The Sheila Variations

How can somebody be deemed too smart to teach? That's crazy!

Depressing, and sickening, too. How positively horrible.

That practically moves me to violence. But it pretty much tracks with what I hear from my friends who are teachers. It does appear that we are actually doomed. Like, bummer, you know?

I'm caught in the middle on this issue - not an uncommon situation for me. I violently oppose any and all right-wing efforts to undermine or demolish our system of public education. Good, free public education is one of the critical factors that made this country great in the first place. If it dies, America's place as a pre-eminent world power will eventually die with it.

On the other hand, our public schools are at this point in pretty bad shape. The public schools must make strenuous efforts to recruit the sort of teachers embodied in that story - not turn them away. In all the right-wing blather about the evils of teacher's unions, what generally goes unsaid is that school systems have frequently traded away decision-making power to the unions as an alternative to providing better pay. The schools need to be provided with addional resources to increase teacher pay, but they also must take back the right to make decisions without the unions having veto power at every turn.

One thing that especially concerns me is the matter of credentials. On this issue, the teacher's unions and left-wing ideologues are out to lunch. I'm sorry, but a teaching degree is not essential for someone to be a good, professional teacher. In fact, a lot of what gets taught in our Colleges of Education is pure bullshit. People who are experienced, working professionals should have the right to teach in our public schools if they choose to offer their services and the school system finds them to be a desirable candidate. You can require a course or two on teaching issues and ethics, but most of what makes a great teacher does not come from any College of Education - it comes from the heart and the mind of the individual teacher.

I have no problem with charter schools, alternative schools, or any other sincere effort to improve public education. What I do have a serious problem with is the concept of vouchers, because their unavoidable premise is that the public school system is of no more value to us as a people than the private school system. I believe that is a false and dangerously wrong-headed assumption, and I'll do whatever is within my power to make sure it does not become the law of the land.

Looking at that is pretty depressing. I take that back, its VERY depressing. I agree with MikeR that I don't think the solution is to do away with public education. The problem is to fix it. How to do that I have no idea. I agree that the teacher's unions have gotten a stranglehold on setting policy, but this particular instance was a principal. I had to reread that comment several times to believe it for myself.

I know you don't think so simplistically, MikeR, but it bears stating that if money was really the main issue, the District of Columbia would have the best public schools in the world.

MikeR...please explain further. Why do you think it is so important that public schools continue to be granted what is in effect a monopoly authority? Don't the students matter more than the form of the institution?

There are certain institutions that should remain government monopolies (for example--the air traffic control system--because the concepts of "choice" and "competition" make no sense in this context). But I don't see the logical case for including education in this category, and I see plenty of evidence that the current system is broken so badly that it will not repair itself without a strong external shock.

I have no problems with the idea of vouchers and maybe I'm dense - it is highly possible - but I also don't see why this is such a divisive issue. I am not so committed to the idea of public education that I would submit my kids to it, as it stands now, just to make a point.

When I have kids, they are definitely going to Catholic school.

I went to public school myself - in a great public school system. Families moved to our town, so they could go to our school. Since then, the school system has disintegrated, people are now moving away from our town.

I want school choice, and if that means vouchers in some cases, that means vouchers.

Again, it is possible that I am dense, but can someone please explain to me why the words "right-wing" have to be thrown around in every conversation about school vouchers and how it became such a divisve thing?

I will home-school my (future) kids rather than subject them to the bull-shit PC indoctrination going on in public schools today.

CW -

It moves me to violence too.

My sister's a teacher in middle-school - a great teacher. And oh, the stories she tells ...

I went to public school as well, and emerged from the process relatively unscathed.

Why do public schools matter? Because this country was founded on egalitarian ideals. Because a private-school based educational system will inevitably lead to the enhancement of class boundaries. Because vouchers for poor people are pure BS - we will never have the collective will to spend the money necessary to give those kids an equal chance with everyone else whose parents can afford better. Because there are important social benefits derived from having kids from all different backgrounds encounter and learn to get along with each other in public schools.

I'm very familiar with this issue from my time spent in auto racing. You often see racing classes move toward a set of rules that, rather than providing a fair playing field, actually cement a stratified hierarchy in place. Why do people go along with a system where the odds of moving up in the hierarchy are stacked against them? Because they like the removal of the possibility that they might fall down. They spend more money than they would have under a fair system and trade away their chance to be first in favor of a meager assurance that they won't be last. Those are the middle-class folks of today's educational scene, spending all their money to send their kids to a private school that's not any better than the public schools we used to have.

We always have had and probably always will have private schools for the very rich. For everyone else, we can either have a good public school system like we used to have, or we can have a stratified hierarchy of private schools ranging from low-bid ghetto-quality through various middle-class levels until you get all the way back up to the prestigious prep schools that have always been there.

Like I said, I'm a product of the public school system. It should never have been allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place, and liberals do bear much responsibility for that deterioration. By integrating only large-city schools and not the suburbs, we set up those large-city schools for failure. Integration should have been all or nothing - the way we implemented it was insane. And whether or not schools were intergrated, standards of proper behavior should have been enforced.

However, what's broken can be fixed. Not all cities are in equally bad shape to start with, and there's no law that says public schools must continue to repeat old mistakes. Finding ways to enhance community involvement is key - bad decisions are far more easily concealed when nobody is watching.

A vote in favor of privatizing our school system in this country is a vote for abject cynicism over hope, as far as I'm concerned.

Mike R-

I totally hear what you're saying - I loved my public school education. It was a good one.

But the situation is dire right now, and vouchers could be ONE way to rectify the situation. Every child deserves a chance at a good education, education is a privilege, yes, but it also a right.

I'm glad I'm not in charge of fixing our educational system, because I am really at a loss. Many of my friends are teachers, many of my family members are teachers - and I know that these people have a calling. They are GOOD teachers. They LOVE what they do.

But it's the system itself that stinks.

Or maybe it's even a larger issue. The atmosphere of permissiveness, the focus on self-esteem in schools rather than in learning, the fear of letting the cream rise to the top. Wanting all children to be the same - to never ever let a child feel insecure about ANYTHING. That is unrealistic. There are winners in this life, and there are losers. School is not "for" some people. Why should the geniuses in the class be made to slow down, to adjust their pace, so that the slowest ones in the class won't feel bad about themselves?

It's an entire philosophy about education that I flat out do not agree with.

Vouchers are obviously not the answer to this problem, which is wide-spread, and infiltrates every school everywhere. Well, maybe not Catholic schools.

I read The Language Police, a fantastic and awful book about the writing of text books nowadays, and the rigorous censorship imposed on the books from radical elements of the left and the right.

I saw red reading that book. Red. I had no idea. I had no idea.

I can't imagine that vouchers are the solution for a variety of reasons. And in the long run, I think vouchers are bad because they would hurt public education. While throwing money at a school is of course not the answer, there is still a finite amount of public money available for education. If some of that money goes to vouchers, then less is available for the schools.

I will say one thing. Part of the problem is definitely the de-emphasis of the values of actually having to learn. While I teach at the college level, so I don't see it first hand, I have seen the effects of it. I have actually had students have the gall to complain to me that I shouldn't grade homework on the basis of accuracy. They feel that if they try the problems and turn them in, that should be enough. Where on earth did the mentality of "trying is all that matters" come from? And sadly, I notice a difference between those of us who teach in the sciences and those who teach in the humanities. When I was in graduate school, math department graduate student offices were near offices of Sociology faculty.
At the end of the semester, when grades were posted, the math classe would have grades all over the place...some F's, and a few A's, but not many. When I looked at grades posted from sociology classes it would be ALL A and B range grades, with very few as low as a B-. I can't really believe that there were no people in those classes who were C students. I realize I've wandered way off the original topic, but educational issues are ones I care a lot about.

Ron -

Extremely well said. Thank you

MikeR...thanks for the reply. While I share your concerns about social mobility, I draw opposite policy conclusions. It is not primarily "the rich" who are being hurt by the current disaster in public schools; it is those who are not well-off.

I disagree that we will never have the social will to provide vouchers giving poor kids a chance at a decent education. This policy is not being prevented by any scroogery on the part of the American people in general; it is being prevented specifically by obstructionist policies on the part of those who have a stake in the continuance of the current system. This obstructionism can and will be overcome as more people begin to understand what is really going on. And, as meaningful competition develops, public schools will increasingly shape up--just as the American automobile industry suddenly discovered the concept of "quality" in the face of Japanese competition.

