize a list when they could just mentally map it to the rooms in their own apartment. Worst of all, they’ll view those mental shortcuts as a form of cheating, because, hey, they didn't sit there warming their seats and turn themselves into parrots.

And now, regarding this talk about racism... what kind of sports would we even have then? We wouldn't be forcing dwarves onto a basketball court, giants into gymnastics, or people with Asperger to become actors or sales reps, would we? Though, I suppose we already try to shove the stutterers into news anchor roles... 😁 maybe we should start heading in that direction. Just like in the story Harrison Bergeron?

I remember my girl once drew this absolutely stunning picture, but she made the sky pink, and the teacher gave her a bad grade just because "that doesn't exist" in the real world. 😢

Tyler Reyes86 said:

I suppose I should begin by acknowledging that my previous observations regarding the rhinoceros have been somewhat... lacking in depth. It is quite a heavy topic, isn't it? One moment you are contemplating the sheer mass of such a creature, and the next, you find yourself wondering about the structural integrity of its hide. Truly fascinating! It reminds me of those discussions we had last week—you know, the ones where Tyler Reyes86 was insisting on the importance of biological classification? He’s always so precise, isn't he? And then there was silverpuma542, who I believe mentioned something about conservation efforts in the Midwest. Such important work! Anyway, back to the beast itself. There is something almost dignified about a rhino, despite its somewhat cumbersome gait. It moves with a certain... purpose. Or perhaps just momentum? It's hard to say. Regardless, I find myself increasingly preoccupied with the sheer scale of them. It really puts our little human concerns into perspective, don't you think? Just a massive, unstoppable force of nature roaming through the plains. Simply marvelous! kaže:
Insufficient.
I suppose one could argue that two is quite sufficient.
3 - solid.
4. Really quite excellent.
5-excellent!

I truly feel a sense of regret regarding how we grade our children using nothing but cold, hard numbers. When you hand a student an F, you aren't just marking a paper; you are sending a clear message that they haven't mastered the material yet—and frankly, that is exactly what they need to hear. It’s a reality check. However, I find it utterly baffling why a C is treated like some sort of academic catastrophe. To me, a C signifies that the child actually grasped the curriculum. It means they've got the fundamentals down. Anything above that should simply be seen as a sign that more effort is required to reach the next level.

If we’re going to claim that a C is a terrible grade, then our entire American school system deserves the blame. It’s a bit of a rigged game, isn't it? If you graduate elementary school with nothing but average marks, your options basically vanish. You’re looking at being funneled straight into three-year vocational programs or trade schools, which pretty much slams the door on any hopes of pursuing higher education later on. Most parents just want their kids to have every possible advantage, so naturally, they see a mediocre grade as a massive roadblock to future success. It's all about keeping those doors open, right?

Strict grading policies in the early years of Elementary School just don't align with what we know about developmental psychology. Kids at that age are incredibly emotionally fragile; it’s far too easy to instill a deep-seated belief that they simply aren't capable. When they face a constant barrage of low grades, it sends a devastating message: that they are somehow less valuable than their peers. The mechanism for critical thinking isn't even fully developed yet. A child isn't quite able to step back, analyze the situation, and separate their actual effort from their innate abilities. So, when they encounter failure, they tend to internalize it, thinking they are just fundamentally flawed—which makes them feel like there's no point in even trying. That is exactly how you breed a lifelong aversion to school and learning.

It is something that should genuinely give any parent pause: the sheer lack of specialized knowledge among teachers regarding areas they really ought to master if they are working professionally with children. It’s quite concerning, really. Unfortunately, it seems many educators aren't just unfamiliar with developmental psychology, but they seem to lack a fundamental grasp of pedagogy altogether.
The idea that parents are somehow obligated to teach their children "how to learn" feels incredibly unprofessional—frankly, it’s just plain rude.
That is precisely where the teaching staff should be making their most critical impact. It isn't just about delivering content; it’s about equipping students with actual methods for mastering material and retaining information effectively. We need to be teaching them the psychological mechanisms that allow a student to find their own internal drive and stay motivated toward achieving their goals.
On the flip side, I honestly don't think elementary school is even necessary for those lower grades. Let’s be real—the curriculum they cover during that stage is stuff any parent who actually finished middle school already knows by heart, so technically, you could just pass it along to your kid yourself. Of course, not every parent happens to be a trained pedagogue or a child psychologist, so we might lack the specialized tools to teach them actual study strategies. That responsibility should fall squarely on the teachers. Instead, many of them just dump a mountain of information on the kids and basically tell them to go sit at the kitchen table and figure it out themselves. A teacher's job should be to structure the material so that most of it sticks during class time, leaving nothing for home except a quick review. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of educators aren't up to the task, and instead of taking accountability, they just point the finger at the parents and the students for their own shortcomings.

It seems the profound ignorance of our educators has once again made its unwelcome appearance on this thread. I’ve noticed several users making remarks regarding the cognitive abilities—or lack thereof—of certain students. In my view, innate talents, natural aptitudes, or even inherent shortcomings ought to have absolutely no bearing on a student's grade. If we allow that to happen, we aren't actually grading academic performance; we are merely grading genetic predisposition. To judge a person based on their biological data is, by its very definition, nothing short of pure racism.

If you find yourself with a student who is truly gifted—I mean, someone who is operating on a completely different level than their peers—then skipping a grade should be on the table. If that isn't an option, then we have a moral obligation to raise the bar for them. It’s just common sense, really. If we don't, that child is going to lose all motivation to actually engage with the material, and frankly, it creates this weird tension in the classroom. You'll have the other kids feeling frustrated because they see someone succeeding effortlessly due to nothing more than pure genetic luck, without having to put in the grind. It’s a lose-lose situation if we don't adjust our expectations.
We really need to see this kind of adaptability in our schools when working with students who have learning disabilities. It’s essential that we implement individualized education programs (IEPs) to meet them where they are. In my view, grading should be based on the actual effort a student puts in rather than some arbitrary standard. A child's biological makeup—something they have absolutely no control over and certainly can't change—should never play a role in their academic evaluation. It just wouldn't be fair.
Essentially, we need to unlearn this vulgar biological determinism—this whole obsession with racism and those supposed "natural" hierarchies where some people are inherently stronger or weaker than others. We aren't living in the jungle, after all, so those kinds of distinctions simply shouldn't matter anymore.

For the most part, barring a few honorable exceptions, our educators are remarkably uninformed about their own field. If we were being strictly honest and gave them an overall grade for their performance, they would barely scrape by with a D. If they even managed that.

