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
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Challenges JD Vance: 'How About Saying It to My Face?'
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. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday challenged Vice President JD Vance to a debate after the vice president visited Los Angeles and accused him of "egging on" violent disorder in the city. In a post on his X, formerly Twitter, account, the governor wrote: "...Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face?" Newsweek contacted Vance for comment on Saturday via email to the White House press office outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have expanded their operations in Los Angeles and across the country as President Donald Trump seeks to deliver on his campaign promise to carry out the largest deportation operation in United States history. ICE conducted raids in Los Angeles and faced large protests in the city that largely remained peaceful with some instances of violence that prompted Trump to order the deployment of 4,000 members of California's National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to assist in stopping violence, even as Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass insisted local law enforcement had the matter under control and a legal battle has pursued. The raids are following legal directive from federal authorities, but critics have raised concerns about the treatment of migrants by federal authorities as well as the tactics used by immigration agents during the raids. What To Know During his visit to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with troops, including Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings in the city, Vance said rioters had been "egged on" by Newsom and Bass, telling reporters: "The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small. If you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the national guard because it's unnecessary. He added: "But if you let violent rioters burn great American cities to the ground, then of course we're going to send in federal law enforcement to protect the people the president was elected to protect." Vance also referred to Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a press conference DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was holding in Los Angeles earlier this month, as "Jose Padilla." Noem has said Padilla did not identify himself when he arrived at the conference, but Padilla disputes the claim. Responding on X, Newsom wrote: "Hey @JDVance — nice of you to finally make it out to California. Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face? Let's debate. Time and place?" In a separate X post, the governor shared a clip of Vance calling Padilla "Jose Padilla," adding: "JD Vance served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate. Calling him 'Jose Padilla' is not an accident." California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on March 26 in Los Angeles. Vice President JD Vance addresses the press following a tour of the multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center at the Wilshire Federal Building on June... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks on March 26 in Los Angeles. Vice President JD Vance addresses the press following a tour of the multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center at the Wilshire Federal Building on June 20 in Los Angeles. More Frazer Harrison/WireImage/Scott Olson/GETTY What People Are Saying Referring to the Padilla incident, a Vance spokesperson previously told Newsweek that: "He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said: "Mr. Vice President, how dare you disrespect our senator. You don't know his name," Bass questioned. "But yet you served with him before you were vice president and you continue to serve with him today, because the last time I checked, the vice president of the United States is the president of the U.S. Senate." She added: "You serve with him today and how dare you disrespect him and call him 'Jose.' But I guess he just looked like anybody to you. Well, he's not just anybody to us. He is our senator." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social last week: "I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!" What Happens Next? Vance has yet to respond to Newsom's offer of a debate and it remains to be seen if he will do so. In December 2023, Newsom debated against Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis after the two went back-and-forth on their policies. Meanwhile, a U.S. appeals court on Thursday unanimously blocked a lower court ruling that put Newsom back in control of National Guard troops that Trump deployed to Los Angeles. The appeals court ruled that the president can keep control of the guardsmen while legal proceedings in the case continue.