I strongly disagree with David about the beneficial impact of siphoning money away from public schools through a voucher system, but I'm in equally strong agreement with everyone here about disastrous impact of the excessive permissiveness, the over-emphasis on self-esteem, and the generalized genuflection to political correctness that has become SOP in our schools.

To a considerable extent, those negative developments mirror what has happened throughout our society. I'm the last person who would ever speak in favor of mindlessly rigid disciplinarianism, but it's a fact that kids both want and need discipline and a fair, even-handedly enforced set of rules. Excessive permissiveness just makes everyone - kids and adults - miserable.

Oh, god- I could comment on this topic forEVER! But I will try to keep my comments concise. Firstly, regarding the certification of teachers- I agree that there are many people that are highly educated in their said fields, who have wonderful knowledge to share with students. HOWEVER that does NOT make them adept at TEACHING this said knowledge. If I were to continue with this line of reasoning, then I would make a damn good doctor. I mean, I have been a patient ALL my life! I know about my ENTIRE medical history, right? The art of teaching is highly misunderstood. It is one thing to tutor one child, or even a small group that are of equal intelligence. But to perform the balancing act that is necessary, hour by hour, day by day, with a group of 25 children of VARYING levels of intelligence, is nothing short of a magic act. Add to this mix, learning disabilities, family problems, medical issues and a good dose of plain old SPOILED, indulged chiCH cldren. NOW teach them. ALL. And bring EACH child "up" a grade level.
Which leads me to my next point- there is a much greater problem with our society's views regarding parenting. Give me a child with REAL social problems (living in a homeless shelter, drug addicted parents, etc)vs. a spoiled brat any day. Unfortunately, parents don't see themselves in this light. Too many parents see their children as "advanced", "special" and "needing more challenge" in school. If parents really feel this way, number one, SPEND TIME WITH THEM! No teacher can do what a parent is OBLILGATED to do. If your child is REALLY that bright, bring him to the library, a museum, an art class, etc. As Mike R states above, "Excessive permissiveness just makes everyone- kids and adults- miserable." Truer words were never spoken. The REAL problem with public education is with PARENTS who need to feel validated as individuals by having every adult that comes in contact with their child fawn all over said child. If parents would let their children experience negative feelings, learn to be accountable for these feelings our society would be in a much better place.
Thirdly, Catholic schools (or any private school, for that matter) are not mandated to employee certified teachers. That concerns me. But what concerns me more, is the fact that those "Interviews" that are given, the "Entrance Exams" are actually just filters to make sure that children with special needs don't get in. Try getting a child with a serious learning disability into one of your more prestigious private institutions and see what happens. How can that be a good lesson?

Beth -

I was waiting to hear what you would have to say about this, my wonderful teacher-friend!

"If parents would let their children experience negative
feelings, learn to be accountable for these feelings our society would be in
a much better place."

God, such a tough thing to do - but you are so so right.

Beth, I agree that it's possible to know a field from a content standpoint but still not be able to teach it effectively. But does the typical ed-school program *really* help anyone teach more effectively? Most of these programs seem to consist of highly dubious theory, of little or no value to the practicing teacher. Isn't it really more a matter of personality, desire, role-model-observation, and experience?

Unfortunately, David, you have hit the nail on the head. I, thank GOD, went through a fantastic program, and most importantly was blessed with a near perfect cooperating teacher for my student teaching experience. I still hold, however, that all teachers should be certified to teach. I have no problem with people "testing" out of courses, but theory, history and methods are hugely important. I am certified prek-grade 2. I am doing a long term sub position for the next 8 weeks in fifth grade. Let me tell you, there are MANY times I wish my certification was for the upper elementary grades, because there are definite gaps in what I am TRAINED in and what i AM teaching. No, the students aren't suffering. But they could be getting MORE. With the state of education in the situation it is right now, why not hold educators responsible? If the training programs at colleges and universities aren't doing a justice to their new teachers, why not change the program? Eliminating it, or "waiving" it won't solve the problem. It just cracks me up that people are willing to pay twice for school (once via tax dollars, once for private school fees) in order to get what they consider a "better" education. In actuality, the group being taught has little to no learning difficulties, come from families that value education, and will support their child's education. For the most part, these kid would succeed no matter WHERE they received their education. So, is it the school or the gene pool? I certainly don't have the answers! I just get SOOOOOOOOOO tired of people dissing public schools, thinking that teachers only work because of "June, July and August" and that we make too much (ha!). Add to that, the people who strut about, criticizing teachers mercilessly. There are certainly teachers of poor quality, as in any profession. The difference is, most parents think that because they were once students, they are experts on the subject of teaching. Being both a parent and a teacher, let me tell you they are light years apart. What I do in my classroom may not work in my home, and vice versa. Who knows what the answer is to all this. Interesting discussion, though.

