The Texas attorney general has affirmed a law passed last year that standardized how high school GPA's are calculated in Texas.
An article in the Dallasnews.com explains the recent decision. Apparently the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will set the standardized method of calculating the student GPA. The reason, for several years Texas has offered guaranteed admission into any of the 35 public state universities to students who are in the top 10 percent of their graduation class.
These types of "percent plans" have been utilized in states where consideration of race in admission to colleges has been banned (California, Florida and Texas). These plans are designed to maintain and improve diversity on campuses, 10% from all schools not just the top performing schools.
So, this brings up the question - should states "standardize" how schools calculate GPA's and the grading scale?
Ohio does not have a common grading scale for high schools , that decision is made at the local school board level. I find it disturbing that a student GPA actually depends on their zip code.
One argument against a common grading scale - It really doesn't matter because colleges make adjustment or conversions when they look at student applications. I have not found the data to support that belief. I don't know of any conversion chart that can adequately adjust for the grading variants: 6 point, 7 point, 10 point, weighted AP, weighted honors, or chromatics ( + and -).
In Ohio, we base eligibility for certain programs for high school students on either a letter grade or the 4.0 grade scale. Ohio PSEO (Post Secondary Educational Options) eligibility is based on the student achieving a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale in the subject they wish to study at the post secondary institution. A 3.0 or "B' in my district is an 85-90. In other districts a 3.0 or "B" is 80-89, others still a "B" is 84-86. So, student eligibility for PSEO is actually determined by the district grading scale and their definition of a "B" since the state is silent on the issue.
The Ohio Alternative Pathway to Graduation for the OGT requires the student to achieve at least 2.5 out of 4.0, or its equivalent (as designated in rules adopted by the state board of education) in the subject area of the failed OGT section. In my district the student would need to get an 83-84 to reach the "C+" or 2.5. In the traditional 10 point grading scale a 2.5 would be achieved somewhere between 78-83 . The conversion equivalent chart, adopted by the state board of education simply converts letter grades to the 4.0 scaled equivalent. It does not address the initial requirements for the letter grade. (Conversion Chart: A+/A=4.0, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-= 2.7, C+=2.3, C=2.0, C-=1.7, D+=1.3, D=1.0, D-=.07, F=0)
The Ohio Seniors to Sophomores program requires students to achieve a "C" or better in Algebra II and three years of high school English with a grade of "C" or better. In my district a "C" is 77-82, "C+ is 83-84. In traditional grading scale (10-point) a "C" is achieved with 70-79, others using the 10-point with chromatic variants (+ and -) a "C is 74-76 .
Many communities across the nation are changing from the once popular 6 or 7 point scales to the standard 10 point scale. According to a news article in Fairfax Virginia
In Fairfax County Virginia, a community group has an interesting website called Fairgrades that explores the benefits of moving to a 10-point scale. The district grading scale effect college admissions, academic and merit scholarships, insurance discounts, college honors programs and high school NCAA eligibility.
In 1999 the General Assembly of South Carolina decided that since the state provides financial academic assistance to students of the State based on grade point averages and districts used a variety of grading scales that it was in the best interest of the students to develop and adopt a uniform grading scale that was mandatory for all public schools.
What do you thing? Should this be a local decision or a state decision? Should this be part of Governor Strickland's education reform?
An article in the Dallasnews.com explains the recent decision. Apparently the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will set the standardized method of calculating the student GPA. The reason, for several years Texas has offered guaranteed admission into any of the 35 public state universities to students who are in the top 10 percent of their graduation class.
These types of "percent plans" have been utilized in states where consideration of race in admission to colleges has been banned (California, Florida and Texas). These plans are designed to maintain and improve diversity on campuses, 10% from all schools not just the top performing schools.
So, this brings up the question - should states "standardize" how schools calculate GPA's and the grading scale?
Ohio does not have a common grading scale for high schools , that decision is made at the local school board level. I find it disturbing that a student GPA actually depends on their zip code.
- A grade of 80 can be either, "B" or "C".
- A grade of 74 can be either a "C" a "D".
One argument against a common grading scale - It really doesn't matter because colleges make adjustment or conversions when they look at student applications. I have not found the data to support that belief. I don't know of any conversion chart that can adequately adjust for the grading variants: 6 point, 7 point, 10 point, weighted AP, weighted honors, or chromatics ( + and -).
In Ohio, we base eligibility for certain programs for high school students on either a letter grade or the 4.0 grade scale. Ohio PSEO (Post Secondary Educational Options) eligibility is based on the student achieving a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale in the subject they wish to study at the post secondary institution. A 3.0 or "B' in my district is an 85-90. In other districts a 3.0 or "B" is 80-89, others still a "B" is 84-86. So, student eligibility for PSEO is actually determined by the district grading scale and their definition of a "B" since the state is silent on the issue.
