San Francisco Public Schools Convert F's to C's, B's to A's in Equity Push
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
San Francisco's public high schools will implement a sweeping change to their grading system this fall, replacing traditional methods with a policy that allows students to pass with scores as low as 41 percent.
The initiative, part of a broader "Grading for Equity" push, is stirring concern among educators, students and parents over academic standards and college readiness.
The Context
Similar policies across other Bay Area districts—such as Dublin, Oakland and Pleasanton—have seen mixed results and strong community reactions. Dublin Unified attempted a pilot of equity grading in 2023, which included removing zeros for missed assignments and awarding a minimum of 50 percent for any "reasonably attempted" work.
That pilot, however, was met with outrage and resistance. Parents created petitions, formed WhatsApp groups and filled school board meetings to protest what they saw as a lowering of standards for their children. The Dublin school board eventually suspended the initiative, though individual teachers were still allowed to use the methods at their discretion.
The experiment in San Francisco comes amid — or despite — a broader rethinking of DEI initiatives after the election of Donald Trump, who ran on a platform of excising what he and many others said were "unfair" equity practices in the government and private sectors.
What To Know
Superintendent Maria Su's plan in San Francisco was not subject to a public vote by the Board of Education, drawing criticism for lack of transparency. The new policy, set to affect more than 10,000 students across 14 high schools, significantly changes how academic performance is measured.
Homework and classroom participation will no longer influence a student's final grade. Students will be assessed primarily on a final exam, which they can retake multiple times. Attendance and punctuality will not affect academic standing.
The Mission High School and its distinctive tower in the Mission District.
The Mission High School and its distinctive tower in the Mission District.
Getty Images
The plan was first revealed in the fine print of a 25-page agenda and reported by The Voice of San Francisco, a local nonprofit. The outlet reported that the district is hiring Joe Feldman, an educational consultant known for his book Grading for Equity, to train teachers this summer.
"If our grading practices don't change, the achievement and opportunity gaps will remain for our most vulnerable students. If we are truly dedicated to equity, we have to stop avoiding the sensitive issue of grading and embrace it," Feldman said in a 2019 blog post for the School Superintendents Association (AASA).
Feldman's book outlines how traditional grading can reinforce socioeconomic disparities and proposes alternative strategies for more equitable assessment. According to The Voice of San Francisco, the new system will be modeled in part on the San Leandro Unified School District, where students can earn an A with a score as low as 80 percent and pass with a D at just 21 percent. Under the forthcoming San Francisco policy, a score of 41 percent will qualify as a C.
Reactions Split
Supporters of the policy say it better reflects real student learning by de-emphasizing behavior-based penalties like late work or missed assignments. However, critics warn the policy could harm students who are already on track for college placement.
"Nowhere in college do you get 50 percent for doing nothing," said Laurie Sargent, an eighth-grade English teacher in the Dublin Unified School District, in a 2024 Mercury News report. "Nowhere in the working world do you get 50 percent for doing nothing. If I don't show up to work, they don't pay me 50 percent of my salary—even if I made a reasonable attempt to get there."
The change comes amid ongoing financial strain and declining enrollment across the district. While intended to address achievement gaps, critics argue the policy may only obscure the underlying academic challenges rather than solve them.
Such a drastic and dramatic change in the high school grading system merits greater attention and scrutiny than the school district has given it so far," wrote John Trasviña, former dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law, in an op-ed for The Voice of San Francisco.
Parents in San Francisco also have expressed frustration over being left out of the decision-making process. The school district's Office of Equity has not updated its public materials in nearly three years, and no broad outreach appears to have been conducted ahead of the rollout.
What People Are Saying
Katherine Hermens, a biology teacher at Dublin High School, told EdSurge in 2023: "It is time to emphasize learning over effort. Prioritizing learning is exactly what equitable grading does. It recognizes the individual journey of every student and acknowledges that we all learn differently—at our own pace and in various ways."
