By all means, abolish the F-word.
Replace results with achievement levels from 0 to 100. through regular tests so students can gauge their progress or lack thereof.
Certificates can show those subjects in which the student excels even though they may exhibit poor achievement in some.
maracas

Speaking as one for whom Political Correctness is usually anathama, I'm not so unsympathetic to this point.

I take very strident issue with the idea of not being able to say "no" to a child who is doing something wrong.. but the idea of 'fail' in the learning process does seem a bit of an un-needed attack on the self esteem.
When I was in the middle of primary 5, we left Warrandyte and moved to Edithvale, I was instantly 'behind' and placed in the dreaded dunce's 'Class C' Where the teacher seemed to have been a recent stealth immigrant from Aushwitz. My cheek is still shuddering from the shaking it used to get when I was 'WRONG' in one of his test questions.

I propose an alternative way of approaching the issue of assessment is to leave it to the job interview or the Uni interview. "We accept those who achieved such and such a level". At least it doesn't constantly remind someone of 'failure', but limits their opportunities due to their level of achievement not meeting the requirement of the job or uni.

As for 'weeding out' the very poor performers, for the sake of the performing, It's not hard to explain that a particular level is required rather than saying "Sorry, you failed"

Sometimes people under-achieve for various reasons not neccessarily intellect. My own son only ever managed one "A" in maths at school, and that was because a teacher actually cared enough to help him.
Both my sons are 'artistically inclined' rather than 'abstract and mathsy' (as I was)

CONCLUSION I agree that the word 'fail' should not be used in educational assessments.

I know you're going to drop dead with surprise when I say this but well said BD. As far as your children's abilities are concerned modern teacher training holds to the concept of a variety of intelligences. For example children who learn best through sight, hearing, touch or even movement [ie by doing rather than listening]. It could well be that your children have an intelligence that is more pronounced in one of these areas. It might be worth your while to check it out. Just a, hopefully, helpful suggestion. Best of luck

There is a significant number of students who have an intellectual disability or specific learning difficulties who will not cope under a regime of tests and exams. Schools in the State I reside in do not provide adequate assistance for students with learning difficulties; schools simply do not have the resources.

When I left Primary School in the late fifties some of my cohort remained at the local Primary school while the majority of students went on to High School. Some of the students who had remained at Primary School were still there at age 14; School was hardly a satisfactory institution for them.

I think that we need to encourage students to view competition as a good thing. Most truly successful people have a love of fair and honest competition. I think that there is nothing more satisfying than to know that your efforts have helped another to optimise their performance and visa versa. One way to encourage this is to get away from this idea of winners and losers. To call any competitor or person, let alone a child, a "loser" is just plain wrong, especially, in todays society where it carries some fairly strong connotations.

I know it is hard to capture in language; but I think anyone doing their best in a school room or life in general is a worthy contributor to that particular society.

An old saying of Robert Menzies: "Your best may not be as great as somebody elses but you must do your best, that's all."

I think that R.B. has captured the true meaning of being a winner.

I agree with other bloggers that using the "f" word "fail" is not at all wise or helpful. Children are very sensitive and I like the idea of simply stating the facts. For instance, the idea of a 0-100 score seems to me to be a fair assessment procedure.

Frenzal Rhomb have a nice film clip to a song called "There's your Dad". In the song the Dad changes the F on a report card to an A and says:
"You can never fail me son." Perhaps, contrary to Kevin Donnelly's conservative carry on, we had more parents prepared to "f" the system and stand by their children - we may see some enthusaism for education amongst our young students.

I do not share Kevin's view of the importance of competitiveness in learning. However, “Failure” has become an obsessional anathema in educational circles, which would be fine if it was linked to ensuring that students actually have the knowledge they need.

I am all for abolishing “failure” as a reality, that is attacking the real problem of students who do not understand or have simply missed the point in terms of core knowledge in History, English, Maths and Science. It may be hard work, but it has always needed to be done and very few worthwhile resources are available to do it (like well written and authoritative textbooks that seem to have absented themselves from schools).

Abolishing “failure” by dumbing down the content, or simply certifying everything no matter how badly done as a “pass”. Simply avoids the real problem – and this is what current educational “thinking” is all about – appearance.