So the basic idea is that public schools aren't working, but they must be protected at all costs, regardless of the actual results they produce.

I'm not buying it.

"Why do public schools matter? Because this country was founded on egalitarian ideals."

More than a century before the imposition of public schools. Our ideals have nothing to do with public schools. In fact, to the extent that a government agency is permitted to determine the content of history and civics courses, and train children to accept historical facts, civic duties, and the proper role of government as defined by elected officials, public schooling tends to undermine the ideals on which this country was founded.

"Because vouchers for poor people are pure BS - we will never have the collective will to spend the money necessary to give those kids an equal chance with everyone else whose parents can afford better. "

That's obvious, because we're not doing so right now. Under public education, "those kids" are getting screwed anyway... replacing it with vouchers is hardly going to make them worse off. Worst case, they remain the same while everyone else improves.

Meanwhile, the middle class can't buy their way into a better school without also blowing serious money on a bigger and fancier house than they have any real use for. If they could live in any neighborhood they wanted, and put money directly toward schooling, they'd be able to get way more for their money, and we'd have a better educated population overall.

Now from the article:

"It was felt that your demeanor and therefore presence in the classroom would serve as an unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become."

Unfortunately, an "unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become" infest our entire society. I'm speaking, of course, of an unrealistically low expectation. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Beth, I agree that teaching the elementary grades is a more difficult task and probably requires more training and preparation than do the upper grades.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that our ed-schools are generally lousy and accomplish little of value in preparing teachers for the real world. Back when I was in school I remember checking into the possibility of getting a teaching certification. The College of Education at my school wanted you to take over 40 hours of education classes, a great many of which involved obtuse and highly questionable behavioral theories. From my background in sociology, I felt a lot of the curriculum was pure BS. And the number of hours required represented a large impediment to anyone who wasn't an Education major.

Being a teacher is an extraordinarily difficult job which requires great skill and commitment from those who hope to do it well. All professions attempt to limit the size of their ranks to enhance the economic power of their members, but I think that tendency is very harmful for teaching because much of what makes a great teacher can't be taught in any school. Making it more difficult than it really needs to be for someone to become a teacher only makes it easier for the dead wood to survive.

We need to find a way to increase teacher pay and improve working conditions, while also holding teachers to higher standards of performance. And of course there's the rub - how to fairly and accurately measure teacher performance. I don't profess to have any easy answers for that one. Standardized tests are far too limited in scope and too easily manipulated to be a reliable stand-alone measure. Maybe the ultimate answer lies in teachers finding a way to police themselves, to reject their own bad apples.

The one thing I know for sure is that continuation of the status quo will only lead to intensified calls for us to give up on the public school system altogether. If that were to come to pass, I believe it would be a tragedy of monumental proportions for this country.

Ken, the key word is "ideals". There were myriad ways in which we didn't live up to our egalitarian ideals when the country was born. All men are created equal, yet slavery was a legal and accepted practice. Wives were viewed as the property of their husbands and lacked the basic legal rights we now take for granted. Even so, the founding fathers knew very well the implications of the words they chose. They fully intended for them to become more fully implemented over time.

Should wealthy areas have public schools superior to poor areas? Of course not. The answer is to change the system to address those inequities, not to make them permanent through the adoption of a stratified private school system. Social Darwinism is the real motivating philosophy behind those who wish to abolish the public school system. I'll take care of my kids, let all those other folks fend for themselves.

But even if you believe there's no social value to having a public school system, your argument still falls flat. America became the world's pre-eminent economic power over the past century when we DID have a nationwide public school system in place. The greatest example of a private school based-system is Europe. All stand in awe at the mighty economic power of the European Union!

Our system of public education is of of the critical factors that made us better and stronger than Europe or anyone else in the world. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will only lead to our eventual downfall.

