Let me tell you something that keeps me up at night.
Every single year, I watch a kid walk into my classroom — a kid who “passed” the prerequisite with a 65, maybe a 68 — and I can tell within the first week that they have absolutely no foundation for what I am about to teach them. None. Zero. The class they just left supposedly prepared them for mine. It did not. But on paper? They passed. So here they sit, and I am supposed to build a skyscraper on a cracked slab of concrete and act like that is somebody else’s problem.
We have been doing this for decades. We call it education. It is not. It is a slow-motion disaster with a passing grade stamped on it.
Proverbs 10:17 says, “He who heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.” Our education system is not just ignoring the correction — it is CELEBRATING it. We hand a kid a D-minus and tell him to go learn algebra when he cannot add fractions. We put a student in chemistry who does not understand what a variable is. We push them through, year after year, and then act baffled when our workforce cannot read a work order, our college dropout rates are catastrophic, and employers are telling us that graduates cannot calculate a basic measurement.
We built the house on sand. Matthew 7:26-27. And we act shocked every time the storm hits.
THE LIE WE CALL A GRADE
Here is what nobody wants to say out loud: a letter grade, as we currently use it, is a MEANINGLESS data point.
What does a “C” in 5th grade math actually tell you? Does it mean the student mastered multiplication and fractions? Or does it mean they showed up, kind of tried, got partial credit on a few tests, and averaged out to something that let us move them along without a fight?
If you are honest? It is almost always the last one.
The grade does not tell you WHAT the student knows. It is an average. And averaging knowledge is one of the dumbest things we have ever done in the name of education. A student who aces the first three units and bombs the last two gets a “B” — and then walks into the next course that builds entirely on those last two units. And we are SURPRISED when they struggle.
You cannot average your way to competence. You either know it or you do not. There is no “kind of” knowing how to set a broken arm or calculate a drug dosage. Pretending otherwise does not help the patient.
WHAT THE ARMY FIGURED OUT THAT SCHOOLS REFUSE TO ACCEPT
I spent 23 years as an Army combat medic. I trained soldiers. And I can tell you, without hesitation, that the United States Army does NOT advance a soldier simply because they showed up long enough.
FM 7-0 — the Army’s foundational manual for Training the Force — does not use letter grades. It does not average test scores and call it readiness. It uses a three-tier proficiency rating tied to specific, observable, MEASURABLE tasks:
T — Trained. The soldier can execute the task to standard, without assistance, under realistic conditions. Not “mostly.” Not “on a good day.” TO STANDARD.
P — Needs Practice. Understands the task but cannot execute it consistently. This is NOT passing. This is a flag: MORE WORK IS REQUIRED.
U — Untrained. Cannot perform the task. No movement forward. Period.
These ratings are tied to the commander’s Mission Essential Task List — the METL (https://cascom.army.mil/asrp/collective.html). Every task has a standard. Every soldier is evaluated against it. A unit does not deploy until its critical tasks are rated T. Not “mostly T.” Not “averaged to T.” T.
Now imagine if we ran schools that way.
Instead of “5th grade math,” you have MATH LEVEL 5. A student does not move to Level 6 until they demonstrate mastery of Level 5 — not “averaged passing,” not “showed up enough days,” but real, demonstrated, task-by-task competency. That is not a radical idea. That is how every skilled profession works. You do not become a licensed electrician by averaging a passing score across coursework. You demonstrate competency, or you do not get the license. A plumber who “kind of” understands pipe pressure will flood your house. A soldier who “kind of” knows how to apply a tourniquet will watch his buddy bleed out.
In schools, we decided “kind of” is good enough. We have been paying for it ever since.
THE SAND FOUNDATION: WHY A D IS AN ACT OF CRUELTY
PUSHING A STUDENT WHO EARNED A D INTO THE NEXT MATH COURSE IS AN ACT OF CRUELTY. I am not being dramatic.
