The Surprising Truth About Failing Grades in U.S. Schools Before COVID-19
If you’ve ever wondered whether a score below 70% was universally considered a failing grade in American schools before the pandemic, you’re not alone. Grading systems often feel like an unshakable part of education, but the reality is far more nuanced. Let’s unpack the history, regional variations, and debates surrounding this topic to understand why the “70 = failure” rule wasn’t as standardized as many assume.
The Myth of a Universal Grading Scale
For decades, students and parents have operated under the assumption that scoring below 70% on assignments or report cards meant failing a class. However, this standard wasn’t—and still isn’t—consistent across the United States. Grading policies have always been shaped by individual states, districts, and even schools, leading to a patchwork of expectations.
Before COVID-19, many districts did use a 70% threshold for failure, particularly in states like Texas and parts of the South. But others set the bar higher or lower. For example, some schools in New York and California labeled anything below 65% as failing, while others in the Midwest experimented with competency-based systems that avoided traditional percentage scales altogether. This variability often confused families moving between regions and raised questions about fairness in college admissions.
Why Did 70% Become a Popular Benchmark?
The origins of the 70% cutoff aren’t tied to educational research but rather to practicality. Early 20th-century educators needed a straightforward way to categorize student performance. The A-F grading scale, introduced in the 1910s, gained traction for its simplicity. A grade of 70% often represented the minimum “average” performance required to pass, while scores below this indicated insufficient mastery.
Over time, this model became ingrained in popular culture. Movies, TV shows, and even parenting guides reinforced the idea that 70% was the magic number separating success from failure. However, critics argue this system prioritizes compliance over learning. As education researcher Alfie Kohn once noted, “Grades tend to undermine interest in the material itself—they’re more about jumping through hoops than understanding ideas.”
Regional Differences and Hidden Flexibility
Digging deeper into pre-pandemic policies reveals surprising flexibility. In Hawaii, for instance, some schools used a 60% threshold for failing grades until the late 2010s. Meanwhile, districts in Massachusetts occasionally allowed students to pass with averages as low as 50% if they demonstrated improvement over time.
Even within states, inconsistencies existed. A 2018 study by the Education Commission of the States found that 12 states left grading scales entirely up to local districts. This meant two schools just miles apart could have wildly different definitions of failure. Such disparities sparked debates about equity, especially for students in underfunded districts where resources (like tutoring) to recover from low grades were scarce.
COVID-19: A Catalyst for Change
The pandemic didn’t invent grading reform, but it accelerated existing discussions. When remote learning widened achievement gaps, many schools temporarily lowered or eliminated failing grades to reduce student stress. For example, districts in Oregon and Michigan adopted “no-zero” policies, while others introduced “incomplete” marks to give students more time to complete work.
These changes reignited conversations about whether pre-pandemic grading systems were fair or effective. Advocates for reform argued that rigid percentage scales punished students for circumstances beyond their control, like unstable internet access or family health crises. Opponents, however, worried that lowering standards would devalue academic rigor.
The Bigger Picture: What Grades Actually Measure
Beneath the debate over numbers lies a critical question: Do traditional grades reflect learning, or are they outdated tools? Research suggests that low grades often correlate with factors like poverty, trauma, or language barriers rather than a student’s ability. A 2019 Johns Hopkins study found that students in high-poverty schools were 50% more likely to receive failing grades, regardless of their effort or comprehension.
This insight has led some districts to rethink their approach. Competency-based grading, which focuses on mastery of skills instead of averaging scores over time, gained momentum in states like New Hampshire and Colorado before COVID-19. Similarly, “standards-based” report cards, which replace letter grades with descriptors like “proficient” or “needs improvement,” aim to provide clearer feedback.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Grading
While the pandemic didn’t erase the 70% benchmark everywhere, it forced educators to confront systemic flaws. Today, hybrid models are emerging. Some schools combine traditional grades with pass/fail options for certain courses; others use AI tools to personalize feedback without relying on percentages.
What’s clear is that the “failing grade” debate is about more than numbers—it’s about how schools define success. As one Texas teacher put it, “We’re not just grading answers; we’re grading humans.” Whether the U.S. moves toward greater standardization or embraces localized flexibility, the goal remains the same: creating systems that support learning, not just sorting.
In the end, the question isn’t just about what counts as failure. It’s about building an education system that helps every student rise above it.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Surprising Truth About Failing Grades in U