John Trasviña, former dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law, wrote in an op-ed: "Grading for Equity de-emphasizes the importance of timely performance, assignment completion, and consistent attendance."
What Happens Next
School board members in San Francisco were reportedly not given a formal vote on this policy, triggering internal governance disputes. If there is enough public pressure, the Board of Education may seek to review or override the superintendent's decision, though there is no suggestion as of yet that such a move is imminent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Budget Drops Protections For State Medical Cannabis Programs
The White House budget request for 2026 omits language that has protected state-regulated medical ... More cannabis operators from federal prosecution for more than decade. The Trump administration's budget request for the 2026 fiscal year drops provisions that have protected state medical cannabis programs for more than a decade, online cannabis news outlet Marijuana Moment reported on Monday. The budget provision has blocked federal law enforcement agencies from spending resources to investigate or prosecute businesses operating in compliance with state-authorized medical cannabis programs, despite the continued prohibition of marijuana under federal law. 'This provision, which has been in place since 2014, protects patients, caregivers, and medical cannabis providers in the 39 states that have legalized medical access from federal interference or criminal prosecution,' the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) wrote in a statement. 'Prior to the passage of this protection, federal prosecutors routinely took actions against patients and dispensaries in legal states.' The budget restriction was first adopted by Congress in 2014 and has been included in the federal budget every year since. But the Trump administration's budget request for the 2026 fiscal year released last week does not include the language. Similarly, the budget requests for each of the four years of President Donald Trump's first term omitted the protections for state-regulated medical cannabis operators. The administration of President Barack Obama also left the language prohibiting federal interference with regulated medical marijuana businesses out its budget requests following the initial adoption of the provisions. By contrast, the administration budget requests for all fours years of Joseph Biden's presidency included the protections for state-legal medical marijuana businesses. While the budget request illustrates the Trump administration's spending policies and priorities, Congress has the constitutional responsibility and authority for appropriations legislation. The congressional budget has included the language every year since 2014, despite attempts by both Democratic and Republican administrations to drop the provision. 'Today, more than half the country, including 36 states and Washington, D.C., have embraced medical marijuana, and for the past 10 years, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment has prevented the Department of Justice from using federal funds to stop states from implementing their medical marijuana programs,' Laura A. Bianchi, co-founding partner of the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Bianchi and Brandt, writes in an email. 'Rolling back these protections would mark a significant setback for marijuana reform. Ultimately, Congress will have the final say, and the industry remains hopeful that they will uphold these vital safeguards.' When Trump signed previous appropriations bill including the protections for medical cannabis operators after requesting they be removed, his administration issued a statement that it 'will treat this provision consistent with the President's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.' The statement, which was issued on three separate occasions, was widely interpreted to suggest that the Trump administration might ignore the budget restriction. The omission of the protections for state-legal medical cannabis programs in the Trump administration's 2026 budget request is likely to disappoint supporters of cannabis policy reform who were encouraged by the president's apparent support for decriminalizing marijuana during the 2024 election campaign. In September, Trump suggested he supported reclassifying marijuana under federal drug laws and that he would back state efforts to legalize recreational cannabis. 'As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to a report from Marijuana Moment.