That student just told us, through an entire semester of work, that they understand roughly 60-65% of the material. In math — where every concept is the foundation for the next — that means they are missing 35 to 40 percent of what the next course will assume they have. And we stamp it “passed” and send them anyway.
Proverbs 19:2 — “Desire without knowledge is not good — how much more will hasty feet miss the way!”
We are in such a hurry to move kids along — to protect pass rates, avoid parent conversations, keep enrollment numbers clean — that we send students racing down a path with a third of their map missing. Then we blame the next teacher when they fail. And the teacher after that. And eventually we blame the student.
The student did not fail. We failed the student.
When a kid does not understand multiplication, they CANNOT understand fractions. Without fractions, no algebra. Without algebra, no chemistry, no physics, no engineering, no half the skilled trades. Every year we push them forward without mastery, we narrow their future. By the time they are sitting in my classroom, they are not just behind — they are carrying three or four years of accumulated gaps. No amount of tutoring in the current course fixes a foundation that was never built.
Proverbs 13:4 — “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.” Mastery requires staying at the task until it is done RIGHT. A blacksmith apprentice did not “pass” with a 65. They either knew their craft or they did not, and their master told them the truth about it.
THE “GIFT D”: HOW ADMINISTRATORS TRAINED TEACHERS TO LIE
Here is the part nobody in education leadership wants to see in print. That D grade — the one that moves unprepared students into courses they cannot handle — is not always a grading error. In many cases, it is not even the teacher’s honest assessment.
It is a GIFT. And the school district is the one who taught teachers to give it.
Here is how it works, because I have lived it and watched colleagues live it. A teacher has a student who is genuinely failing — not turning in work, not demonstrating understanding, not meeting standard on a single assessment. The teacher documented the missing assignments. They called home. They offered extra help. The honest grade at the end of the semester is an F.
So the teacher enters the F.
And then the REAL work begins — for the teacher.
The administrator calls them in. Or sends an email. Or schedules a “conversation.” And suddenly the teacher who did their job honestly is the one on trial. They are handed a checklist: Did you provide modified assignments? Do you have written evidence of parent contacts? Did you document every tutoring offer? Submit a student support referral? Complete a behavior intervention plan? Conference with the counselor? Differentiate instruction for this specific student’s learning profile?
And even when the teacher has done ALL of it — the documentation, the emails, the signed notes — it is somehow still not enough. There is always one more form. One more hoop. Because the real goal was never due process. The real goal was a different grade.
I need to stop here for a second, because I want to be very clear about something. I am not criticizing every administrator. I have worked with principals who backed their teachers, who understood that an honest grade was the most compassionate thing a professional could give a struggling student. Those people exist and they are worth their weight in gold. What I am describing is the SYSTEM — the one that puts even good administrators in a position where the path of least resistance runs directly through a dishonest transcript. The incentive structure is the problem. Most people, given those incentives, will eventually take the easier road. That is not a character flaw. That is just how systems work when nobody is watching the incentives.
What most teachers eventually learn is that giving that student a 60 — call it a D — makes all of this disappear. Nobody calls a meeting about a D. Nobody demands documentation for a D. The parent does not complain. The principal does not have to make a difficult phone call. The graduation rate holds. Everyone goes home happy.
So the teacher gives the gift.
Proverbs 29:4 — “By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.” The bribe here is not money. It is administrative peace. It is the quiet that follows when you write a 62 instead of a 55. Teachers are not weak for taking that deal — they are RATIONAL. They are responding exactly as any person responds when a system punishes honesty and rewards compliance. The problem is not the teacher. The problem is the system that built those incentives and then acts confused about the outcome.
Think about what we are asking. A teacher already working 60-plus hours a week, buying supplies out of their own pocket, managing 30 students with wildly different skill levels — we are asking that teacher to produce a legal-grade defense of every honest failing grade, knowing the defense will likely be found insufficient by someone who was never in that classroom. Meanwhile the teacher next door, who gives everyone a C or better and holds nobody accountable, gets nothing but positive feedback from the same administration.
