The text of S537 reads:
“TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 59‑29‑250 SO AS TO PROHIBIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM REQUIRING TEACHERS TO ASSIGN A MINIMUM GRADE OR SCORE THAT EXCEEDS THE STUDENT’S ACTUAL PERFORMANCE.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 29, Title 59 of the S.C. Code is amended by adding: No school district or school may adopt any type of grading system that requires a teacher to assign a minimum grade or score that exceeds the student’s actual performance. If a school district is found to be in violation of this section, then the State Department of Education shall withhold ten percent of the school district’s State Aid to Classroom funding. Nothing in this section shall preclude opportunities for revision of student work or the use of credit recovery courses that align with the requirements of the State’s Uniform Grading Policy.”
Section 1 is designed to be ADDED to Title 59 Chapter 29, by adding Section 250. Yes, another detail of State control.
This is a short bill with big ramifications. It illustrates one of the most ridiculous ideas found in statutory law, i.e. another law is the best and quickest way to solve a perceived problem. To think this kind of arbitrary quick fix can replace or change today’s amorphous grading strategies is naive at best. It will result in chaos, confusion, and subterfuge which will effectively nullify its impact—whatever impact it is meant to have. It will not result in real “performance” standards, given the progressive milieu in the education system. If actual “merit-based” grading, that might produce competent and educated students, is the goal of public education, this is not the way to get there.
Its ambiguity is blatant. For instance, what exactly is student “performance?” On what basis should that “performance” be assessed? Should it be assessed, as it often is, on adaptations based on a student’s “identification,” effort, compliance with rote tasks, or success with more intellectually challenging assignments, or his or her development of the proper social-emotional learning traits? Does “performance” have to be exactly the same for every child and be demonstrated at the same time?
Yes, the intent of S537 may be noble. Grades should mean something. However, the lock-step, “age appropriate” expectations in schools for “achievement” or “performance” (both meaningless concepts in today’s educational morass) show a bit of disregard for helping children reach their individual potential, as well as for how their limitations might impact their “performance.” It is absurd to do pass a law of this kind without allowing for the potential
disaster of cementing an inflexible and unattainable outcome for all students, even if “performance” is ever defined in a meaningful way.
Consider the expanse of S537. Look at that word “No.” In this context it really means “All” as in “All may not choose.” The State intends to tell every school district what the district can do, allowing for NO local control, deviation, or other considerations regarding how to assess whatever “performance” might be.
S537 includes a defined financial penalty for those who don’t comply. That will surely be helpful—really? To apply the consequences of disobedience fairly, this small bill may require rather extensive definition, oversight, and regulation to provide clear guidelines for breaking the new law. The potential for confusion, wasted time, personnel costs, and all the rest of government disruption will be applicable in this short and misguided attempt to correct a problem the legislators don’t understand and cannot hope to solve.
Public education has been going in the wrong direction for a long time. Its goal is make almost all children the same—and ready to join the workforce of the future. Instead maybe education should consider the realities of individual human diversity and accept honest, sometimes very different, potential outcomes for each student. This bill does not address the dilemma of individuality or the tight limitations and control of utter submission to a universal, narrow standard intended to produce little robots.
Best option here? Legislators, just vote “No!”
Final note: S537 gives us another look at the extent and in what detail the government, not taxpayers, parents, or those most impacted by public education, runs public schools. The State does not just pay for schools and leave their operation to parents or communities with their own standards, expectations, children, or other considerations. The State runs schools so that they fulfill the interests of the STATE.
The best outcome: This bill will be passed over and lost in the “legislative process.” Small Picture Takeaway:
S537 is not really meant to improve anything in South Carolina schools. It is a token attempt, poorly disguised, to pretend to address the obvious poor results of public education and further hide the steady dumbing-down and increasing mental and emotional control of the masses.
Big Picture Takeaway:
In case anyone still believes “public” schools are just FUNDED by the STATE (i.e. with our taxes); they are RUN by the STATE.
I.E. We have government schools—NOT schools run by or for the PUBLIC.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments