Educate students, instead of adopting 'D' proposal

How does one go about achieving what appears to be a high level of success in today's world of accepted mediocrity?

The answer of course is by the lowering of our standards that in way too many instances, are already at rock bottom. It's a bit like what Affirmative Action accomplishes: "The cream rises to the middle."

I could not help but think of how much worse it could possibly get until I read the article in last week's Breeze, "At CHS, an 'F' moves further down the mark ladder."

The article detailed the further dumbing-down of the educational process at Cumberland High School by allowing a "D" to be between 60 and 69, which will then result in a passing grade, etc. ... makes for a better educated student. (Change that to a failing student who, with smoke and mirrors stands a better chance at being accepted to college; college being the answer to everything.)

All of this, along with all of the fuzzy-logic that was put forth by what I feel is one more incompetent administrator within the system, trying to achieve success, by taking the easy way out - that being CHS principal Ms. Dorothy Gould really accomplishes nothing other than another form of feel good political correctness.

Gould's presentation to the School Committee purported to show how two students attending different Rhode Island high schools, all of whom took the same courses and received the exact same numerical failing grade in every course, came up with differing grade point averages and credits at the end of their high school careers.

The student whose school has a "D" grading range, comes up with more credits and a higher grade point average than the student whose school has a grading system similar to Cumberland High School.

Then, by taking the comparison a step further, the student with more credits and a higher cumulative grade point average and who has not taken any summer school courses fares better in the eyes of a college admission official to one who has fewer credits, a lower cumulative grade point average and who has taken three summer school courses.

"The arguments are so compelling in terms of what we are doing for and to kids, that there is no other sensible answer than to adopt the proposed "D" range," said Gould, at the end of her presentation.

Excuse me Ms. Gould, I know this may come as a complete and total shock to you, but "your job" is not to make our students look good, not to make them feel good, but to give them the education that they need and deserve.

And may I point out that even though this may get a lot of unqualified students into college, it often does not take long for the colleges to recognize how poorly educated, overall, R.I. students are, necessitating remedial curriculum.

So who is trying to fool whom here, Ms. Gould?

I have watched now, for close to 30 years, as educators do not heed the words of people such as School Committeeman Earl Wood, who spoke out vociferously about these ill-conceived changes only to have his words of wisdom and logic ignored by his fellow school committee members.

This latest incident is just another example of a constant slacking off on the part of so-called educators in so far as their teaching (not teaching) our children, along with also re-writing our history and our history books so as to put what they perceive the way that things might have been (should have been) rather than they the way they were.

The demented thought process, with all of this, I assume, was meant along with the lax attitudes, policies, procedures and desires to in some way, some how, make themselves all look good, and justify the obscene pay and benefits that they are receiving, and do not deserve, all the while doing an absolutely horrendous job.

Now with our educational standards dumbed-down as low as they now have been, even totally incompetent teachers will be made to look good, thereby allowing them to scream for more undeserved money.

Tom Letourneau

Cumberland