Quinn’s Law delivers the verdict here: the policy designed to protect struggling students — the documentation requirement, the intervention checklist, the administrative review — PRODUCES THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ITS INTENDED EFFECT. It trains teachers to avoid honest failing grades entirely. Which means the students who most need intervention are the LEAST likely to be flagged as needing it.
You cannot fix a problem you are institutionally incentivized to hide.
That is precisely what the gift D does. The student sitting in my classroom with three years of accumulated math gaps has a transcript that says they were adequately prepared. They believe it. Their parents believe it. Only I know the truth — and by the time I find it, it is my problem to solve in one semester, with tools that cannot fill a foundation that was never laid.
FM 7-0 is blunt about what this means in a military context: a unit rated T when it is actually P or U is a LIABILITY. A commander who falsifies readiness ratings to avoid scrutiny is not protecting their unit — they are setting it up to fail when the mission actually matters.
In education, the consequences are just deferred. They show up as a college freshman who cannot write a paragraph. A trade apprentice who cannot read a technical manual. A person who was told for twelve years that they were fine — and finds out they were not at the worst possible moment, when they have the least support and the most to lose.
The gift D is not a kindness. It is a slow injury with a bow on it.
THE SEMESTER SOLUTION: SHORTER CYCLES, FASTER CORRECTIONS
Here is the most practical structural fix nobody talks about. It does not require reinventing the school — just treating the calendar as a TOOL instead of furniture.
MOVE EVERY COURSE TO A SINGLE-SEMESTER FORMAT.
“But math is a year-long subject.” No. Math is a SEQUENTIAL subject. That is a different thing entirely. The problem with year-long courses is what happens when a student realizes in November that they are lost. Under the current model they have two choices: struggle through until June and collect the D anyway, or fail the whole year. Either way, they lose nine months waiting for the calendar to give them a new start.
A semester-based system cuts that in half.
If a course runs one semester, a student who is not mastering the content reaches a decision point in 16 weeks — not 36. And under a mastery model, that decision point is not “pass or fail the year.” It is: have you demonstrated mastery before we move forward? If not, you re-take the semester. Sixteen weeks of targeted work with a teacher who has diagnostic data on exactly WHICH tasks rated P or U. Not a vague sense of “they struggled last year.” Specific. Actionable. Fast.
This also changes the retention conversation entirely. Parents lose their minds when a child is held back a year. A semester? That is much easier to frame honestly — because it IS more honest. It is a targeted intervention on specific skills, not a verdict on a child’s worth or future. Sixteen weeks to fix a 16-week problem is not punishment. It is the system actually working.
Proverbs 27:23 — “Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds.” You cannot know the condition of your students if you evaluate them comprehensively only once a year. Semester cycles give teachers, administrators, and parents the information they need WHEN THEY STILL HAVE TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLING: STOP LETTING SUMMER EAT THE FOUNDATION
THE NINE-MONTH SCHOOL CALENDAR WAS DESIGNED FOR AN AGRARIAN SOCIETY THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.
We are not farming communities that need children home for harvest. We are a knowledge economy watching our kids forget 20-30% of what they learned every summer — and then spending the first six to eight weeks of the next school year trying to claw it back. We have documented this for decades. We call it “summer slide.” And we keep doing nothing about it because changing the school calendar is politically inconvenient.
Here is what I am proposing: FOUR QUARTERS. THREE TO FOUR WEEKS OFF BETWEEN EACH.
Same instructional days, distributed across all four seasons. A genuine break at the end of each quarter — enough time to decompress, travel, work, or just be a kid. Not enough time to forget how to read.
FM 7-0 emphasizes sustaining proficiency — you cannot sustain what you do not practice. Periodic rest built into a continuous training cycle is not weakness; it is what makes sustained performance possible long-term. Three weeks of rest beats three months of erosion. A student returning from a quarterly break needs one week to warm up. A student returning from a three-month summer needs six weeks of review just to recover. That is five weeks of teaching time per year that goes into re-teaching what the calendar destroyed.