I think anyone who treats a C as a bad grade is part of the problem—parents, teachers, and the media alike. They're essentially raising kids this way. In our grading scale, a 3 means "satisfactory," but if we treat "satisfactory" as a failure, we end up creating these tiny perfectionists. It creates kids who are obsessed with external validation, where anything less than perfect is seen as a flaw. Plus, it totally devalues the students who actually earned an A and are clearly excelling beyond their peers!

It’s totally understandable that every parent wants the best for their child, but who defines what "best" is? If a kid shows genuine interest and talent in a specific area, why shouldn't a trade school be a great option? I honestly feel like forcing a child toward academic excellence when they don't have the capacity for it can cause real, lasting harm. We aren't all born with the exact same skill sets, and society needs skilled tradespeople too. There's absolutely no shame in growing up to be incredibly successful in a specialized trade!

I can somewhat wrap my head around pushing for straight As in high school, but goodness, a single C in first or second grade doesn't mean a kid won't go to college one day! At the same time, if you just hand out As in the early years, you still end up with a group of students who eventually move into vocational tracks anyway, so what was the point?

Honestly, I don't see the purpose in handing out empty As to little ones in the early grades. Personally, I'm a big fan of descriptive feedback—where you actually write down what the child knows and how much they know. Using smiley faces, stickers, or even just a simple checkmark feels much more appropriate for small kids than a letter grade, which seems to lose its actual meaning for parents, students, and teachers these days!

Teach your child that if they got a C, it means they understood the material well, even if they didn't master it like the student who got a B, or ace it like the student who got an A. And instead of constantly worrying about what they'll do for a career or if they'll make it to a university, focus on whether they're happy, if they have friends, if they have a favorite subject, what challenges they're facing, and what truly makes them excited about learning...
Focus on raising a human being, not chasing numbers!

In my opinion, we really shouldn't be grading subjects like art, music, or PE at all.

Why do people claim kids don't get what grades mean???

You get a C on a spelling test because you can't tell uppercase from lowercase or mess up your vowels... (hopefully there aren't teachers out there telling kids they got a C just because they're lazy bums)

In elementary school, grades are actually great for parents to see where their kid is tripping up and what needs work—it also shows the kids that you actually need to know stuff to succeed.

I feel like it’s a much smaller shock when a first grader comes home with a C than when a fifth grader fails because they never learned to add up to ten, and then Mom and Dad go nuclear on the teacher to demand an A.

Susan James said:In my opinion, we really shouldn't be grading subjects like art, music, or PE at all.

signature 👍

Kate Sullivan12 said:Why do people claim kids don't get what grades mean???

You get a C on a spelling test because you can't tell uppercase from lowercase or mess up your vowels... (hopefully there aren't teachers out there telling kids they got a C just because they're lazy bums)

In elementary school, grades are actually great for parents to see where their kid is tripping up and what needs work—it also shows the kids that you actually need to know stuff to succeed.

I feel like it’s a much smaller shock when a first grader comes home with a C than when a fifth grader fails because they never learned to add up to ten, and then Mom and Dad go nuclear on the teacher to demand an A.

Well, in that case, you probably should've gotten an F instead of a D. Clearly, the grading standards are all over the place.

Susan James said:In my opinion, we really shouldn't be grading subjects like art, music, or PE at all.

Well, what can I even say about it, because honestly, my kid pulls straight A's in everything from History and Math to English, yet somehow he's pulling C's and B's in Art, Music, and Gym. It feels like I am quite possibly the only parent out there who actually has to sit down and help their child study for a music exam, which is just absurd. 🤣
Not that I am complaining, mind you, since his teacher is absolutely wonderful.

Dennis Mitchell2 said:Well, what can I even say about it, because honestly, my kid pulls straight A's in everything from History and Math to English, yet somehow he's pulling C's and B's in Art, Music, and Gym. It feels like I am quite possibly the only parent out there who actually has to sit down and help their child study for a music exam, which is just absurd. 🤣
Not that I am complaining, mind you, since his teacher is absolutely wonderful.

Grab your Kirsten and sing your hearts out, then hit the park for some games. 😂

The little guy's gonna have a blast, and you can bet the results will follow. 😍

Yeah, we did music class in third grade too—just sat there in front of our lockers, trying to memorize songs from some random CD...

Tyler Reyes86 said:I understand your point. You're right—not everyone is cut out for everything. But there is a massive difference between an adult being limited by their career choices based on their education and skill set, versus applying those same rigid criteria to children.
No blind person is going to try out for a professional driver's license, nor would a deaf person insist on playing in a symphony orchestra.
However, elementary and high school are mandatory; kids have to master a specific curriculum there. That means even shorter kids play basketball in gym class, kids who struggle with math still tackle math problems, and colorblind kids still participate in art class.
When you consider that nobody should have to endure racial insults or humiliation—especially not children who haven't developed the coping mechanisms to defend themselves yet—you arrive at the conclusion that we cannot judge children based on their innate characteristics.
An "A" in PE shouldn't be reserved solely for star athletes, and sickly or physically weaker children shouldn't be penalized with lower grades because of a genetically predetermined physical condition.
An "A" in Art can't be strictly for those blessed with natural talent, just as an "A" in Math shouldn't be exclusive to those who were, metaphorically speaking, born with a calculator in their heads.
A teacher's job, beyond instruction, is to grade a child's work, not to grade Mother Nature's handiwork.

Someone mentioned earlier that some children, due to cognitive disabilities, simply cannot earn an "A."
Essentially, the message being sent is: "You aren't good enough because you were born this way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower race)." And no matter how hard they try, nothing helps.
That kind of approach is disgusting, inhumane, and yes, racist. Beyond that, it's bad teaching, because it degrades the very value of hard work, effort, and progress made according to one's own abilities.
Ultimately, children are still developing; there is a mechanism for compensation, and it isn't rare for persistent effort to yield brilliant results, regardless of a disadvantaged starting position. But that won't happen if we demotivate a child from the very start by judging them as being "lesser" than others.
Not to mention the devastating consequences such an approach has on a child's emotional and psychosocial development.
So, get racism out of our schools!