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump Asks White House Workers If They're Undocumented
This week, Donald Trump held a press conference on the White House South Lawn to show off his new gigantic American flag pole. While surrounded by a group of White House service workers, a reporter questioned Trump about his policies surrounding ICE raids at worksites, and that's when things got extremely awkward. "DHS said this week that worksite enforcement would remain in place, that it's a cornerstone, so what's your message to farmers?" a reporter asked Trump. "We gotta get the bad people out of here first. We're doing that. We're taking them out by the thousands. Murderers, drug dealers, uh, people that are mentally insane from insane asylums," Trump replied. He then turned around to face the service workers and asked: "Any illegal immigrants here? No? I'll tell you what, if they were, they'll find out," he said, gesturing towards the press. "They'll be checking you, you won't believe. You're whole life will be destroyed because of this press conference. They'll destroy these people." Some of the workers laughed as Trump continued: "I didn't want to tell them that before they stood out. They'll end up being, he's so-and-so, and this one is from you know where. Don't worry, I think you're going to be ok," Trump said, chuckling. "How the F*CK is this funny???" this person asked. "What a disgusting question. If someone had said yes, would #donaldtrump go and get Holman?" another person wrote. This person called Trump, "Fucking shameful." "Trump says the lives of the construction workers with him would have had their lives destroyed if they were 'illegal.' He knows he's destroying lives, and jokes about it. He's deporting working people and destroying their families. This BS about 'insane' immigrants is disgusting," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out
CHARLEVOIX, CANADA - JUNE 9: In this photo provided by the German Government Press Office (BPA), ... More German Chancellor Angela Merkel deliberates with US president Donald Trump on the sidelines of the official agenda on the second day of the G7 summit on June 9, 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada. Also pictured are (L-R) Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, Theresa May, UK prime minister, Emmanuel Macron, French president, Angela Merkel, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, Japan prime minister, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs, John Bolton, US national security adviser, and Donald Trump. Canada are hosting the leaders of the UK, Italy, the US, France, Germany and Japan for the two day summit. (Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images) London Climate Action Week is set to start, showcasing what urgent, inclusive climate action looks like when cities, financiers, and citizens unite. But the energy and innovation on display in London are being overshadowed by growing inaction from global leaders. Just days after the G7 failed to deliver any meaningful policy progress, and as the EU backpedals on its green regulation agenda, a troubling gap is emerging between local ambition and failures of international leadership. This retreat is happening at the worst possible moment. Climate damage costs are skyrocketing, climate science is sounding red alerts, and economic evidence points to a clear win: green investment can grow economies, create jobs, and protect communities. The world's most powerful leaders are not just missing an opportunity, they are magnifying a crisis. To grasp its scale, we need to look at the growing economic cost of inaction. The Price Of Delay And The Need For Leadership Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that in the year to May 2025, the U.S. incurred close to $1 trillion (or around 3% of GDP) in direct climate-related costs from floods, wildfires, infrastructure damage, and insurance losses. Globally, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme weather are disrupting supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining financial stability. Insurers have seen annual catastrophe losses surge tenfold since the 1980s. Premiums have skyrocketed, and coverage has shrunk, especially in wildfire and storm prone regions, exacerbating economic disruption and housing unaffordability. At the same time, the European Union appears to be shelving the Green Claims Directive, retreating under political pressure precisely when markets are demanding clear, consistent regulation to guide sustainable investment. This uncertainty discourages capital and undermines momentum. These setbacks comes as the OECD's 2025 Green Growth report shows that climate action could unlock $7.4 trillion per year in investment and job creation if scaled by 2030. Yet rather than harnessing this opportunity, many leaders are hesitating. Nowhere is this hesitancy more evident than in the recent action, or inaction, of the G7, whose decisions ripple far beyond their border G7 Paralysis And The Global Ripple Effect The G7's latest Chair's Summary reaffirms familiar goals, like limiting warming to 1.5°C but offered no timelines, targets, or tools to achieve it. 'Once again, the G7 chose safe, business-as-usual declarations over the bold, future-proof action we urgently need,' said Daniela Fernandez, CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance. 'The G7's latest climate commitments reflect a deeper issue,' added Ibrahim AlHusseini, managing partner of climate investor FullCycle. 