The decline in standards, and hence expectations of the quality of education from many public schools (those sequestered in wealthy enclaves notwithstanding). As I understand, for myriad reasons, there is no failing kids anymore. There isn’t even much punishment, as far as I can tell, such as detention, suspension, and expulsion. Everyone passes, and grades have little correlation with performance.
>An analysis by The Economist suggests that schools are lowering academic standards in order to enable more pupils to graduate. And the trend is hurting low-performing pupils the most.
Every kid is legally mandated to have access to a potentially expensive Individual Education Plan, but no extra money is given to the schools to provide this, so where do the funds come from?
> those not sequestered in wealthy enclaves notwithstanding
This seems to speak against the existence of a cap.
> As I understand, for myriad reasons, there is no failing kids anymore.
It's not clear to me whether this is true or whether it relates to high school graduation rates. Unfortunately, The Economist article has no analysis of why students don't graduate, whether they are forced out or simply drop out voluntarily, for whatever reason. The article says, "might not have made the grade," which is weasel wording.
I would put any data from 2020-2022 in its own special category due to the pandemic. The most severe drop in SAT scores was indeed during that period.
There's some irony here, though, because The Economist says, "The trend towards weakening standards can be blamed in part on No Child Left Behind, an education-reform law passed in 2002," but that was the policy of Republican George W. Bush (who actually introduced the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expecations").
> grades have little correlation with performance
Citation needed.
This claim is different from the claim of grade inflation.
> Every kid is legally mandated to have access to a potentially expensive Individual Education Plan
Every disabled kid
> no extra money is given to the schools to provide this
That's obviously a problem, but it would seem the obvious solution to unfunded mandates is to, you know, fund the mandates.
>This seems to speak against the existence of a cap.
The "cap" is not a national policy, it's incentivized by the anticipated performance of the student body, which varies greatly based on the home life of the students.
>grades have little correlation with performance
>Citation needed.
>This claim is different from the claim of grade inflation.
I do not understand how this is different from grade inflation. From my searches, and my experience having graduated in the early 2000s, keeping kids moving along and graduating is the goal, as opposed to evaluating their aptitude. Extra credit, dropped grades, make up work, etc.
>That's obviously a problem, but it would seem the obvious solution to unfunded mandates is to, you know, fund the mandates.
We all know this isn't going to happen. I would even go so far as to say that was the goal when passing laws such as IDEA 2004 and not providing funding. It's not irony below, it is doublespeak when they knew what the outcome of requiring something without providing the requisite funding would do.
>There's some irony here, though, because The Economist says, "The trend towards weakening standards can be blamed in part on No Child Left Behind, an education-reform law passed in 2002," but that was the policy of Republican George W. Bush (who actually introduced the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expecations").
> I do not understand how this is different from grade inflation.
Grade inflation would mean, for example, that work fomerly earning a B would now earn an A, and likewise C -> B, D -> C, F -> D.
Whereas little correlation with performance would mean, for example, that work formerly earning an A might earn a D (if we're ruling out F's), work formerly earning a D might earn an A, etc. In other words, essentially random grading.
If everyone got A's, that would be both grade inflation and little correlation with performance.
> I would even go so far as to say that was the goal when passing laws such as IDEA 2004 and not providing funding.
Perhaps so. But your original comment implied that politicians were doing what voters wanted, whereas now you're suggesting that politicians simply lied, or used Orwellian doublespeak, to do what the politicians wanted, which is practically the opposite of what the voters wanted.
>Perhaps so. But your original comment implied that politicians were doing what voters wanted, whereas now you're suggesting that politicians simply lied, or used Orwellian doublespeak, to do what the politicians wanted, which is practically the opposite of what the voters wanted.
Voters often want things, but simultaneously don’t want to pay for them (i.e. increase taxes). See also federally subsidized student loans and federally subsidized mortgages.
https://archive.is/2025.05.30-210113/https://www.economist.c...
>An analysis by The Economist suggests that schools are lowering academic standards in order to enable more pupils to graduate. And the trend is hurting low-performing pupils the most.
See the last paragraph of PaulHoule’s comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45449204
Also, the federal politicians screwed public schools by mandating various very expensive services, but providing no funding. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEA_2004
Every kid is legally mandated to have access to a potentially expensive Individual Education Plan, but no extra money is given to the schools to provide this, so where do the funds come from?