As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

I suppose I should start by saying that I am quite out of my element here, but I felt compelled to weigh in on this. One simply cannot ignore the sheer, unbridled chaos of it all! It’s like watching a rhinoceros charge through a china shop—completely unpredictable, slightly terrifying, yet strangely fascinating to witness from a safe distance. Honestly, I was just sitting there, sipping my coffee, when the thought struck me. Does anyone else feel that sudden, overwhelming sense of momentum? It’s much like being stuck in gridlock on the I-95 during rush hour, only with significantly more heavy lifting involved. Anyway, I digress. My apologies. Just a bit of a wandering mind today! kaže:
If you think a "C" is a terrible grade, then frankly, we’re all part of the problem—parents, teachers, the news media, everyone. It’s a systemic issue. If we decide that anything less than an "A" is essentially a failure, what are we actually doing? We are breeding a generation of tiny perfectionists who can't function without constant external validation. It creates this toxic mindset where anything short of absolute perfection is seen as "not good enough." And honestly? It's unfair. We end up devaluing students who earned a "B" through hard work, or even those who deserve a top mark but just don't fit into this narrow, rigid definition of success. We are actively suppressing kids who have genuine skills and stand out from the crowd just because they didn't hit some arbitrary, impossible standard. We're teaching them that being "good" is actually a failure, and that's a dangerous way to raise children.

It seems like you were just getting started there! You cut off right at the beginning. What was it that you were going to say about "the one who..."? I'm all ears and ready to dive into whatever thought you were about to share. Don't leave me hanging! Significantly. I have to point out that we really shouldn't lump these kids in with everyone else. It’s just not right. Gifted children need specialized attention and a curriculum that actually challenges them—something far more rigorous than the standard American school program. If we don't provide that, they never learn how to develop real work ethics. Instead, they just sit there bored out of their minds during an hour-long lecture. It creates this frustrating cycle where average students feel stifled by them, while these gifted kids end up feeling just as frustrated by their peers, simply because of a natural advantage they didn't even ask for. Nature gave them this edge, but without the right outlet, it just becomes a source of friction for everyone involved.
It’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get across in my previous posts: those straight A's shouldn't be reserved exclusively for the small handful of natural-born geniuses. When we do that, we essentially devalue hard work and end up just glorifying genetic luck. An actual grade ought to be a true reflection of the effort and sweat an individual puts in, measured within the context of that specific student's natural abilities. Anything else is frankly inhumane and completely goes against everything good about pedagogy.

To be perfectly honest, I know someone with a kid currently in seventh grade, and there’s a student sitting right next to them who happens to be a member of Mensa. It’s quite fascinating, really—though perhaps a bit frustrating from a certain perspective. Instead of applying the standard grading criteria or docking points for mistakes like they would with anyone else, the teachers seem to just give this kid a free pass. If he doesn't feel like doing the work or if he slips up, they just let it slide. It’s as if being high-intelligence grants you a sort of academic hall pass where the rules simply don't apply.
On the other hand, you have those kids in class who just process things a bit slower than the rest. There’s one student in particular—he works incredibly hard, stays on top of everything, and genuinely puts in the effort—but he simply can't break past a B grade. It makes you wonder, though: if we start bumping up his marks just because he's trying so hard, where do we draw the line? What happens when we have to decide what kind of grade to give a literal little genius?
It seems they’re applying the exact same set of rules to someone who was born under a lucky star as they are to someone whom nature itself has already punished. Now, on top of everything else, they're going after him too.
It seems the philosophy among these teachers is pretty straightforward: if you have something, they’ll take it from you, and if you don't, they'll make sure you end up with nothing at all. It’s quite a cynical way to run a classroom, isn't it?
It is quite simply inhuman. Those who believe such methods are acceptable seem to view human society as a mere mirror of the natural world, structured entirely around the principles of so-called social Darwinism. However, that perception fails to align with reality. Even if it did happen to be true—which it isn't—most of us wouldn't stand a chance in such a system. In fact, the very people currently advocating for that kind of order would likely be the first ones to fall.

Susan James said:I think anyone who treats a C as a bad grade is part of the problem—parents, teachers, and the media alike. They're essentially raising kids this way. In our grading scale, a 3 means "satisfactory," but if we treat "satisfactory" as a failure, we end up creating these tiny perfectionists. It creates kids who are obsessed with external validation, where anything less than perfect is seen as a flaw. Plus, it totally devalues the students who actually earned an A and are clearly excelling beyond their peers!

It’s totally understandable that every parent wants the best for their child, but who defines what "best" is? If a kid shows genuine interest and talent in a specific area, why shouldn't a trade school be a great option? I honestly feel like forcing a child toward academic excellence when they don't have the capacity for it can cause real, lasting harm. We aren't all born with the exact same skill sets, and society needs skilled tradespeople too. There's absolutely no shame in growing up to be incredibly successful in a specialized trade!

I can somewhat wrap my head around pushing for straight As in high school, but goodness, a single C in first or second grade doesn't mean a kid won't go to college one day! At the same time, if you just hand out As in the early years, you still end up with a group of students who eventually move into vocational tracks anyway, so what was the point?

Honestly, I don't see the purpose in handing out empty As to little ones in the early grades. Personally, I'm a big fan of descriptive feedback—where you actually write down what the child knows and how much they know. Using smiley faces, stickers, or even just a simple checkmark feels much more appropriate for small kids than a letter grade, which seems to lose its actual meaning for parents, students, and teachers these days!

Teach your child that if they got a C, it means they understood the material well, even if they didn't master it like the student who got a B, or ace it like the student who got an A. And instead of constantly worrying about what they'll do for a career or if they'll make it to a university, focus on whether they're happy, if they have friends, if they have a favorite subject, what challenges they're facing, and what truly makes them excited about learning...
Focus on raising a human being, not chasing numbers!

The three-year vocational programs in this country are fundamentally flawed. It’s honestly quite misguided to force a child to make a decision that dictates their entire career trajectory during such an incredibly immature stage of life, leaving them with virtually no room to pivot later on. Adolescence is defined by intense, rapid shifts; kids change their minds about everything as they grow up. I personally know several people who went through vocational training only to completely switch gears and pursue entirely different degrees in college later. Students in these specific three-year tracks simply don't have that luxury. At the moment they enroll, they are saddled with the weight of a "permanent" decision—a level of responsibility that just isn't appropriate for a fifteen-year-old. Because of this, both students and parents go out of their way to avoid these schools, and it isn't even because of some perceived social stigma. In this transitional economy we live in, the only true shame is being broke. No one actually cares how you made your money or whether you lack the necessary skills or specialized knowledge when it comes down to it. But, since we are already discussing social prejudices and how they influence our judgment...