For my students — the ones who qualify for free lunch, whose summers do not include enrichment programs or structured reading time or parents who have the bandwidth to run informal summer school — the three-month gap is not a vacation. It is an academic setback that opens the door wider between them and their more affluent peers every single fall. Closing that gap is not charity. It is correcting a structural inequity we have been tolerating since the 1800s.
Proverbs 6:6-8 — “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.” The point is CONTINUITY. The ant does not work nine months and disappear. It maintains purposeful activity with the long game in mind. Our school system should do the same.
Combine a year-round calendar with semester-based mastery courses and you have FOUR natural assessment points per year instead of one. A student who is not mastering Level 4 math in Q1 is flagged at the end of Q1, gets targeted intervention in Q2, and either advances to Level 5 or takes a Q3 re-attempt — all within the same calendar year. The gap between identifying a problem and correcting it shrinks from potentially two years to potentially one quarter. That is not a small thing. That is a student’s future.
THE SAT PROBLEM: WHEN THE STANDARD LOWERS ITSELF TO MEET THE STUDENT
Everything above — the mastery levels, the semester cycles, the year-round calendar — is designed to make credentials mean something. And then there is the College Board, doing the exact opposite.
In 2024, the SAT was dramatically restructured. On the surface it was framed as modernization. Shorter. Computer-based. More time per question. Sounds reasonable until you look at what they actually changed.
They cut reading passages from 500-750 words down to 25-150 words — the length of a social-media post — one question per passage. Their justification was that shorter passages let the adaptive format “operate more efficiently.” They also eliminated passages from the U.S. founding documents and the “Great Global Conversation” entirely because of their “extended length.” The College Board’s official position is that founding documents are “not an essential prerequisite for college.”
Let that land.
The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution. The Federalist Papers. Not prerequisites for college-level reading. These same documents are the foundation of the republic those students are going to live in, vote in, and — if we do our jobs — actually understand.
Michael Torres, policy director for the Classic Learning Test, put it plainly: given the literacy challenges professors are already seeing, the ability to analyze texts of extended length on complex subject matter SHOULD be a prerequisite for college. Instead, the College Board is catering to social-media-induced attention deficits and calling it progress.
The math section followed suit. Students now have 1.6 minutes per question versus 1.3 on the previous version. Calculators are permitted for the entire section. Researchers at the University of Cincinnati trained an AI to do SAT math going back to 2008 and found the test has been getting easier by roughly four points per year. And the essay? Eliminated entirely.
Here is the most damning data point: the new SAT Reading and Writing section correlates with the pre-2024 version at only 0.85 to 0.86. The ACT and the Classic Learning Test correlate with the OLD SAT at 0.884 and 0.9, respectively. Competing tests are MORE consistent with what the SAT used to measure than the CURRENT SAT is. The College Board changed its own test so dramatically that its own internal data says it is measuring something different now.
Their senior vice president for college readiness was refreshingly candid about the reasoning: “If students are deciding to take a test, how do we make the SAT the one they want to take?”
There it is. The question is not “how do we build the most accurate measure of readiness?” It is “how do we make our product the most attractive option to teenagers?” Those are not the same question. They are not in the same building.
This is what a near-monopoly looks like when it gets scared. The College Board spent decades lobbying state legislatures to tie scholarships, graduation requirements, and federal testing mandates to their exam. Then test-optional admissions policies spread, and rather than compete on rigor, they competed on comfort. Lower the difficulty. Shorten the test. Let them use the calculator. Eliminate the hard passages.
A college counselor quoted in ChalkBeat summed it up: “The College Board gets to do what they want, and we have to trust fall into it.”
That is not a testing system. That is a captured market lowering its standards to protect market share.
Texas is the cautionary tale. Lawmakers tied automatic college admission to an SAT score of 1500 out of 2400. The SAT eliminated that scoring scale in 2015 — ten years after introducing it in 2005. Texas students have been competing for automatic admission under a scale that has not existed for a decade. Lawmakers wrote a law anchored to a standard, and the company they trusted moved the standard. Twice.
