Baltimore student passes three classes in four years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA

Baltimore student passes three classes in four years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA. By Chris Papst.

Tiffany France thought her son would receive his diploma this coming June. But after four years of high school, France just learned, her 17-year-old must start over. He’s been moved back to ninth grade. …

France’s son attends Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts in west Baltimore. His transcripts show he’s passed just three classes in four years, earning 2.5 credits, placing him in ninth grade. But France says she didn’t know that until February. She has three children and works three jobs. She thought her oldest son was doing well because even though he failed most of his classes, he was being promoted. …

In his first three years at Augusta Fells, he failed 22 classes and was late or absent 272 days. But in those three years, only one teacher requested a parent conference, which France says never happened. No one from the school told France her son was failing and not going to class.

In his four years at Augusta Fells, France’s son earned a GPA of 0.13. He only passed three classes, but his transcripts show his class rank is 62 out of 120. This means, nearly half his classmates, 58 of them, have a 0.13 grade point average or lower.

John Hinderaker:

Anyone who thinks we can have a successful, competitive society when our public schools are this bad is deluded.

As for poor Mr. France, what future awaits him? On those rare occasions when he showed up for class and listened to his teachers, he most likely was told that America is a systemically racist society, which means that he has no chance. So why do homework? The Left’s “equity” campaign is perhaps the only thing that could possibly make an incompetent public school system even worse.

No-one has been game enough to mention the elephant in the room ever since The Bell Curve was demonized in the mid 1990s. Douglas Murray:

The Bell Curve, a 1994 book by Murray and Herrnstein, remains one of the most controversial pieces of analysis in the modern era. Though its critics tend not to have read the work, they insist that it not only argues for but positively rejoices in the idea that intelligence is largely determined by a person’s race. It is a misunderstanding that has rumbled on for over a quarter of a century, and every discussion of the book usually ends in acrimony.

Revolver: (Warning: The following applies to group statistics, only weakly to individuals.)

The book directly confronts one of the most politically-loaded topics in science: Human intelligence.

Its main theses were straightforward: Varying social phenomena attributed to poverty, bigotry, or inequality can be better explained as the natural byproduct of differences in intelligence.

Humans aren’t all the same, and people with higher intelligence are engaged in a whole host of beneficial behaviors that, over time, get them ahead in life. They stay out of prison. They stay employed, and in higher-paying, more cognitively-demanding jobs. They save their money, have more successful marriages, and engage in less self-destructive behavior.

The other half of the book is a warning about the direction of American society. Murray and Herrnstein warned that a “cognitive elite” was emerging in America. The economic rewards for cognitive ability were only increasing over time, and the American school system had become increasingly effective at identifying the cognitively gifted and directing them towards elite colleges. These cognitively gifted people were in turn marrying one another, and raising cognitively gifted children who in turn would marry one another and repeat the cycle.

Over time, they warned, a dramatic rise in American inequality was inevitable, without the need for any overtly discriminatory laws. …

That is, universal education inevitably leads to greater IQ stratification and inequality. It’s already happening.

The past two and a half decades have done nothing but prove the thesis of The Bell Curve over and over again. But instead of being praised for its foresight, the book has been condemned over and over. Most of the outrage over the book, predictably, is that it is racist. In reality, the book is just thorough and academically honest.

A few chapters of the book discuss the incontrovertible fact that different demographic groups score differently on measures of intelligence, and present the evidence that these differences may be genetic rather than merely the product of social forces. The science is robust, but whether Murray and Herrnstein are right is also besides the point. …

Critics can bash The Bell Curve all they want. They can protest Murray’s speeches, or assault the people who attend them. They can try to drive him from polite society entirely. But it won’t change one crucial thing: Murray and his late co-author were right.

Bear that in mind next time you hear the left try to tell you they are the party of science.