Tyler Reyes86 said:

I suppose I should start by saying that I am quite out of my element here, but I felt compelled to weigh in on this. One simply cannot ignore the sheer, unbridled chaos of it all! It’s like watching a rhinoceros charge through a china shop—completely unpredictable, slightly terrifying, yet strangely fascinating to witness from a safe distance. Honestly, I was just sitting there, sipping my coffee, when the thought struck me. Does anyone else feel that sudden, overwhelming sense of momentum? It’s much like being stuck in gridlock on the I-95 during rush hour, only with significantly more heavy lifting involved. Anyway, I digress. My apologies. Just a bit of a wandering mind today! kaže:
If you think a "C" is a terrible grade, then frankly, we’re all part of the problem—parents, teachers, the news media, everyone. It’s a systemic issue. If we decide that anything less than an "A" is essentially a failure, what are we actually doing? We are breeding a generation of tiny perfectionists who can't function without constant external validation. It creates this toxic mindset where anything short of absolute perfection is seen as "not good enough." And honestly? It's unfair. We end up devaluing students who earned a "B" through hard work, or even those who deserve a top mark but just don't fit into this narrow, rigid definition of success. We are actively suppressing kids who have genuine skills and stand out from the crowd just because they didn't hit some arbitrary, impossible standard. We're teaching them that being "good" is actually a failure, and that's a dangerous way to raise children.

It seems like you were just getting started there! You cut off right at the beginning. What was it that you were going to say about "the one who..."? I'm all ears and ready to dive into whatever thought you were about to share. Don't leave me hanging! Significantly. I have to point out that we really shouldn't lump these kids in with everyone else. It’s just not right. Gifted children need specialized attention and a curriculum that actually challenges them—something far more rigorous than the standard American school program. If we don't provide that, they never learn how to develop real work ethics. Instead, they just sit there bored out of their minds during an hour-long lecture. It creates this frustrating cycle where average students feel stifled by them, while these gifted kids end up feeling just as frustrated by their peers, simply because of a natural advantage they didn't even ask for. Nature gave them this edge, but without the right outlet, it just becomes a source of friction for everyone involved.
It’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get across in my previous posts: those straight A's shouldn't be reserved exclusively for the small handful of natural-born geniuses. When we do that, we essentially devalue hard work and end up just glorifying genetic luck. An actual grade ought to be a true reflection of the effort and sweat an individual puts in, measured within the context of that specific student's natural abilities. Anything else is frankly inhumane and completely goes against everything good about pedagogy.

To be perfectly honest, I know someone with a kid currently in seventh grade, and there’s a student sitting right next to them who happens to be a member of Mensa. It’s quite fascinating, really—though perhaps a bit frustrating from a certain perspective. Instead of applying the standard grading criteria or docking points for mistakes like they would with anyone else, the teachers seem to just give this kid a free pass. If he doesn't feel like doing the work or if he slips up, they just let it slide. It’s as if being high-intelligence grants you a sort of academic hall pass where the rules simply don't apply.
On the other hand, you have those kids in class who just process things a bit slower than the rest. There’s one student in particular—he works incredibly hard, stays on top of everything, and genuinely puts in the effort—but he simply can't break past a B grade. It makes you wonder, though: if we start bumping up his marks just because he's trying so hard, where do we draw the line? What happens when we have to decide what kind of grade to give a literal little genius?
It seems they’re applying the exact same set of rules to someone who was born under a lucky star as they are to someone whom nature itself has already punished. Now, on top of everything else, they're going after him too.
It seems the philosophy among these teachers is pretty straightforward: if you have something, they’ll take it from you, and if you don't, they'll make sure you end up with nothing at all. It’s quite a cynical way to run a classroom, isn't it?
It is quite simply inhuman. Those who believe such methods are acceptable seem to view human society as a mere mirror of the natural world, structured entirely around the principles of so-called social Darwinism. However, that perception fails to align with reality. Even if it did happen to be true—which it isn't—most of us wouldn't stand a chance in such a system. In fact, the very people currently advocating for that kind of order would likely be the first ones to fall.

The three-year vocational programs in this country are fundamentally flawed. It’s honestly quite misguided to force a child to make a decision that dictates their entire career trajectory during such an incredibly immature stage of life, leaving them with virtually no room to pivot later on. Adolescence is defined by intense, rapid shifts; kids change their minds about everything as they grow up. I personally know several people who went through vocational training only to completely switch gears and pursue entirely different degrees in college later. Students in these specific three-year tracks simply don't have that luxury. At the moment they enroll, they are saddled with the weight of a "permanent" decision—a level of responsibility that just isn't appropriate for a fifteen-year-old. Because of this, both students and parents go out of their way to avoid these schools, and it isn't even because of some perceived social stigma. In this transitional economy we live in, the only true shame is being broke. No one actually cares how you made your money or whether you lack the necessary skills or specialized knowledge when it comes down to it. But, since we are already discussing social prejudices and how they influence our judgment...

I don't get what you mean by all that talk about frustrations and Mother Nature punishing us.

I’m telling you right now, there’s no such thing as a kid who’s actually perfect at everything.

Math, physics, and chem? Way above average for me. Didn't even have to try that hard. Ended up skipping a bunch of other stuff because my brain just isn't wired to cram info like that. Foreign languages weren't really my thing either. My best friend was basically a walking dictionary back in elementary school—she loved picking up new languages, while I was out here struggling just to get through English.

If everyone actually got that kind of one-on-one attention, we’d all basically need our own private tutor.

People are beautiful because we're all wired differently—different talents, different vibes. I just think school should cover the basics every sane person needs to know.

Terry Campbell said:Yeah, we did music class in third grade too—just sat there in front of our lockers, trying to memorize songs from some random CD...

Honestly, I feel so much better now that I realize I wasn't the only one going through this🤣

Now, don't get me wrong, I’m not exactly losing sleep over this whole situation, but I suppose I had always just assumed that for those easier subjects, you could easily walk away with an A, whereas math and English were the ones that truly terrified me. Perhaps it is actually for the best that things turned out this way; I really wouldn't care if my teacher mumbles his way through a music lesson, as long as he can teach us how to write properly and handle basic arithmetic.😉

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

I think you might be misinformed on this one. There are standard programs for average students, yes, but there are also specially adapted curricula and individualized approaches for students facing learning difficulties. Furthermore, there are dedicated enrichment programs specifically designed for gifted students.

I fail to see why any child should be penalized with a poor grade just because they lack hearing, or perhaps a knack for painting, or a talent for sports or math. Or, conversely, why they should be rewarded simply because they were born with a specific talent? Why not grade people on their physical beauty? That, too, is an innate quality.

And yes, you are correct; evaluating children based on their innate abilities is a natural impulse. However, that is how primitive tribes living in the Stone Age operate. A civilized society provides for different rules. Unfortunately, it seems many people aren't aware they actually live in a civilized society, so they continue to cling to customs from the jungle.

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

Actually, you can, and in many ways, you must. Perhaps look into the concept of affirmative action and how it functions within developed societies.

