Dear Nanette Asimov,
I am a high school student at George Washington High School, part of the San Francisco Unified School District.
From my experience, serious grade inflation is ubiquitous among all courses and grade levels (9-12, freshman to senior), and I propose a solution to this problem.
"Grade inflation" includes not only "grading on an easy curve," but also "grading without curve, but on criteria that (often apparently) fails to accurately describe or reflect students' competence, knowledge, and ability." Often, that is the case among high school teachers, which, in my opinion, confuse "effort" and "competence".
Even in "honors" classes, particularly the humanities, a grade is often only 20-30% tests, and the rest is "effort"--i.e., homework, classwork, participation, etc. For an "organized binder with over 'x' quantity of notes", students can raise their grades from C's to A's, from D's to B's, and so on. For "doing all of the homework", students can expect similar results. Unfortunately, no "binder," no matter how "nice-looking and organized", no "art poster illustrating World War II", can substitute for a critical knowledge and understanding of the course material. It does not matter how well a student can "illustrate a soldier" or "how many pages of notes a student can write" or "how neatly can a student organize a binder" if they lack competence, knowledge, and understanding of the course material.
A critical effect of serious grading founded on faulty criteria is the "expectance of competence derived from blind effort and inflated grades." In classes of mathematics and the sciences, where tests and exams generally count for no less than ~70% of a student's grade, students often complain of low grades (primarily based on test scores), demanding "higher grades" because they "did" all of their homework and labs, and "studied for hours". Neither is an acceptable reason to improve grades. Mere "completion," and especially the "completion of homework and classwork" is ultimately worthless if students cannot (and do not learn to) focus their abilities individually in an environment devoid of "notes, resources, peers"...an environment consisting only of a pencil and the test paper.
Unfortunately, the effect of grading directly on "effort" is, most apparently, a retardation in one's "effort" and a sense of anti-intellectualism. When one student has to complete "four" skill sheets and study for "five hours" for a chemistry test, while another student needs just read the text for an hour or so to perform equally or (often times) better on a test, it is not fair to downgrade the latter student for a "lack of effort". Quite often, bright and high-scoring students are actually downgraded for a "lack of effort" in a high school course. Underperforming and incompetent students may argue "It's not fair that he/she's is more efficient than us," and the teacher often willingly takes pity on those students. No longer is "competence" required; all that is required for an "A" is effort, and thus "everybody passes". Simply grade students on "how many review sheets did you complete" and "how neat is your binder" and therefore, "everybody can succeed," even those ridiculously unprepared for the course. Not only are such rewards for mere "effort" undoubtedly anti-intellectual, they can, and often do, remove the entire purpose of effort---to learn and gain competence.
The final problem I will address here is the perceived "nature" of effort.
-Joe is preparing for a test, and has worked on 62 problems in factoring. Unfortunately, the test also includes "completing-the-square problems." Joe spends all of his time working ""hard"" on the factoring problems, but fails the test because he forgot to learn how to complete-the-square. And rightfully so does he fail that test. Without a doubt, Joe "worked hard"; unfortunately, he did not "work smart". The next day, he demands a raise in grades due to his "hard work". By no means does Joe deserve a higher grade; not because he didn't work "hard" (which he undoubtedly did), but because he failed to work "smart" and efficiently. A sad case for any teacher deciding grades. Worse, when this case does arise, the student who worked "less hard" but aced the test (and gain knowledge, skills, and competence) is often penalized with a grade based on 20-30% tests, and 70-80% "effort"---for what is, essentially, "achieving more (competence, knowledge, and ability) with less effort" and downplaying the idea that "(blind and often useless) 'effort' in itself will bestow competence."
Conclusion:
Effort is a means of acquiring (the goals of) competence, knowledge, and understanding. In itself, it is not a goal. How much is needed and how it should be executed varies from individual to individual. We must not grade students on the "quantity of effort", but rather on the quality of their effort, which is reflected in class tests and the SAT, a measure of how much competence, knowledge, and skills the students, both as students and as individuals, possess.
Regarding your article, such a grade quota is obviously ill-conceived if it does not include any way to check teachers' academic honesty in assigning grades. Even now, there are no checks on teachers to ensure the academic credibility of their grade assignments! (that they assign grades based on the students' competence and academic ability).
My solution plans to change that. When we complain that certain reforms fail to consider "root issues", we often forget that grade inflation itself is a root issue, and is nowhere far from #1 on that list (I personally consider the most important of the "root issues").
My solution is the first post in this thread, at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104494
Oh, I'm going to hell for sure now. Making fun of some poor soul's acne problem. 
I have an excellent educational reform plan here :
