Guest column: 50% grade floor policy caused more harm than good

It's important to acknowledge the role of our community in advocating for change. Sumter School District's mandatory 50% grading floor policy, which requires teachers to adjust a student's grade to a minimum of 50%, even if they earned less or turned in no coursework, has sparked much misinformation and conjecture. This policy, intended to help struggling students, is causing more harm than good. However, most of your board members have heard the voices of our community and our teachers, who have acted accordingly.

However, some school board members have claimed, without evidence, that this policy, which grants unearned academic credit, somehow helps students. No data supports this, and much evidence shows that it hurts our children's opportunities.

My advocacy is based on empirical, results-oriented data and the testimony of our teachers and administrators. As such, 83% of our certified staff agree that this policy is harmful and want it prohibited. This data, which I've reviewed, starkly questions the policy's effectiveness and prompted my inquiry. We have entire student cohorts passing courses and advancing grades at 90% plus but failing S.C. state end-of-course tests in the 90% range. This data demonstrates a significant gap between classroom grades and state end-of-course testing.

This isn't an argument against state testing but emphasizes that one statistic shows success while the other shows abject and near-total failure. One of the two metrics is accurate, not both. The findings strongly suggest that this grading policy and other poorly designed policies rob our students of opportunities for future economic success and economic mobility. In most cases, those folks are relegated to the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. We must do better!

It's crucial to remember that this policy is not a "curve;" it's a floor that distorts data and academic achievement metrics. Despite claims to the contrary, it puts students at an even greater disadvantage. The supporters of this policy have failed to explain how this benefits students other than through emotional speeches, hearsay, conjecture and falsely and irresponsibly attacking the character and intentions of those who disagree with them. As adults responsible for shaping our students' future, we must provide them with the education they need rather than setting them up for failure in the real world. This situation underscores the urgent need for better education policies that will give our students hope for a brighter future.

This is about accountability and proper oversight.

Safe cities cannot exist without strict law enforcement. You can't lose weight if you have no personal responsibility to go to the gym or eat healthier. You can't give a drug addict the very drug they are addicted to and expect it to bring them to sobriety. We have become a society of enablers, and this policy, as well-intended as it was, has proven to be an albatross around the collective neck of those who need the public education system the most. We do no good deed to anyone by failing to hold ourselves responsible for the results of our decisions. In this case, previous administrations imposed this harmful policy onto our district many years ago.

Despite the gross overuse and misunderstanding of what "accountability" means, prohibiting grades for students who didn't earn them IS accountability, and any departure from that violates actual accountability.

We need to look at other "second chances" programs to help struggling students, ones that support them when necessary, account for their hardships and allocate required resources where needed. There are better alternatives, and we must explore them to bring about positive change. This must happen. We can't just take something away without providing alternative processes and programs of support, especially for those students dealing with extreme difficulty and hardships.

You cannot achieve excellence with systemic policies that incentivize mediocrity, which is exactly what the 50% grading floor does. It allows us to advance students who are not ready until they are years behind, only to find themselves in a world they weren't trained to compete in.

Given this policy change, we should anticipate seeing the actual achievement metrics. It may be surprising and jarring to see our true standing; however, it is necessary to strategically plan for genuine and long-lasting success based on data and facts. We'll never achieve it if reality is concealed.

Our students, parents, teachers and community all deserve better than what they've grown used to. This is a positive step forward, and the community deserves us to uphold our promises of reform. That's exactly what I intend to do.

#allinforssd, even when it isn't easy!

Jeff Zell is Sumter School Board Trustee for Area 8 and the Republican nominee for S.C. Senate District 36.