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

What "black average" are we talking about? Where does this "average" exist, other than in the minds of poor statisticians? A classroom isn't composed of an "average"; it is composed of living, breathing students, each with their own unique characteristics. Any teacher who is unable to respect that fundamental fact is simply incapable of working with children.

As for this supposed grade inflation among top students, there really isn't any cause for alarm; by the time graduation rolls around, we’re looking at a mere 7% of the class reaching that level.

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

Actually, anyone who puts in extraordinary effort has earned that A. Educational psychology doesn't just look at achievements—which are relative anyway, depending on who you're being compared to—it also recognizes hard work and dedication. In fact, one could argue the whole point of schooling is to help kids build work ethic and self-teaching skills, rather than just showing off specific talents like some kind of circus act.

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

You aren't the only parent here; plenty of others have kids too.

jadegardener21 said:As far as I am aware, the criteria in our American school curricula are designed around the average. 🤷 Which would—in some sort of layman's terms (I am certainly not trained in pedagogy, after all)—mean that an average child putting in average effort deserves an AVERAGE grade, while above-average effort earns an above-average grade. In other words, an A should not be impossible for an average student, yet it shouldn't be handed out like candy either. It is perfectly natural, and quite normal, for certain children to achieve above-average marks in specific areas with minimal effort, just as it is equally natural and normal that some children will struggle to reach those top marks in certain subjects, requiring significantly more grit just to secure an AVERAGE grade because those particular areas simply don't "click" for them.

I truly fail to see where the issue lies here; I am stating a FACT, without any sort of "racist" undertones or whatever. You cannot maintain double standards just to avoid offending someone—while I understand, and it is perfectly reasonable, that one might be more cautious when dealing with small children, and perhaps deliver sub-par or average grades with a bit more gentleness, a grade must ultimately be the result of concrete knowledge or, in the case of music or drawing, actual skill. The fact that certain children find things easier or harder does not justify the idea that an average student should receive an above-average grade, despite the fact that our American education system is plagued by this unrealistic inflation of honors students... you see it everywhere, and it only starts to normalize somewhat once they hit high school and things are brought back into some semblance of a reasonable framework.

Someone mentioned earlier that because of certain cognitive limitations, some children simply cannot earn an A.
Which essentially sends the message: you aren't good enough, because you were born that way (stupid, limited, incapable, a lower class of person). And no matter how hard you try, nothing will ever help you.

No, that is not what is being messaged.

They may not be able to get an A, but an A must be a reflection of EXCEPTIONAL knowledge, not a default position that everyone has a "right" to. Without above-average mastery, an A should not be granted. A grade should be the byproduct of knowledge long before it becomes a pedagogical tool used just so a child can "feel good"... and yes, I HAVE a child in first grade and I am not speaking hypothetically—it is perfectly clear to me that my little girl won't be getting an A in English, at least not this year, and I DO NOT EXPECT teachers to coddle her just because she isn't a native speaker and give her As just to boost her self-esteem. If her knowledge of the subject is average, she must receive the earned average grade, which is no less valid than someone else's hard-earned A; similarly, I would cause quite a stir if someone REFUSED to give her an A in English even though she knows the language better than the teacher simply because she "isn't trying," so what is the argument? Obviously, special effort isn't required when first graders are just learning words like "mommy" and "house," which is a level she mastered ages ago... sorry if anyone finds it "offensive" that my child has a head start in certain areas, or if some people simply cannot stomach the fact that others achieve top-tier results with ease.🙄).

Furthermore, I find this whole approach completely counterproductive from an educational standpoint... it essentially devalues the very concept of hard work, personal effort, and the meritocratic idea of progressing based on one's actual capabilities.
At the end of the day, children are still developing, and there is a built-in mechanism for growth; it isn't at all uncommon for persistent, gritty effort to eventually yield spectacular results, even if someone starts from a disadvantaged position... but none of that progress will ever happen if we demoralize a child right out of the gate by judging them as being inherently inferior to their peers.

I realize my perspectives might seem a bit unconventional within the American academic landscape, but I truly cannot wrap my head around these "participation trophy" style passing grades in any subject area. In my view, a grade must be the direct result of concrete, demonstrable knowledge—period. Effort can certainly play a supporting role, but it shouldn't be the tool used to magically transform a failing grade into an A.
The only thing I am adamant about is that grading criteria must remain standard across the board... meaning an average student putting in average effort gets an average grade, while an exceptional student putting in exceptional effort receives an exceptional grade. This should apply to every single subject. 🤷

When children are allowed to achieve what you call "top-tier results" (which I assume means getting high grades) without breaking a sweat, they end up becoming lazy and disinterested in working. Why? Because they don't need to put in the effort. Then, when they eventually face real-world situations where hard work is mandatory, they're completely lost; they simply haven't learned how to grind. To not demand more from a particularly gifted student is, frankly, bad pedagogy.

Kate Sullivan12 said:Grab your Kirsten and sing your hearts out, then hit the park for some games. 😂

The little guy's gonna have a blast, and you can bet the results will follow. 😍

😉 This kid is actually quite an incredible artist; he can draw exactly what’s in his head, and he even knows how to write lyrics—not just in English, but in Italian too! He spends most of his time sketching the cartoons he watches, and if I’m being completely honest, he isn't exactly the athletic type. However, those mediocre grades he's pulling in school are nothing more than a direct reflection of his total lack of motivation; the subject matter simply doesn't capture his interest, so he just doesn't bother putting in the effort. Consequently, I find myself unable to complain about his report card, as he truly gets exactly what he deserves.

Dennis Mitchell2 said:😉 This kid is actually quite an incredible artist; he can draw exactly what’s in his head, and he even knows how to write lyrics—not just in English, but in Italian too! He spends most of his time sketching the cartoons he watches, and if I’m being completely honest, he isn't exactly the athletic type. However, those mediocre grades he's pulling in school are nothing more than a direct reflection of his total lack of motivation; the subject matter simply doesn't capture his interest, so he just doesn't bother putting in the effort. Consequently, I find myself unable to complain about his report card, as he truly gets exactly what he deserves.