'Global leaders are increasingly distracted by immediate geopolitical crises, and climate, still perceived as a medium to long-term risk, has slipped down the agenda. But this is a dangerous miscalculation.' He added: 'Delay is not neutral, it's an accelerant of future instability,' with direct consequences for supply chains, migration, and global financial systems. And it's not just experts calling for change. According to the 2024 People's Climate Vote, 80% of people globally want their countries to strengthen climate commitments, and over two-thirds support a fast transition from fossil fuels. Other surveys echoes this: 89% of people across 125 countries support stronger government action, yet many mistakenly believe they are in the minority. This public mandate for bold climate action stands in sharp contrast to the political hesitancy now on display. As political will may be stalling, another sector is responding. What was once viewed as an environmental issue is now a pressing financial risk. Climate Risk Becomes Financial Risk Inaction is not just costly, it is destabilizing. The financial consequences are already unfolding across insurance markets and beyond. "We have already seen residential and commercial insurance premiums rise and availability drop in recent years, in response to growing insurer losses," warns Tom Sabetelli-Goodyer, vice-president of climate risk at FIS. They are early signs of a broader, systemic threat. As climate impacts intensify, they are cascading through the financial system, affecting asset valuations, credit risk, and the stability of entire markets. Regulators around the world have begun to integrate climate risk into their frameworks, but last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the global standard-setter for financial regulation, added its voice with a new framework for the voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. While non-binding, the guidance marks a significant step and reinforces a clear message: climate risk is no longer just environmental, it's financial. As Julia Symon, head of research and advocacy at Finance Watch put it: 'Without clear, consistent data, supervisors are flying blind, unaware of the real risks building up on balance sheets.' The Climate Clock Is Ticking Scientific indicators confirm the urgency and the danger of delay. The 2024 Indicators of Global Climate Change report shows that the average global temperature from 2015 to 2024 reached 1.24°C above pre-industrial levels, with human activity responsible for nearly all of it. In 2024 alone, global temperatures spiked to 1.52°C, temporarily crossing the critical 1.5°C threshold. More troubling still, human-induced warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate of 0.27°C per decade, the fastest rate ever recorded. At current emissions levels, the remaining carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C could be fully exhausted within just two to five years, depending on assumptions. Scientists also point to a growing Earth energy imbalance and early signs of amplifying climate feedback loops, such as ocean heat uptake and ice melt, which could further lock in extreme changes. The window for keeping global heating within safe limits is narrowing quickly. Yet even as time runs short, the economic case for prompt action continues to strengthen. Green growth offers a rare convergence of climate responsibility and financial return. Green Growth: A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity The OECD Green Growth report emphasizes that investing in clean energy and green infrastructure is not just responsible, its smart economics. Clean energy investment now outpaces fossil fuels, and 90% of global GDP is covered by net-zero targets. The report outlines how aligning financial systems with climate goals could unlock $7.4 trillion annually in investment by 2030. 'Green growth is an approach that seeks to harmonize economic growth with environmental sustainability and helps to deliver broader development benefits,' explains Jennifer Baumwoll, head of climate strategies and policy at UNDP. Far from hindering development, the green transition can generate resilient jobs, improve productivity, and enhance long-term competitiveness. In short, the report argues that climate action is not a cost but a catalyst for growth. Countries like Mongolia and Lao PDR are already demonstrating what this looks like in practice. In Mongolia, a green finance strategy, backed by the Central Bank and a new SDG-aligned taxonomy, has mobilized $120 million in climate-aligned investment, including the country's first green bond. Green lending is targeted to grow from 2% to 10% of all bank lending by 2030. Meanwhile, Lao PDR is advancing a national circular economy roadmap to reduce waste and resource use while unlocking economic opportunity. If fully implemented, it could create 1.6 million jobs and add $16 billion to GDP by 2050. These pragmatic, investment-ready models of climate action deliver real development gains. Their progress underscores a growing global divide: while emerging economies embrace opportunity, many developed nations are falling behind, precisely when their leadership is most needed. A Shrinking Window And Defining Test Of Leadership 2025 marks a critical juncture. Countries are expected to submit new national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) ahead of COP30 in Belém this November. Yet as of late June 2025, four months after the February deadline, only a small fraction had done so. Intended to reflect increased ambition following the Global Stocktake, most submissions remain overdue, and the ambition gap continues to widen. The UN expects a surge of last-minute filings, but tardiness isn't the only concern. Most existing plans fall short of aligning with the 1.5°C target, and the policy frameworks to deliver them at scale are still lacking. The challenge is not technical though but political. Instead of advancing, many major economies are retreating, weakening targets, delaying regulations, and rolling back commitments just as the case for bold action becomes stronger. Evidence shows that a well-managed transition can boost growth, reduce inequality, and build resilience. Yet that potential is being squandered. What's needed now is not just political courage, but real leadership, capable of driving structural reform and aligning finance with planetary boundaries. Decisive action today isn't only about avoiding catastrophe, it's about exercising leadership that can shape a more stable, equitable, and liveable world. The responsibility lies with those in power to act—not later, but now.