The Ohio Alternative Pathway to Graduation for the OGT requires the student to achieve at least 2.5 out of 4.0, or its equivalent (as designated in rules adopted by the state board of education) in the subject area of the failed OGT section. In my district the student would need to get an 83-84 to reach the "C+" or 2.5. In the traditional 10 point grading scale a 2.5 would be achieved somewhere between 78-83 . The conversion equivalent chart, adopted by the state board of education simply converts letter grades to the 4.0 scaled equivalent. It does not address the initial requirements for the letter grade. (Conversion Chart: A+/A=4.0, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-= 2.7, C+=2.3, C=2.0, C-=1.7, D+=1.3, D=1.0, D-=.07, F=0)
The Ohio Seniors to Sophomores program requires students to achieve a "C" or better in Algebra II and three years of high school English with a grade of "C" or better. In my district a "C" is 77-82, "C+ is 83-84. In traditional grading scale (10-point) a "C" is achieved with 70-79, others using the 10-point with chromatic variants (+ and -) a "C is 74-76 .
Many communities across the nation are changing from the once popular 6 or 7 point scales to the standard 10 point scale. According to a news article in Fairfax Virginia
A Fairfax Virginia study found that 33 of the top 45 high schools in the U.S. use the 10 point scale. The U.S. Department of Education 2005 High School Transcript Study concluded that the most common scale is the 10-point scale. Florida, Alabama, and Georgia have state-mandated 10-point high school grading scales.
In Fairfax County Virginia, a community group has an interesting website called Fairgrades that explores the benefits of moving to a 10-point scale. The district grading scale effect college admissions, academic and merit scholarships, insurance discounts, college honors programs and high school NCAA eligibility.
In 1999 the General Assembly of South Carolina decided that since the state provides financial academic assistance to students of the State based on grade point averages and districts used a variety of grading scales that it was in the best interest of the students to develop and adopt a uniform grading scale that was mandatory for all public schools.
What do you thing? Should this be a local decision or a state decision? Should this be part of Governor Strickland's education reform?
5 comments:
It really doesn't matter what the grade scale is, the teacher sets the rubrics anyway. A students will get A's and B students B's etc. It wont matter much if the scale is 95-100 is an A or 80-100. One scale is as arbitrary as the next.
Of course the grading scale matters. Students don't compete for college placement only within their own school district, it's national. If one grade system is more rigorous than their neighboring district, guess who loses. Teachers in math/science for example rarely can grade to a rubrics number range as Mike states. (IE: answers to questions are generally either right or wrong. No interpretation as in English essays, art,etc. So, 9 out of 10 math answers = 90% not 93% or 95%. On a 10 point system 90% = "A" and student has opportunity for 4.0 GPA; on a 7 point scale in another district that same student would look like a "B" student or 3.0. Which one do you think Harvard will give a second look at? The 4.0 or 3.0 student? Of course the 4.0 when in fact they may be identical students.) Our school systems just can't stop playing with the numbers and "appearance" of progress. Put all schools on the same 10 point scale (extra quality points for AP/Honors/IB level) and get back to teaching. Let the chips fall where they may and end the veiled attempts at social engineering many city schools are doing. The silly numbers game is holding back our students progress and part of reason why other countries are passing us in math and science.
If your "Johnny" gets on average a 91% and is given a B or 3.0 GPA, you'll begin to howl when you learn that "Suzy" in the district next door took the same tests and got same scores but her 91% gave her an A or 4.0 GPA and a full scholorship to Ivy league school. Sound fair?
Speak to college admissions officers if you don't believe me, they see thousands of applications and cannot dwell on minutia of grading scales. They simply scan the transcript letter grades looking for the A's and B's and also the GPA. (A 4.0 based on 93% being an A or a 4.0 based on a 90% being an A is rarely even looked at, admissions officers have no time which is why we need the grading scales to be the same 10 point system across the nation. Colleges and employers treat it that way, why not the high schools? There's a disconnect and it's at the high school level.)
Thank you TD, I agree. Districts that use the 7 point scale put their students at a disadvantage for state programs such as PSEO and Seniors to Sophomores and you are correct about college admissions and scholarship opportunities also.
I just found out my son's 7th grade class grading scale system has changed from 90% being an A to 93% being an A. I do not understand this change, nor was I informed of the School Board's decision on this. Not only does it create issues with colleges later on, I think it is a lazy way of changing expectations of the student. If we need our children to have more challenges academically, why not have a more challenging academic cirrculum? This change does not solve the problem. I need input.
I completely agree with TD's comments. I don't see the evidence that these districts' students on the 7 point grading scale have benefitted from the change. Is there proof that these kids are actually working harder, learning more, and producing better work? The majority of schools are on the 10 point scale and states need to require ALL districts to follow that system.
Post a Comment