Is Success Being Common Bad?

Most students at Blair are used to one form of the grading policy. Under the old system, students earning an 89.5 percent one quarter and a 79.5 percent the next would receive an A for the semester. Now, those same scores average to 84.5 percent, a solid B. On June 10th, 2025, MCPS announced this change. It came at a shock to many, deliberations were not transparent and many were left scrambling with their schedules. 

While grade inflation and return to rigor sound pleasing, it conceals the social dynamics in play. The district argues this change addresses concerns about grade inflation, referencing data that shows the proportion of students with GPAs above 3.5 increased from 27 percent in 2008 to 34 percent in 2015. My translation: too many students are succeeding, and success loses its value when it becomes common. This method of tackling grade inflation is built off making winners and losers, and MCPS jumps on the opportunity to privatize success. It's not too far off from becoming elitist. Grade inflation also disrupts higher learning practices. It doesn't disbar learning, knowledge acquisition, or student wellbeing though. When a former Swarthmore College admissions officer explained that "A's have become the new C's," it expressed what many already know. Colleges aren't that much concerned that students “know” less, they're concerned that ranking applicants is becoming harder. The entire panic of grade inflation is contingent on the assumption that education has to produce hierarchies based on grades. Education is secondary. It's unforgiving, while only focusing on making MCPS as a whole more of a feeder county for top 20 colleges. 

This becomes even clearer when you look at who benefits from the new policy and who's disregarded. Montgomery County is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, yet it lost over 26,000 middle-income residents. As a result, we see this manifest in economic resources provided for the economically disadvantaged. lower-income students lack access to the tutors and enrichment programs wealthier peers can afford, SAT prep alone can cost $800 to $3,600 for 40 hours of prep, while MCPS's own course costs $385 plus textbooks. When thinking of a solution, my mind naturally drifted to just giving everyone a 4.0. Then I realized it would just shift to SAT, AP scores, and the prestige of your extracurriculars. A never ending cycle that thrives off hierarchies. 

It's unfortunate because most know that, to an extent, education relies on wealth. When MCPS makes grades harder to achieve, who do you think will thrive? The student working part-time to support their family, or the student whose parents can afford private tutoring at $75 per hour? The student navigating mental illness with inadequate school resources, or the student whose family can pay thousands for psychological help. Should we then just provide more support to the student that is most likely to succeed? Obviously not. And that's my core issue with the policy. It feels like a disservice to the student that could have had more leeway or less extenuating circumstances one quarter, thus remaining consistent. But, then falls off the next quarter due to external problems. The policy is a double edge sword, that doesn't really aim to fix the foundational problems with education. Sure, many can dismiss this as holding a victim mentality for other people, but I find it's a tangible, real disadvantage that MCPS just exacerbated for low income students.