Proverbs 11:1 — “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight.” We built an entire admissions infrastructure on a scale that keeps recalibrating itself and calling it improvement.
The Classic Learning Test tests students on original texts from Plato, Frederick Douglass, Euclid, and Einstein. More questions in geometry and trigonometry. No calculators. Their philosophy is the direct inverse of the College Board’s: standardized testing exists to hold students to a high standard — not to hold standards down to what pleases students.
That is the right framing. That is what we need more of.
WHAT COLLEGES LOOK AT INSTEAD OF A GPA THAT MEANS NOTHING
Right about now someone in college admissions is asking the obvious question. Fine — you scrap the GPA, you replace grade levels with mastery levels, you eliminate the D. What do colleges use instead?
They use THE LEVEL.
Think about what a mastery-level transcript tells an admissions officer compared to what a GPA tells them right now. A GPA tells you a student averaged a number across courses that vary wildly in rigor, grading standards, and honesty depending on the district, the school, and the teacher. A 3.4 from one school means something entirely different than a 3.4 from another, and everyone in higher education knows it and pretends otherwise.
A mastery-level transcript tells you something REAL.
Two applicants, side by side. The first: Math Level 12, Writing Level 8. The second: Math Level 20, Writing Level 14. No decoder ring required. Math Level 20 means that student worked through twenty semesters of sequential mathematics and demonstrated mastery at each step. Every level represents one semester of content — with a defined, transparent task list — passed TO STANDARD. Not averaged. Not gifted. Earned.
Add the other subject areas and the picture becomes precise. Biology Level 5, Chemistry Level 4, Physics Level 3 — an admissions committee can see exactly where a student is in the science sequence. Writing Level 10 with Biology Level 5 suggests a candidate for writing-intensive biology programs. Math Level 18 with Chemistry Level 7 is your engineering applicant. No guessing. No phone calls to the high school counselor asking what the grading culture was like there. The level IS the credential.
And here is what makes the whole system hold together: a student does not advance to the next level until they hit the mastery threshold — a defined percentage of tasks rated T with ZERO tasks rated U. No U’s. Not one. Because a U means a load-bearing skill is missing, and advancing that student anyway is the same mistake we have been making with the gift D for thirty years. If you cannot do it at all, you are not ready for what comes next. That is not cruel. That is honest.
What does no U’s mean in practice? It means every student who earns Level 6 math genuinely has the foundation for Level 7. Every student at Chemistry Level 5 actually knows what they need for Level 6. The transcript is not an estimate. It is a RECORD of verified competency — task by task, semester by semester — the same way a military readiness report certifies a unit can perform a task to standard.
This also fixes a problem that has plagued admissions for decades: the apples-to-oranges comparison between students from wildly different school environments. Right now a student from an underfunded district competing against a student from a rigorous prep school looks worse on paper even if they are equally capable — because the grading environments are not comparable. Under mastery levels, both students are evaluated against the SAME task standards. Math Level 16 means Math Level 16 regardless of zip code. The level means what it says.
Colleges set thresholds for their programs. Engineering? Math Level 16 minimum, Physics Level 6 minimum, no U’s in the math or science sequence. Pre-law? Writing Level 12, History Level 8 minimum. Transparent. Published. Consistent. Students know exactly what target they are working toward and exactly how far they are from it — no more guessing whether a 3.6 is competitive, no more wondering if AP credit will transfer, no more waiting until April to find out the answer was no.
Proverbs 20:11 — “Even small children are known by their actions.” Actions. Not averages. Not participation points. WHAT CAN THEY ACTUALLY DO? The mastery transcript answers that directly — in plain language any college, employer, or apprenticeship program can read without a rubric.
The GPA had a long run. It was always a flawed proxy for something that should have been measured directly. We now have the framework to measure it directly. The level IS the record. Honest, specific, comparable across schools, and incapable of hiding what the gift D has been hiding for generations.