Mali 😂 😂

I used to pull straight A's, even though I totally bombed history because it was the most useless subject ever. If there were a national referendum today, I'd vote to strip it from the curriculum entirely.😂

Tyler Reyes86 said:

I suppose I should start by saying that I am quite out of my element here, but I felt compelled to weigh in on this. One simply cannot ignore the sheer, unbridled chaos of it all! It’s like watching a rhinoceros charge through a china shop—completely unpredictable, slightly terrifying, yet strangely fascinating to witness from a safe distance. Honestly, I was just sitting there, sipping my coffee, when the thought struck me. Does anyone else feel that sudden, overwhelming sense of momentum? It’s much like being stuck in gridlock on the I-95 during rush hour, only with significantly more heavy lifting involved. Anyway, I digress. My apologies. Just a bit of a wandering mind today! kaže:
If you think a "C" is a terrible grade, then frankly, we’re all part of the problem—parents, teachers, the news media, everyone. It’s a systemic issue. If we decide that anything less than an "A" is essentially a failure, what are we actually doing? We are breeding a generation of tiny perfectionists who can't function without constant external validation. It creates this toxic mindset where anything short of absolute perfection is seen as "not good enough." And honestly? It's unfair. We end up devaluing students who earned a "B" through hard work, or even those who deserve a top mark but just don't fit into this narrow, rigid definition of success. We are actively suppressing kids who have genuine skills and stand out from the crowd just because they didn't hit some arbitrary, impossible standard. We're teaching them that being "good" is actually a failure, and that's a dangerous way to raise children.

It seems like you were just getting started there! You cut off right at the beginning. What was it that you were going to say about "the one who..."? I'm all ears and ready to dive into whatever thought you were about to share. Don't leave me hanging! Significantly. I have to point out that we really shouldn't lump these kids in with everyone else. It’s just not right. Gifted children need specialized attention and a curriculum that actually challenges them—something far more rigorous than the standard American school program. If we don't provide that, they never learn how to develop real work ethics. Instead, they just sit there bored out of their minds during an hour-long lecture. It creates this frustrating cycle where average students feel stifled by them, while these gifted kids end up feeling just as frustrated by their peers, simply because of a natural advantage they didn't even ask for. Nature gave them this edge, but without the right outlet, it just becomes a source of friction for everyone involved.
It’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get across in my previous posts: those straight A's shouldn't be reserved exclusively for the small handful of natural-born geniuses. When we do that, we essentially devalue hard work and end up just glorifying genetic luck. An actual grade ought to be a true reflection of the effort and sweat an individual puts in, measured within the context of that specific student's natural abilities. Anything else is frankly inhumane and completely goes against everything good about pedagogy.

To be perfectly honest, I know someone with a kid currently in seventh grade, and there’s a student sitting right next to them who happens to be a member of Mensa. It’s quite fascinating, really—though perhaps a bit frustrating from a certain perspective. Instead of applying the standard grading criteria or docking points for mistakes like they would with anyone else, the teachers seem to just give this kid a free pass. If he doesn't feel like doing the work or if he slips up, they just let it slide. It’s as if being high-intelligence grants you a sort of academic hall pass where the rules simply don't apply.
On the other hand, you have those kids in class who just process things a bit slower than the rest. There’s one student in particular—he works incredibly hard, stays on top of everything, and genuinely puts in the effort—but he simply can't break past a B grade. It makes you wonder, though: if we start bumping up his marks just because he's trying so hard, where do we draw the line? What happens when we have to decide what kind of grade to give a literal little genius?
It seems they’re applying the exact same set of rules to someone who was born under a lucky star as they are to someone whom nature itself has already punished. Now, on top of everything else, they're going after him too.
It seems the philosophy among these teachers is pretty straightforward: if you have something, they’ll take it from you, and if you don't, they'll make sure you end up with nothing at all. It’s quite a cynical way to run a classroom, isn't it?
It is quite simply inhuman. Those who believe such methods are acceptable seem to view human society as a mere mirror of the natural world, structured entirely around the principles of so-called social Darwinism. However, that perception fails to align with reality. Even if it did happen to be true—which it isn't—most of us wouldn't stand a chance in such a system. In fact, the very people currently advocating for that kind of order would likely be the first ones to fall.

The three-year vocational programs in this country are fundamentally flawed. It’s honestly quite misguided to force a child to make a decision that dictates their entire career trajectory during such an incredibly immature stage of life, leaving them with virtually no room to pivot later on. Adolescence is defined by intense, rapid shifts; kids change their minds about everything as they grow up. I personally know several people who went through vocational training only to completely switch gears and pursue entirely different degrees in college later. Students in these specific three-year tracks simply don't have that luxury. At the moment they enroll, they are saddled with the weight of a "permanent" decision—a level of responsibility that just isn't appropriate for a fifteen-year-old. Because of this, both students and parents go out of their way to avoid these schools, and it isn't even because of some perceived social stigma. In this transitional economy we live in, the only true shame is being broke. No one actually cares how you made your money or whether you lack the necessary skills or specialized knowledge when it comes down to it. But, since we are already discussing social prejudices and how they influence our judgment...

Perhaps I am simply failing to grasp your logic, so I shall ask for clarification: are you suggesting that a grade should be primarily a reflection of sheer effort and hard work, while the actual mastery of subject matter on a standardized scale remains merely secondary? It seems to me that you are advocating for nothing more than blatant double standards, pushing an evaluation system based on the incredibly murky and frankly unquantifiable notion of "natural aptitude"... as if such a thing could ever truly be measured by any rational metric...

To be perfectly honest, I know someone whose kid is currently navigating seventh grade, and there’s this one student sitting right in the same classroom who happens to be a member of Mensa... and it really gets me thinking about the sheer inequity of it all. You would assume that if a child is flagged as being exceptionally gifted, the academic standards should actually be heightened—that they should be held to a much more rigorous set of criteria where every single mistake is scrutinized and graded accordingly... but instead, it seems like the teachers just go easy on him. They coddle him, letting things slide and practically turning a blind eye whenever he decides he simply doesn't feel like doing the work... it's quite frustrating to witness such blatant favoritism under the guise of "special needs"...

And why on earth would they go around docking his grade for every little mistake he makes? It seems rather unfair, doesn't it... if we are applying the same standards to everyone else, then surely those same rules should apply to him as well...
Cover-ups and turning a blind eye... well, I am certainly not attempting to justify them, because if we are talking about a standard classroom setting, the rules ought to be applied uniformly to every student, regardless of whether the outcome favors the individual or not... though even when things *are* going his way, there seems to be an irrational urge to tighten the screws—take mathematics, for instance, why on earth should he be subjected to more stringent grading standards just because he shows an aptitude for it?! Is a child truly obligated to exploit what others perceive to be their natural talent? It is quite absurd when you think about it... what if the boy had absolutely no interest in math, yet somehow excelled at it anyway? You would still find people eager to slap him with harsher criteria simply because they see his potential, while all he wants is to navigate the system just like any other kid, being neither guilty nor innocent of having a knack for a subject that doesn't even interest him...