Time Magazine
11 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Doubling Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Will Hit U.S. Businesses and Consumers
Canned foods, cars, houses, and a range of other goods could soon get more expensive as businesses face a newly doubled tariff rate of 50% for steel and aluminum imports. President Donald Trump described the increase, which raised the levies from the 25% rate announced in February beginning on Wednesday, as an effort to 'further secure the steel industry in the United States' during a Friday rally at a steel mill in Pittsburgh, Penn.—once the heart of the domestic steel industry. But while American steel industry groups have hailed the tariff hike, economic experts have sounded alarms, saying it could further disrupt the already-volatile global supply chain and put more strain on businesses—and Americans' wallets. 'Consumers will have to pay the price,' says Virginia Tech economics professor David Beiri. 'The continued uncertainty that is created by the government is poisoning business plans.' How will steel and aluminum tariff hikes impact businesses? The United States is highly reliant on steel imports, bringing in more of the material from abroad than any other country in the world, according to the International Trade Administration. More than 26 million metric tons of steel were imported last year, most of which came from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and China. 'We are equally dependent on aluminum,' says Jonathan Colehower, managing director at consulting company UST. The domestic steel industry has voiced support for the increased tariffs, saying they will help it weather increased competition from foreign steel manufacturers. 'Chinese steel exports to the world have more than doubled since 2020, surging to 118 million MT in 2024—more than total North American steel production,' the American Iron and Steel Institute, one of several trade associations representing the American steel industry, said in a statement after Trump announced the higher rate. 'This tariff action will help prevent new surges in imports that would injure American steel producers and their workers.' But experts worry about the industry's ability to meet increased demand as businesses, facing the additional import costs, seek cheaper alternatives for their products. While the U.S. once dominated the steel industry, the boom has died down in the last century. 'With domestic capacity not necessarily being able to produce what we might need…there is going to be a transitory effect,' says Beiri, referring to the adjustment period the steel industry will have to navigate as the supply chain changes. Colehower says the domestic steel supply may tighten as a result of the increased tariffs, which could cause domestic prices to rise amid high demand. 'There's absolutely no way it's going to be able to make up the difference immediately,' he says of the domestic steel industry. The Aluminum Association, a trade group that represents both U.S.-based and foreign companies, said it supports tariff-free Canadian aluminum, pointing to the American aluminum industry's reliance on the country's northern neighbor. 'Aluminum is a critical material for our economy and national defense – used in everything from cars to beverage cans to fighter jets. Today, the United States is investing significantly and will need both smelted and recycled aluminum to meet growing demand,' the association said. 'In the years if not decades it will take to build new U.S. smelter capacity, our metal needs must be met by importing.' How will the higher tariffs impact the prices of goods? Steel and aluminum are used in various products, from beer cans and office supplies to automobiles—the prices for all of which are likely to rise as a result of the doubled import taxes. The Can Manufacturers Institute, the trade association of the metal can manufacturing industry, opposed the tariff increase in a statement after Trump announced the coming change in the rate, saying it would 'further increase the cost of canned goods at the grocery store.' The can manufacturing industry imports nearly 80% of its tin-mill steel from foreign countries. 'Doubling steel tariffs will inflate domestic canned food prices, and it plays into the hands of China and other foreign canned food producers, which are more than happy to undercut American farmers and food producers,' the trade association said. Beer companies and other beverage businesses are also set to be impacted. The real estate and construction industries, both of which use steel to build homes, warehouses, and other structures will be footing a bigger bill, as well, Colehower says. He predicts businesses such as Lowe's and Home Depot, the latter of which vowed before the tariff hike that it would not be increasing the cost of its goods, will be severely affected. Farm equipment and transportation vehicles, including cars, bicycles, and others, will also likely cost more as a result of the new tariff rate, Colehower says. Some companies could seek to adjust their business models in the face of increased costs. Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, for instance, said in February that the company would consider making more beverages in plastic bottles to offset aluminum price hikes under the tariffs announced that month. Negotiations over the tariffs are ongoing between the U.S. and its trading partners, several of which have expressed ire at the increased import taxes. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, called the steel tariffs a 'direct attack on Canadian workers.' A European Commission official on Friday said the decision 'adds further uncertainty to the global economy and increases costs for consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' The U.K. has been spared from the tariff hike; Mexico announced Wednesday that it plans to ask for a similar exemption. Canada, Mexico, and the European Union were previously exempt from steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed during his first term in 2016, but are subject to the current levies.
Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Tracking Trump: The budget bill's projected cost; steel tariffs double; CDC coronavirus adviser quits; and more
A report found that the GOP budget bill will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit. Russia-Ukraine peace is not happening soon, according to President Donald Trump. Tariffs on steel and aluminum doubled to 50 percent. Trump complained he can't make a trade deal with China. The Trump administration ended an emergency abortion requirement.
