Search Results: why has he changed

The reason given for this policy is that you don't want to take the kid out of the game in the first quarter by giving a zero and creating a 30-week discipline & attendance problem. The local Board of Ed policy is we teachers have to leave room for them to pass the class. The math generally works like this across most districts that I'm aware of:

WITH THE ACTUAL EARNED ZERO (NOT LIKELY - MY EXPERIENCE IS IT'S USUALLY IN THE '30S OR '40S BECAUSE OF CLASS WORK & ASSESSMENTS) The kid would need to get a MINIMUM 81 EACH quarter AND on the midterm & final just to pass with a 65%.

WITH THE UNEARNED 50%: Each quarter is worth 2/10 of your final grade and the midterm and final is worth 1/10 of your final grade so, if you crunch the numbers, it's 2 * 50 = 100 and then you need 8 * 68 = 552 for a total final grade of 65.2% which is a passing grade.

So here's the question: Do you give them the freebie grade of 50 and only ask them to achieve a 68% average for the rest of the year or so you demand better and measurable improvement and make them work for the MINIMUM 81 for the next 30 weeks?

BEFORE YOU ANSWER KNOW THIS:
1) I have never known a department chair person to say no to a teacher's discretion to change the grade to whatever the most "common good" is; that is to say if the kid doesn't get the minimum 81 to pass but has shown improvement up to say let's say in the low mid-70s or even high 60s, as long as that chairperson gets a heads up on WHAT you're doing it's absolute teacher discretion, the WHY is left to us (correctly I believe) to determine after 40 weeks of being with that student.
2) EVEY ASSIGNMENT IS ONLINE for parents to view 24/7

So what's it going to be? Mediocrity or merit? Freebies or no free lunches? What's the "common good" for the student, the teacher, the school, the parents, the college, future employers and the community and nation at large?

Women are told they need a career and we encourage them to be more selfish and self interested and ‘independent.’

We currently don’t have enough children being born. Who’s gonna look after us as we get old? Who’s gonna be the next doctors/politicians? Really bad for the economy.

Being equally the same as women is boring as I don’t get attracted to someone who is as ambitious as me or like me….. it’s a personality clash.

Why do we need to be the same when we are not the same? Our life goals have always been different and you can’t change that otherwise you die out.

India, Russia and China (more patriarchal societies) seem to get it right. They will outcompete the whole west.

Look at Japan 👀

*$30,900 = 27,610 Euros

11.6% of people in the U. S. lived BELOW the currently defined OFFICIAL poverty level

The official poverty line as currently defined is "three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963" – meaning it's measured by how much families spent on food FIVE decades ago. The poverty line DOES NOT account for different regions costs of living.

The poverty line is used as a fundamental tool for people in poverty to receive almost ALL FEDERAL benefits such as housing, food stamps, tuition supplements, school lunches, public transportation subsidy, Medicaid, utility assistance & subsidized child care.

Congress hasn't raised the poverty line because they don't want to be responsible for statistically, but accurately, broadening the definition of poverty and increasing the number of Americans below the line by providing accurate data

Congress also hasn't updated the poverty line to reflect widely varying housing costs in different localities.

In 1963, the median household income covered about 34% of the typical home price. By 2022, this percentage had decreased to just 17%, indicating that home prices have grown more than twice as fast as wages over this period.

Congress has not changed the poverty level baseline because that could be viewed as UNFAIR to people living in a few regions with the lowest housing costs, mainly the rural South & Midwest.

For more info:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/12/09/why-federal-poverty-line-not-effective/10827076002/