On the other hand, you have that one kid in the class who just processes things a bit differently... he’s a little slower on the uptake, I suppose. And look, the boy tries—he really does, and his work ethic is actually quite commendable—but he simply cannot break past a B, no matter how hard he pushes himself... which leads me to wonder, if we start bending the rules to inflate his grades, what exactly are we supposed to do for the actual little geniuses in the room?
So, they apply the exact same set of standards to someone who was born under a lucky star as they do to someone whom nature itself has already punished... and now, quite predictably, they’ve decided he needs to be punished by them as well...

A "very good" grade is a punishment? What on earth are you even talking about... I mean, really... what kind of logic is that supposed to be?!
The criteria MUST remain identical for every single child within the same classroom. The fundamental failure of our American school system is its inability to provide specialized curricula for those little geniuses who need more stimulation, yet we certainly shouldn't be "solving" that deficiency by implementing double standards... which only serves to undermine the entire foundation of fair play...
The grading criteria are strictly based on averages, which frankly seems like a fundamentally flawed approach... If a child who struggles more than most puts in an extraordinary amount of effort just to reach a certain level, they end up receiving a grade that reflects a higher average—say, a B—but why on earth should that be considered anything other than their earned result? How can anyone possibly frame this as "punishing" the student?! It isn't a punishment at all; it is his actual, hard-won grade... We ought to be celebrating his grit and his sheer persistence by awarding him that B, rather than handing out some participation trophy grade that he hasn't truly mastered and ultimately cannot stand behind...

I find myself wondering if anyone truly grasps the weight of what it means to stand behind one's grades—not just from the perspective of the student receiving them, but also for the teacher tasked with issuing them... It isn't as if grades are simply "handed out" like participation trophies or some arbitrary gesture of kindness, no, they ought to be a precise reflection of a person's actual mastery over a subject. An "A" grade should belong to a student who can look you in the eye and defend that mark, just as much as it belongs to an educator who can rest easy knowing their assessment of that knowledge is nothing short of exceptional...

Basically, the mindset of these teachers boils down to this: if you have something, you'll grab it, and if you don't, they'll just snatch whatever little you actually managed to hold onto...

It’s frankly inhumane. People who think these kinds of tactics are acceptable seem to view human society as nothing more than a mirror of the wild, organized entirely by the brutal tenets of so-called social Darwinism.

Nobody is talking about setting elite standards where only the absolute best survive within the system. My whole argument rests on the fact that the criteria are built around the "average" student—and GOD KNOWS THEY ARE, if you just take a look at our standard American school curricula and see what an average kid is expected to handle for an average grade with an average amount of effort...

Students in vocational high schools simply aren't given those opportunities; the moment they enroll, they’re forced to shoulder the weight of a life-altering decision, which is just completely inappropriate for fifteen-year-olds to deal with.

There are supplemental programs available to finish up that final year, after which they can head back toward a university path. I actually know a few people who took that route and eventually made it into college...

Look, Tyler Reyes86, you’re seriously getting under my skin (you and your attitude) 😠

What a massive waste of energy. I can't paint for shit. You could put me in a class taught by Rabuzin and shove a brush up my ass—I'd still end up painting like a toddler in preschool. I'll try, sure, but the result is gonna be garbage.

Just because I'm putting in the work doesn't mean I'm getting into RISD, and nobody's paying a single damn cent for my art because it's total SHIT.

That's why RESULTS actually matter!!! If you give a kid who screams like a donkey straight A's and tell them they're the next big thing, all you've done is make them delusional. They'll grow up lost in the sauce, unable to recognize their own lack of talent...

Kate Sullivan12 said:I don't get what you mean by all that talk about frustrations and Mother Nature punishing us.

I’m telling you right now, there’s no such thing as a kid who’s actually perfect at everything.

Math, physics, and chem? Way above average for me. Didn't even have to try that hard. Ended up skipping a bunch of other stuff because my brain just isn't wired to cram info like that. Foreign languages weren't really my thing either. My best friend was basically a walking dictionary back in elementary school—she loved picking up new languages, while I was out here struggling just to get through English.

If everyone actually got that kind of one-on-one attention, we’d all basically need our own private tutor.

People are beautiful because we're all wired differently—different talents, different vibes. I just think school should cover the basics every sane person needs to know.

School isn't merely an academic institution; it functions as a fundamental training ground for character. The true objective shouldn't just be the accumulation of facts—knowledge that, quite frankly, tends to evaporate over time according to most standardized testing data—but rather the cultivation of disciplined work habits. If we have a system where someone who puts in zero effort or does the bare absolute minimum is rewarded, while the student who truly pushes themselves is penalized, what kind of message are we sending? It essentially tells them that hard work is worthless and carries no real value.

Kate Sullivan12 said:I don't get what you mean by all that talk about frustrations and Mother Nature punishing us.

I’m telling you right now, there’s no such thing as a kid who’s actually perfect at everything.

Math, physics, and chem? Way above average for me. Didn't even have to try that hard. Ended up skipping a bunch of other stuff because my brain just isn't wired to cram info like that. Foreign languages weren't really my thing either. My best friend was basically a walking dictionary back in elementary school—she loved picking up new languages, while I was out here struggling just to get through English.

If everyone actually got that kind of one-on-one attention, we’d all basically need our own private tutor.

People are beautiful because we're all wired differently—different talents, different vibes. I just think school should cover the basics every sane person needs to know.

So, how exactly do you plan on responding once it turns out your claim was wrong? I know this one kid back in my neighborhood who was breezing through high school level exams while he was still sitting in middle school. But here's the thing—he's stuck there with the general middle school crowd because, honestly, he’s just not physically or emotionally mature enough yet. He wouldn't be able to handle the social scene or the pressure of a high school environment at all.

Kate Sullivan12 said:I don't get what you mean by all that talk about frustrations and Mother Nature punishing us.

I’m telling you right now, there’s no such thing as a kid who’s actually perfect at everything.

Math, physics, and chem? Way above average for me. Didn't even have to try that hard. Ended up skipping a bunch of other stuff because my brain just isn't wired to cram info like that. Foreign languages weren't really my thing either. My best friend was basically a walking dictionary back in elementary school—she loved picking up new languages, while I was out here struggling just to get through English.

If everyone actually got that kind of one-on-one attention, we’d all basically need our own private tutor.

People are beautiful because we're all wired differently—different talents, different vibes. I just think school should cover the basics every sane person needs to know.

I truly believe there should be a mentor assigned to every single student throughout their entire academic journey. A personalized approach is absolutely vital; after all, children aren't just statistics or numbers on a spreadsheet—they are distinct, irreplaceable individuals with their own unique spirits.