"Should wealthy areas have public schools superior to poor areas? Of course not."

Why? If poor areas are getting a good education, what possible objection could there be to wealthy areas getting an even better one? If poor areas are getting a bad education, what possible consolation could it be that wealthy areas are also getting a bad education?

"The answer is to change the system to address those inequities, not to make them permanent through the adoption of a stratified private school system."

The inequities are no less permanent in the public school system than they would be after the abolition of public schools and the use of vouchers to buy education for the poor from the open market. In either case, the driving force is the willingness of taxpayers to pay for education of poor people. If that willingness isn't there, you're not going to make it happen no matter what you do to the system, and abolishing the system isn't going to make poor people any worse off than keeping it would leave them.

"Social Darwinism is the real motivating philosophy behind those who wish to abolish the public school system. I'll take care of my kids, let all those other folks fend for themselves."

Your telepathic powers are on the fritz. The "motivating philosophy behind those who wish to abolish the public school system" is not Social Darwinism, except as applied to the providers of educational services. We note that public education is not working, that it is wasting enormous amounts of our childrens' time, that it takes up their entire childhood while delivering an "education" at a level that ought to be attained at age 14 at the latest, and that in every market where unfettered capitalism holds sway, the product thereof gets relentlessly cheaper and better and we'd all be a lot better off if education followed suit.

"Our system of public education is of of the critical factors that made us better and stronger than Europe or anyone else in the world."

No, it didn't. The critical factor that made us better and stronger than Europe is (a) our system left people freer to profit from their education than people elsewhere, thus getting more out of our education and inducing us to pursue better education for ourselves and our children and (b) our freedom and our prosperity in turn attracted the best and brightest from Europe, where they and their children enriched us rather than Europe with their contributions.

Higher returns on education boosted demand, and a purely private system would have expanded the supply to meet the demand. Our preeminence would be preserved in any case, as long as we kept our relatively free system.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water will only lead to our eventual downfall. "

No, ceasing to allow people to profit freely from their talents and ceasing to attract talented people from around the world will lead to our eventual downfall. Abolishing public education and allowing the private sector to take over will only improve matters.

A few folks have hit some key problems on the head here.

True: Teacher certification programs are worse than a joke, they are instead an artificial barrier which the brightest candidates cannot cross because they can't stomach the insipidness of it all. The best private schools in the country refuse to hire certified teachers because of this.

True: Vouchers and other forms of school choice will improve education for all students. It is the near-monopoly the government has on schools in our cities which has helped make them so breathtakingly bad (educational malpractice is a better term). They spend twice as much as private schools, and turn out a product ten times worse.

False: "Public Education made this country great." There's a strong argument that parent choice made our country so educated, and that free trade and capitalism made our country so prosperous, and that the Bill of Rights and our Constitution made our country truly great. Mandatory public education is a relatively new phenomenon, and public education unions are an even newer phenomenon. I'm not impressed with either.

False: "Vouchers siphon money away from public education." For starters "public education" isn't a monolith. It is a process with a certain number of students and a certain number of dollars. Folks opposing vouchers because "it will siphon money away from public education" are essentially saying that the school system should maintain the same budget to educate fewer children!

Competition brings out the best in everyone, including schools. This has been proven in studies of public schools in the same neighborhoods where charter schools (ie school choice) have opened.

I've got a lot more to say, please visit ReformK12.com. :-)

Chett- I suppose I should be insulted by your comments. However, not being "bright" enough to refuse "crossing an artificial barrier", I strangely find myself even MORE proud to be working in public education. PHEW! Good thing I teach public school- apparently private schools would find me far too stupid to hire! Now THAT I find hard to stomach.

Beth, I wasn't trying to slam certified teachers, I was criticizing teacher certification. I've been an inner-city public school teacher for almost a decade, and am dual-certified in Math and Science, having taken Education classes at two universities. My experience is that the curriculum is brain dwarfing, and that some of my colleagues wave around their Masters of Education yet can't put together a proper sentence.

You are probably a very good teacher, Beth, my comment was aimed at letting other bright people into the profession without the Mickey Mouse coursework.

I don't have any need for telepathy, Ken. The Social Darwinism is readily visible in your arguments in which poor kids are left to accept whatever crumbs we of the more fortunate classes decide to throw their way. Capitalism certainly is the best form of economic organization in existence, but it is not an adequate or desirable determinant of the value of a human being.

