Grade Point Averages

Case Narrative

During the class rank calculations for the 2010 senior class at a local high school in Laredo, Texas, a contentious and controversial issue surrounding grade point averages (GPAs) arose. This issue had a direct bearing on who would become Valedictorian and Salutatorian, and it would alter the order of the prestigious top 10 student rankings as well.

School districts are bound by local and legal school board policies. Pertinent policies to this case study include School Board Policy EIC (Local) Academic Achievement Class Ranking—Attachment A, School Board Policy EIC (Legal) Academic Achievement Class Ranking—Attachment B, and Education Code Sec. 28.0216 District Grading Policy—Attachment C.

Board policies play a crucial role in our system of education governance. Like Congress, state legislatures, and city or county councils, school boards establish the direction and structure of their school districts by adopting policies through the authority granted by state legislatures. School board policies have the force of law equal to statutes or ordinances. Policies establish directions for the district; they set the goals, assign authority, and establish controls that make school governance and management possible (Walser, 2009). Policies are the means by which educators are accountable to the public.

As an integral part of the American institution of representative governance, local school boards also have a crucial role to play in preserving our democracy, preparing our children to be productive citizens, and enriching the lives of our communities. School boards also aim to mirror the diverse democracies they serve as representatives of their communities. All school boards derive their power and authority from the state, and at the same time, all school boards generate “law” of their own by establishing the policies by which local schools are governed. School boards everywhere are the chief and, if state law permits, supreme educational authority for their communities.

Because school boards oversee education and represent lay involvement, they can provide a structure for public accountability and a way for parents and the community to influence vital policy issues affecting schools. In a time of social, economic, technological, and geopolitical turbulence, the local school board remains the tried and true governance mechanism for delivering excellence and equity in public education for all of our children.

GPAs and Class Ranking

A heavy emphasis is placed on high school performance standards used by prestigious colleges and universities for student admissions. This fact, in concert with scholarship opportunities that are generally proportional to the measure of high school performance standards, has predictably resulted in some high-achieving students strategically maneuvering high school courses to obtain better grades and higher rankings within their grade level (Owings, 1995).

Grades are standardized measurements of varying levels of comprehension within a subject area. Grades can be assigned in letters (e.g., A, B, C, D, or F), as a range (e.g., 4.0-1.0), as a number out of a possible total (e.g., out of 20 or 100), as descriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement), in percentages, or, as is common in some postsecondary institutions in some countries, as a GPA (Godfrey, 2011). GPA is calculated by taking the number of grade points a student earned in a given period of time divided by the total number of credits taken. The GPA can be used by potential employers or further postsecondary institutions to assess and compare applicants (Nord et al., 2011). A cumulative GPA is a calculation of the average of all of a student’s grades for all semesters and courses completed up to a given academic term, whereas the GPA may only refer to one term.

Common in most high schools is the opportunity to take courses that are weighted. A weighted course average is based on the simple idea that some high school classes are more rigorous than others and should carry more weight accordingly. For example, an “A” in an Advanced Placement (AP) course such as calculus is indicative of more rigorous work completed by a student as compared with an “A” in a remedial course. Therefore, in an effort to acknowledge the effort that goes into the most challenging courses, many high schools weight the grades for AP, honors, and accelerated courses.

Many of the highest achieving students at most high schools are cognizant of the respective weights of any course they take during their time as high school students. As such, those who aspire to attain the highest rankings take as many AP courses (weighted by 10 extra final average points at this particular school district) as possible.

In addition, the most astute students sometimes avoid taking many nonweighted courses until the spring semester of their senior year. The reason for this is that the final 9 weeks grades earned during their senior year are not factored into the final GPA calculations. Consequently, only 9 weeks of their nonweighted coursework is factored into their GPA as opposed to the 18 weeks that are factored in if they or their classmates had taken the same course during any other semester.

One major implication of employing this strategy is that if two students achieved identical grades in all of their courses, their respective GPAs could differ depending on the order in which the courses were taken. Thus, inefficient course planning can alter one’s GPA by a few tenths of a point. This can result in the variance of a few places on the class ranking scale in the negative direction.

The difference in class rank is significant on many levels. For one, students earn more scholarship money, on average, if they are in the top 10 of their class versus those ranked in the 25th percentile or above (Owings, 1995). Furthermore, Valedictorians tend to be accepted to more prestigious universities than their lower ranking counterparts, and they tend to receive more substantial scholarships than most other students (Nord et al., 2011). In Texas, any student in the top 10% of their high school class gains automatic admission to any state university (Rutledge, 1991).Consequently, the difference between No. 53 and No. 54 in a class of 532 is significant, and it has major educational and financial implications.

The issue that occurred in 2010 stems from an obscure policy that was subtly implemented 4 years prior to that at the aforementioned school district in Laredo, Texas. Only a few students, including the eventual Valedictorian but not the eventual Salutatorian, were aware of this policy to take advantage of it. The policy stipulated that any student could forego Spanish 1 and Spanish 2, and take Spanish 3. If the student passed Spanish 3, then their foreign language requirement would be satisfied for their high school diploma.

The Salutatorian took all three Spanish courses during her first 3 years of school, as did most of her peers. She made 100s in all three courses. Ironically, these nonweighted grades lowered her GPA, which was approximately 106. Conversely, the Valedictorian took only Spanish 3 during the spring semester of her senior year and, predictably, made a 100. Thus, the calculation of the Salutatorian’s GPA included six semesters of nonweighted 100 averages, whereas the Valedictorian’s GPA calculation included only one semester of a nonweighted 100 average.

The resulting quagmire occurred because if the Valedictorian had not taken advantage of the aforementioned board policy loophole, she would have been Salutatorian and vice versa. Because the Salutatorian was unaware of the policy, she felt that the Valedictorian had gained that ranking unfairly, as did many of her top 10 peers.

Conclusion

Campus administration acted appropriately by not altering the final class ranking calculations because said action was in adherence with board policy. The Salutatorian and her family were ultimately assuaged by this fact.

Furthermore, the Valedictorian did not act inappropriately in any way. The student merely took advantage of the rules that were created by the school board policy. One could argue that the student was to be commended for her astuteness.

It is probable that more careful scrutiny of board policies by the district’s administration with respect to potential GPA calculation and systematic manipulation by students would have resulted in a different class rank outcome. This outcome may arguably have been more equitable.

Perhaps most importantly, the controversy exposed a flaw in board policy, and one would expect that it inspired increased scrutiny of new policies that affect GPA calculations, such as new GPA calculation policy pertaining to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) end-of-course exam.

School boards and administrators must foresee any avoidable quandaries that may arise whenever exceptions to existing academic policies are made. Although the intent of such modifications in policy is rarely sinister or deviously contrived by nature, new policies can easily be manipulated to benefit the astute individual instead of the entire group. Fundamentally, there is nothing askew with this tenet, but it can cross the proverbial line of equitability once the results of such policies have financial and/or higher educational ramifications.

Teaching Notes

This case was developed for the use of graduate students pursuing administrative credentials in educational leadership. Within this field, many students will eventually become school administrators and be faced with many instructional and controversial issues that will need to be resolved. Understanding school board policy is paramount to legally and ethically resolve complaints.

The case focuses on students strategically maneuvering high school courses to obtain better grades and higher rankings within their grade level. It also pertains to school board policies and how some individuals can circumvent them for personal gain.

Questions for Discussion