Kate Sullivan12 said:I don't get what you mean by all that talk about frustrations and Mother Nature punishing us.

I’m telling you right now, there’s no such thing as a kid who’s actually perfect at everything.

Math, physics, and chem? Way above average for me. Didn't even have to try that hard. Ended up skipping a bunch of other stuff because my brain just isn't wired to cram info like that. Foreign languages weren't really my thing either. My best friend was basically a walking dictionary back in elementary school—she loved picking up new languages, while I was out here struggling just to get through English.

If everyone actually got that kind of one-on-one attention, we’d all basically need our own private tutor.

People are beautiful because we're all wired differently—different talents, different vibes. I just think school should cover the basics every sane person needs to know.

Studies suggest that once you move past the absolute fundamentals, most middle-aged folks can’t actually recall much of what they learned back in school. It's funny how that works, isn't it? You spend all those years sitting in classrooms, sweating over exams and memorizing dates, only to realize later on that most of it just evaporated into thin air. I mean, unless it's something truly essential—like basic math or how to write a coherent sentence—it seems like the brain just decides to clear out the old files to make room for more practical things, like remembering where you parked or what you were supposed to buy at the grocery store. It makes you wonder if we weren't actually learning, but just practicing the art of temporary memorization.

Tyler Reyes86 said:I think you might be misinformed on this one. There are standard programs for average students, yes, but there are also specially adapted curricula and individualized approaches for students facing learning difficulties. Furthermore, there are dedicated enrichment programs specifically designed for gifted students.

I fail to see why any child should be penalized with a poor grade just because they lack hearing, or perhaps a knack for painting, or a talent for sports or math. Or, conversely, why they should be rewarded simply because they were born with a specific talent? Why not grade people on their physical beauty? That, too, is an innate quality.

And yes, you are correct; evaluating children based on their innate abilities is a natural impulse. However, that is how primitive tribes living in the Stone Age operate. A civilized society provides for different rules. Unfortunately, it seems many people aren't aware they actually live in a civilized society, so they continue to cling to customs from the jungle.

Actually, you can, and in many ways, you must. Perhaps look into the concept of affirmative action and how it functions within developed societies.

What "black average" are we talking about? Where does this "average" exist, other than in the minds of poor statisticians? A classroom isn't composed of an "average"; it is composed of living, breathing students, each with their own unique characteristics. Any teacher who is unable to respect that fundamental fact is simply incapable of working with children.

As for this supposed grade inflation among top students, there really isn't any cause for alarm; by the time graduation rolls around, we’re looking at a mere 7% of the class reaching that level.

Actually, anyone who puts in extraordinary effort has earned that A. Educational psychology doesn't just look at achievements—which are relative anyway, depending on who you're being compared to—it also recognizes hard work and dedication. In fact, one could argue the whole point of schooling is to help kids build work ethic and self-teaching skills, rather than just showing off specific talents like some kind of circus act.

You aren't the only parent here; plenty of others have kids too.

When children are allowed to achieve what you call "top-tier results" (which I assume means getting high grades) without breaking a sweat, they end up becoming lazy and disinterested in working. Why? Because they don't need to put in the effort. Then, when they eventually face real-world situations where hard work is mandatory, they're completely lost; they simply haven't learned how to grind. To not demand more from a particularly gifted student is, frankly, bad pedagogy.

To my mind, that isn't a matter of punishment or reward at all, but rather a measurement of how one masters a specific subject, entirely stripped of any subjective "value" component...

You can, and indeed you must... Just take a moment to look into affirmative action and how it actually functions within developed societies.

For your information, I have spent significantly more of my life living abroad than here in the States, so please do not let my command of the American language mislead you... My mother is not an American woman, nor is my husband, and while I was educated both here and overseas, I returned to the US relatively recently—and my daughter ended up in school here somewhat unexpectedly, which explains the linguistic hurdles, since we hadn't planned on staying permanently... Had we known from the start, we would have approached things quite differently.

I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of affirmative action occurring WITHIN THE SAME SYSTEM. One classroom equals one system. Yes, I will concede that specialized classes for gifted children ought to exist, but even within those advanced tracks, there must be uniform criteria established specifically for those groups...

Furthermore, affirmative action is still, by definition, discrimination. In the contexts where it is applied within American society, I generally find it to be detrimental—and I say this as someone who IS a member of a minority group in America...

What "average" are we talking about? Where does this mythical average live, other than in the minds of incompetent statisticians? A classroom is not composed of an average; it is composed of living, breathing students, each with their own unique individual characteristics. A teacher who fails to respect that simple fact is simply unfit to work with children.

And? Suppose a student has mediocre abilities in math, excels in languages, but is absolutely terrible at music—unable to grasp notes or rhythm, for instance. Let us simplify this with a few scenarios:

Scenario A = works incredibly hard in everything
Math: B, Languages: A, Music: C
Scenario B = average effort
Math: C, Languages: A, Music: D
Scenario C = puts in no effort
Math: D, Languages: A, Music: F after retakes

Wherein lies the problem, and how is that discriminatory to you? To me, these are realistic grades reflecting the actual work behind them. The fact that people in certain circles have this irrational obsession with impossible, perfect averages is a completely separate issue... It is NOT NORMAL to me for an average child to receive straight As, nor do I find it healthy to possess such a mentality. Bs and even Cs are perfectly good grades; they shouldn't be viewed as something demoralizing in any capacity...

Anyone who demonstrates exceptional effort has earned an A. Pedagogy, alongside achievement—which is itself relative depending on whom one is being compared to—also recognizes the value of hard work and dedication.

Regarding that opening line, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one...
As for my second point, it is my firm belief that hard work and genuine effort ought to be factored into a grade, but they shouldn't be allowed to dictate the entire outcome or cause these unrealistic swings in scoring...

Kids who are allowed to breeze through and achieve what people call "top-tier results"—which, let's face it, usually just means getting straight A's—end up becoming lazy and completely checked out when it comes to actual work. It's because they never had to break a sweat... And then, once they hit the real world where effort is actually required, they find themselves totally lost, simply because they never learned how to grind... Not demanding more from a gifted student is, quite frankly, bad teaching...

I see your point, truly, but this touches upon a much broader systemic issue that extends far beyond the scope of standard American schooling... Until we implement specialized schools or advanced placement tracks specifically designed for those students, they remain grouped with everyone else and are measured against the same general scale. We can't just penalize them with lower grades or introduce discriminatory grading metrics just because they find the material easy... In my view, doing that would be far more unfair than the solution you're proposing... 🤷