If I were too lazy and decided that I did not want to write this article, I would still get 50% according to North Penn’s new grading policy.

North Penn School District has decided to adopt a policy in which all assignments, homework, and even quizzes (with the exception of tests) have a floor of a 50% grade to save some students from drowning in “catastrophic zeroes.”

This policy is set to relieve students of the unnecessary stress of seeing zeroes in the gradebook and to better assist students in getting out of that hole of bad grades. While this policy has good intentions, it has raised some controversy around the high school climate, and more specifically, teachers are growing more concerned for their students. 

A key point that both teachers and administrators have agreed on is the fact that this policy will see reevaluations come June, regardless of the outcome. This policy must be played out for a certain length of time before any substantial changes can be made.

“We will collect data throughout the school year, and staff members on the school improvement team will assess it. Come June if the data shows that this is not working, we will take the time out of summer to make necessary changes. We need to keep the policy the whole year, in the interest of equity. We are not saying this is 100% the greatest policy, we are aware we will need to make tweaks. If students are not improving, that is something we have to look at,” North Penn High School Principal Mr. Kyle Hassler said. 

Around North Penn High School, there are a variety of opinions on this new policy. However, there are even more questions that come to rise.

“Is it a net gain or negative? Is it a motivator? I worry about the fairness of a student who doesn’t care [about their academics] vs. a student who tries,” AP History teacher Mr. Eric Lorandeau said. 

Another concerning question mentioned by Lorandeau is, “Will this policy positively affect poor-performing students whilst not demotivating other students?”

The recent “no zero” guidelines that have been set forth are in the best interest of students, however, there may still be foreseeable negative consequences behind this policy. Important values such as self-accountability, personal autonomy, and time management may be genuinely at risk for those students who would abuse this policy.

“I like to think of the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. It is difficult to teach motivation, motivation is largely internal. I can provide resources for a student to be successful or try to inspire them with quotes from some of history’s greatest thinkers, but it ultimately comes down to the individual. And despite all of the external motivators, like the one this policy is trying to establish, at the end of the day, motivation is all on you. That’s true in school. It’s true in life,” Lorandeau explained.

Some people think that self-motivation is key, that no policy or set of rules should save a student’s grade, and that is up to that student, and that student only.

“There are already a bunch of programs put in place, people are here to help you but this 50% thing should be completely eradicated. It comes down to having initiative. The zero is scary but some need it. If you fail, you fail, we shouldn’t reward participation trophies to people who don’t participate,” Senior Pragya Sinha said.

While there might be special circumstances under which this policy would be advantageous, some argue that students who need such accommodations do indeed get adequate assistance as it is. Assistance in the form of extending deadlines for assignments and even opportunities such as SCL (Second Chance Learning).

“I don’t know a colleague who wouldn’t extend a deadline to a student whose situation really called for it,” Lorandeau said.

Another key argument against this policy is that there would be a student who cares about their grades, tries, and ends up getting the same grade on an assignment as a student who did no work at all. But Hassler raises a good point, “the penalty for the student who doesn’t do the work is their poor test grade. When it comes to the test, where there is no set floor, the kid who does the work will be prepared.” Despite getting a similar grade on an assignment, or quiz, the student who authentically prepares and cares for their grade will inevitably make up for their mishap come test day.

There are many unanswered questions with this policy, and the only way we will get an answer is by letting this play out. Teachers alike allude to interest in informational meetings between staff and administrators in which administration provides research data on how this policy can and will in fact have a positive effect.

No matter what happens, we should be ensured that many people have calculated the decision to change this policy, and those same people will make any tweak necessary when the time is right.

“We looked at a lot of different options, and different policies around surrounding districts and nationwide. If we need to make tweaks to this we will. I hope that students feel supported. It is moving the 65-point range to a 15-point range. The baseline of 50 is set to help students better mediate digging themselves out of any hole they might be in. I worked in an alternative school, I was a student at some point, an athlete, and I have seen and been in that hole before,” Hassler said.

Hassler in discussion of the new policy closed by saying this, “Our goal is that every student finds success, whatever that may be for them.”

With this new policy, there are two possibilities for the future of it.

1. A future where this does indeed positively affect poor-performing students while not letting other students become simply lazy. 
2. This policy does not have a positive influence on the student body and grows into another fallback option for unmotivated students.

This could be a breakthrough or a lesson, and only time can tell.