There are a vast number of public school districts outside of the large cities in this country whose residents are not unhappy with their performance. Talk about big government run amok - I'd love to see someone try to explain to the residents of Okeene, Oklahoma that they must shut down their public school and start shipping their kids off to private schools in Enid, 45 miles away.

Again, what tore down our big-city schools in the past few decades was the unfair fight caused by the highly selective enforcement of busing for purposes of racial integration. Integration was a laudable social goal in and of itself. Anyone who doubts that would be hard-pressed to explain why race-relations in America are so much more harmonious now than they were in the 1960's and earlier. However, the unintended consequence of forcing only big-city schools to integrate was to cut them off at the knees and enrich the suburban districts and private schools who didn't have to play by the same set of rules. We all know where a road paved with good intentions leads.

Vouchers would repeat the same mistake by diverting students and funds into private schools which do not have to play by the same set of rules as public schools. Private schools usually have major resources at their disposal which do not come from tuition payments, while public schools can only rely on public funding. If a private school doesn't like a prospective student's ethnic, religious or socio-economic background, they just decline to admit. If they think a developmentally or behaviorally challenged student would be too much trouble, they can reject their application. If they think a slow student is bringing down their test average too far, they can simply expel.

Where would those students and all other "undesirables" end up under an all-private system? They'd end up in private school ghettos of last-resort that would be far worse than our worst public school systems are now.

For those of you who think the current public education system is irreparably broken, why not support charter schools? They carry most of the advantages of private schools - less red tape, greater parental involvement - while still having to abide by basic rules against things like demographics-based discrimination and religious indoctrination.

"Where would those students and all other "undesirables" end up under an all-private system? They'd end up in private school ghettos of last-resort that would be far worse than our worst public school systems are now. "

How? How can they possibly be worse than our worst public school systems are now?

To start with, only a small subset of our public schools - largely those in major cities - are in very bad condition. All schools have problems to deal with, but outside of the major cities people are not by-and-large contemptuous of their public schools or interested in replacing them with some private school scheme.

Even in the inner-city schools, there are many excellent students whose parents either cannot afford or are philosophically opposed to private schools. Likewise, there are also many good teachers working under very difficult conditions. In an all-private school system, the bottom rung schools would receive the most undesirable former public school students and teachers that the other private schools would refuse to accept. The concentration of difficult and unwanted students and teachers certainly would make for an educational experience much more unpleasant than that provided by current inner-city public schools.

But all that is missing the larger point that we should be striving to provide a better education for every single student in this country, not only for those who are born into fortunate circumstances.

One sub-thread here has been the contribution of bad parental attitudes to problems with the schools. I think one major cause of these attitudes has been a feeling, on the part of many parents, that the world is such a viciously competitive place that their kids will have no chance unless they accumulate a whole raft of visible "trophies"--grade point averages, club presidencies, validictorian nominations, etc. Thus, they viciously attack when a teacher gives their kid a justified 'C' instead of an 'A'. What such parents fail to understand is that internal and invisible developments--determination, hard work, responsibility, love of a field--matter more in the end than all the 'tropies' in the world--and that by their misdirected interventions they are inhibiting such development.

I've written on this phenomenon at:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_photoncourier_archive.html#106294796553762831

I remember Bill Maher ranting about the new practice of giving EVERYONE in Little League trophies, as opposed to giving them to the best players.

Maher said, "They're given a trophy for just showing up. how's that for lowering standards for them?"

Great conversation here, by the way.

"Thus, they viciously attack when a teacher gives their kid a justified 'C' instead of an 'A'."

Does anyone remember those Doonesbury strips where some professor ended up getting fired because he gave a student a B?

I feel differently on this issue for grade-schoolers than I do for junior high and high-school kids. I'm not in favor of doing letter grades for grade school kids because I think labeling and development of a negative self-image can do too much harm at that early level. There's plenty of time for open competition later on.

After grade school, though, I think academic competition is a good thing. I'm not in favor of a rigid bell curve, wherein a class containing four immaculate students can only award a pre-set number of three A's. But I am strongly opposed to watering academic standards down to the point where there virtually are no standards at all. That's madness, and continued over a significant period of time it will lead to the downfall of a civilization.