Search Results: she gave me her number

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?

Hillary Clinton called for the repeal of Section 230 of the (way out of date IMHO - 1996!!) TeleCommunications Act, which protects online platforms from being held liable for users content on social media.

"We should be, in my view, repealing Section 230, which gave early platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just "pass-throughs" and that they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted," Clinton said "But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control," she continued. "And it's not just the social and psychological affects, it's real life."

Clinton said the social media companies should have their immunity stripped so "guardrails" could be self-imposed WITHOUT regulations as the potential of being sued for third party user content would guarantee this self-serving outcome.

Many free speech advocates are torn by the issues raised. Some have said "This has nothing to do with censorship of either conservative or liberal views. These social media companies are publicly traded, private corporations accountable to their shareholders above all other considerations - that's capitalism. If, as private corporations they choose not to host material they believe to be inflammatory, false or misleading content that unfortunately would create another scenario whereby the private corporations are now the gatekeepers for an increasing number of Americans source of news." Others have stated "However, the imposition of rudimentary "guard rails" would be prudent and the issue of gatekeeping would have to be addressed as a known consequence of putting those guardrails in place.".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-says-social-media-companies-need-moderate-content-we-lose-total-control.amp