Why worry about the word? Why even worry about self-esteem? If in the mean time we cannot supply a decent education because the powers that be want to get rid of a word, or believe self-esteem can be improved by wrapping each student in some form of cotton-wool.

Want to actually improve a student's self-esteem?

Then we should be making every effort to ensure that students leave school with a liberal education and some real intellectual knowledge. To this end “failing” some work is no bad thing, allowing students to know by this how much they need to understand and the limits of what they understand is a positive step. Dumbing down is not an option.

I am both a teacher and a parent. As a parent, I want to know exactly where little Johnny is up to in his education. I want to know it in a NICE way. Hypothetical. Little Johnny gets home from school with his report card. He has worked so hard this term, doing his homework regularly, trying hard in class. He's not a whiz at Maths, is excellent at English, but he tries his best at all times in all subject areas. I, as a parent, need to know where he needs the extra help at home. Little Johnny just wants to now if I am happy.

The report should be able to point out to me where his areas of need are. Reports are not supposed to be a big competition between classmates of who is the best at what. Especially not in the younger years. I don't need to know if Johnny came first. I need to know where Johnny needs help.

I am really noticing lately a big resurgence of competitiveness among parents vying for their child to be 'the best' at something. I'm all for a bit of healthy competition but some parents really take it too far. I just wonder what the cost will be to children's self esteem when they are deemed to have 'failed' too many times. I question the necessity for the use of the 'f' word in reports, I just can't see the justification for it.

Their are a range of skills groups which drive our individual "success" or "failure" in life. These are not confined to mere "academic" achievement but include say - ability to interpret situations, ability to communicate, ability to participate etc. Each of these skills is an important component to a successful adult life, yet we remain "focused" on measuring children and adolescence solely on "academic prowess".

I agree the notion of pass and fail is possibly detrimental to those who "fail". I would suggest words like "acceptable" and "unacceptable" carry the same "stigma". I would suggest "pass" and "not passing" is playing with words.

Ultimately, I return to the principal issue - Why do we measure "academic performance"? - Basically to advise not only the "student" but likely employers or colleges of further education as to some of the "risk" involved with accepting or rejecting someone for employment or participation in further education.

Acceptable or unacceptable - pass or fail, degrees of pass or degrees of fail - all measurement has value - denying measurement for the sake of sensibilities has no value, is downright detrimental and potentially dangerous - maybe not too the individual but to those around them.

However, my real concern is, that with all we know, we still do not broaden the range of skills measured and considered for "successful life" because - it is in these presently unassessed areas of potential success that the "academic failures" will find the "pass marks" which the narrow base of present measurement woefully ignore.

So retain the "fail" but broaden the range of assessed skills - from which the "academic failures" will find redemption and a valuable "signpost" to the path of their future success.

The Australian education system leaves alot to be desired.This is for a number of reasons.

Firstly it has become 'uncool' to be smart, and it is of much more immediate social benefit for children to play rugby for example. Schools have alot to answer for in this regard. My school for example continually associated academic under achievers and sportsman as one in the same.

Secondly we don't value educators enough, particularly in terms of salary. Not only does this cause discontent among existing ranks, but teaching recruits are often not up to scratch. Japan for example treats teachers as socially on par with doctors and lawyers.

Thirdly kids are put in cotton wool from pre school onwards. Studies show that children learn foreign languages for example far more efficiently between the ages of four and nine.Yet in Australia we tell ourselves play dough is the only way to go until they're six.

Finally another major contribution to the poor performance of our educational system is the lack of vocational training. Once again there seems to be an attitude that if a student isn't planning on university, they are lesser individuals. The left has perpetuated the nonsense that every Australian should be university educated. Having finished 5 years at uni myself, I'd love to swap my bank balance and lifestyle for that of my tradesman friends.

Much better that students learn about the F-word when they get to university and thay are paying to fail.
I'll bet the universities are rubbing their hands together waiting for more OBE graduates who will probably have to spend 5 years doing a 3 year degree.
I wonder when the universities themselves will adopt an outcomes approach so a degree from an australian university will be held in the same esteem as one from mozambique or bangladesh.