THIS ONE IS PERSONAL
I teach in a high-need, high-risk district. ALL of my students qualify for free lunch. These are not kids with tutors and enrichment programs and educational fallback plans. When we fail them in school, they do not have a safety net. The stakes for getting this right are NOT EQUAL across the economic spectrum — and anybody who has been in the classroom knows it.
When a student from an affluent district falls through the cracks, their family hires a tutor. When my students fall through the cracks, they often stay there.
That is why this is not just an academic philosophy for me. It is a moral obligation. Proverbs 31:8-9 — “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Passing a student who is not ready is NOT advocacy for that student. It is abandonment with paperwork attached.
I know what happens when the standard is compromised. I trained medics and watched them deploy. The Army does not send a medic into the field who cannot start an IV under pressure, because the consequences of that failure are immediate and visible. In education, the consequences are deferred — but they are just as real. They show up as a college freshman who cannot write a paragraph, a worker who cannot read a technical manual, a person who was told for twelve years that they were fine and finds out they were not at the worst possible moment.
Our students are not failing because they are incapable. They are failing because for years, the system decided it was cheaper and easier to lie to them than to tell them the truth.
SO WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY DO ABOUT IT
Look, none of this requires inventing something new. The military figured out mastery-based evaluation seventy years ago. Year-round school districts exist right now. Testing organizations that chose rigor over market share are already operating. The research on semester-based learning cycles has been sitting in academic journals for decades. None of it is secret. None of it is experimental.
What does not exist — and this is the part that should keep every parent and taxpayer up at night — is the institutional willingness to prioritize a student’s actual long-term preparation over a district’s short-term pass-rate optics.
So here is what we do. We stop measuring progress by time served, full stop. A student does not earn Level 6 by surviving Level 5. They earn it by mastering it — with defined task standards, no U’s anywhere in the sequence, and no grade averaging that lets unpreparedness walk through the door wearing a D’s clothes. That part is non-negotiable. Everything else in this article depends on that one change.
Then we restructure courses as semesters, because a 16-week retry is a targeted correction and a 36-week retry is a punishment. Those are not the same thing and we should stop treating them like they are. We move to a year-round calendar with quarterly breaks, because the 1800s agrarian schedule has cost us enough instructional time and enough of my students enough ground. We demand that standardized tests hold students to a standard instead of lowering the standard to hold students — and if the College Board will not do that job, we fund the organizations that will.
And someone needs to say this plainly, so I will: we need to protect the teachers who tell the truth. The gift D is not a teacher problem. It is a system problem. Flip the burden of documentation. Make the district justify advancing an unmastered student instead of making the teacher justify an honest failing grade. Watch how fast the incentives change.
Parents deserve real feedback too — not a letter grade that might mean anything or nothing depending on who assigned it, but actual task-level information. What does your child know? What can they do without help? What specifically are they still missing, and what is the plan? That conversation is harder than sending home a report card with a B on it. It is also the only conversation that is actually useful.
Proverbs 24:3-4 — “By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures.”
Solomon said it. The Army codified it. Every master craftsman who ever refused to sign off on an apprentice who was not ready understood it without being told.
So why do we keep handing out passes to sand?
But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who has spent 17 years watching kids fail not because they were incapable, but because we were too busy counting averages to tell them the truth.
Mike Borowski is a medically retired Army combat medic with 23 years of service, including a combat deployment to Iraq, and a high school Anatomy and Physics teacher at a high-need Career Technical district in Northeast Ohio — where he also wrote and published the textbooks for both courses. He runs “Bski’s Classroom,” a platform dedicated to cutting through political noise with data, history, and the kind of blunt honesty that comes from someone who has seen both war and the American classroom up close.
—
X (Twitter): x.com/BskiMike22802
Substack: substack.com/@bskimike22802
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@BskiMike22802
AFNN: https://afnn.us/author/mikeborowski/
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA