Board Working Session Agenda on 24 Credit Planning:
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/17-18%20agendas/20180228/20180228_Packet_WS_ResolutionGunSafety_Budget_24Credits.pdf
Running Start:
"Community colleges had been counting on more generous state dollars from Washington’s public schools to help fix a funding imbalance in the state’s dual-credit program known as Running Start.
But a budget bill passed by the state Senate could undo that possibility."
New Assignment Plan Task Force
https://www.seattleschools.org/district/calendars/news/what_s_new/student_assignment_plan_task_force
Seattle Public Schools is seeking parents, community members, and students to join district staff in the upcoming Student Assignment Plan Task Force as we review the policies and procedures around student enrollment, assignment and school choice and develop a set of recommendations for improvements that support the success of all students across the district.
The Student Assignment Plan Task Force will carry out two key objectives:
Review the Student Assignment Plan and most recent Student Assignment Transition Plan and Develop recommendations for an equity focused enrollment and student assignment process.
To learn more about the task force, please visit the Student Assignment Plan Task Force webpage. Applications are due on Mon., March 19, 2018. Applicants will be notified no later than March 23, 2018. Please email questions to enrollmentplanning@seattleschools.org
Its a bit unclear from the description what the scope of the work is and how much his affects HCC but it may be of interest.
March HC Advisory Committee Meeting
The March meeting of the Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee will take place tomorrow - Tuesday, March 6, 6:30 - 8:00 PM - at the Robert Eagle Staff Middle School Library, 1330 N 90th St, Seattle, WA 98103.- Update from Advanced Learning
- Continued work on the Program Review Tool
Upcoming meetings will take place:
April 3, JSCEE, Room 2700
May 1, JSCEE, Room 2700
June 5, Madison Middle School, Library
Math Counts Scholarship
"We know that an experience in MATHCOUNTS can be transformative and incredibly meaningful for a student. MATHCOUNTS can change opinions about mathematics. It can lead a student to a career in science, engineering, technology or mathematics. It can build critical thinking and problem-solving skills that are invaluable to success in the future. In short, it can help a student realize no less than his or her full potential.https://www.mathcounts.org/mathcounts-alumni-scholarship
The MATHCOUNTS Alumni Scholarship is a $3,000 award presented to an outstanding alumnus/a whose experience in a MATHCOUNTS program had an impact on his/her outlook on math and influenced his/her academic or professional pursuits. Created in 2014, this scholarship ensures that MATHCOUNTS can recognize the work of talented alumni and continue to expand their academic and professional opportunities."
Pi Day Video
What's on your minds?
58 comments:
I've seen a couple different scenarios like above, with rotating A/B type schedules and double block schedules that vary from day to day and even week to week. Looking ahead for my sophomore, these kind of changes seem to make also fitting Running Start courses into a schedule more problematic. We're just starting to look at courses offered for junior or senior year, but does anyone else see this as a potential issue? Anyone with a student doing Running Start now have any thoughts?
Yes, it will make it much more difficult for part-time RS students, and could potentially force them into full-time RS. The most obvious downside, however, is shown on the included graphic: "129 hours of instruction per class per year" vs the 180 we have now. That's about 30% less time per class per year. That's significant. AP/IB classes will not have enough contact time (IB requires something like 150 hours of instructional time), but it's an issue for all core classes, not just AP/IB.
You can't make more time. Chopping the schedule into smaller chunks will make it even more difficult to cover required material. The end result seems predictable - less gets covered in each class. AP/IB course will require more of students outside of class time (as if it's not stressful enough already). Even more concerning is the potential for limiting the number of AP courses a student can take.
Another proposed schedule [7 straight] includes a daily 45 min. advisory (!) for credit, which is essentially an 8 period day with 7 courses that meet for 45 min. each (even less time on Wed). That schedule doesn't pencil out, though, with 5 min. passing periods - they'd have to end the school day at 4:00.
All proposals increase the time dedicated to advisory (And "time for social emotional" learning? Can it only happen in some contrived advisory situation?). All proposals reduce the time per course per year, even without the added advisory time. Running Start students and those with full AP/IB course loads seem like an afterthought. The scenarios don't seem to consider the workability for students taking more than 2 AP classes.
Under the new Draft Briefing Paper 2019-20 High School Schedule Decision, one of the Pro comments for the 8 AB rotation recommendation, says would "align with college course schedules" David Conley's research. Also under Key Schedule Elements it looks like they considered "equitable access" to Running start, AP, IB in the scenarios.
What does "equitable access" mean? That students can take at most 2 AP courses, so no one has "more" access to AP??
I heard that as things are currently Seattle students already face a disadvantage as far as time allocated for content covered for AP classes. They take their AP tests in May due to scheduling that aligns with schools in the Eastern US, 3-4 weeks earlier than they should be taking their test. The new schedules (both of them) reducing class time even further down from 180 to 129 or so is a real issue.
In addition, under cons it also looks like teachers would have to increase their student loads in the 8 period AB scenario, which I am guessing are already too high. It also looks like it has to be negotiated with teachers & their contracts. As a parent I am not involved in meetings nor understand their constraints, but this seems like a hard process to navigate successfully.
Core pedagogical tenet guiding the committee (according to linked document): "less is more; depth over coverage"
Explains a lot...
Why would teachers not have to increase their loads under all scenarios? How is AB different than any others? They are all more classes.
@ 9:23 AM There is no way either scenario would produce that outcome. These changes may also affect IB and running start in some capacity. But stop with the fear mongering.
@9:41AM Look at Pro and Cons in the supplemental Draft attached document only one scenario is listed as increasing teacher load. But that scenario also has more Pro's listed as well.
I see the pros and cons but can't understand why it would be different. Sometimes when they write these things they try to bias in this way- listing a con in an unfavored option even if it is in all of them.
Oldie
Just a quick reminder to please sign with an alias/handle or use an authenticated account when commenting. This helps maintain readability and minimizes confusion.
Yes. No matter how you slice it, if you're trying to cover 7 classes or 8 classes in the same amount of time as the current 6 classes, you end up with less instructional time per class. In our experience teachers often don't manage to get to everything planned as it is, so this would only make things worse.
If they are willing to give credit for advisory (as the presentation indicates), why don't they just do that now with the 6-class schedule? Many (most? all?) high schools have some form of advisory, so just give credit for it. If they give a full credit, that's 28 possible, or if only a half-credit, that's 26. Either gives a little extra flexibility for students in meeting the 24-credit requirement. Those who need to make up additional credits beyond that can do so via online classes, college courses, etc. There are other options for credit recovery, electives, whatever, so there's no reason we need to short-change students in the basics in order to address the 24-credit requirement.
6plus
what a brilliant idea 6plus!
Agree
@6plus In both scenarios listed class time is reduced significantly. I also just confirmed from SPS administration this will indeed affect all schools, including Ingraham and IB classes as well. It is not just affecting AP like some had assumed.
JK
My child's fall report card includes a 0.25 earned credit for Advisory.
FNH
Can the district force a student to take advisory? It's not a graduation requirement. I'm imagining a part-time Running Start student who blocks their RS courses in the AM and evening, then takes 1 or 2 classes at their high school in the afternoon. I'd assume they could bypass advisory.
@ JK, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, both the 7- and 8-class scenarios presented reduce class time significantly...which is why I suggested sticking with the 6-class scenario but giving credit for advisory (which schools may be doing already now?). My point was that IF schools have already added advisory periods--as many seem to have done--and IF those advisory periods don't seem to be disappearing anytime soon (which they don't seem to be, since they are incorporated into the 7-and 8-class scenarios, too, essentially making them 8- and 9-class scenarios), then why not just stick with what many schools already have--6 classes plus advisory. As long as they give credit for advisory, that provides some cushion for those who need it. And those who do Running Start shouldn't have any trouble meeting the 24-credit req't, since you can earn credits much faster that way.
Also, who thought this would only affect AP? The reduced class time that necessarily comes with adding classes but not adding instructional time was noted by many in early discussions of the 3x5 and other options, and the failure to fully consider feasibility/logistics for both AP and IB were also often noted.
6plus
What teacher in their right mind is going to enthusiastically support the move from the 6 period schedule to an 8 period schedule? If class sizes are to remain the same, they will be asked to bear the brunt of the load - they would be asked to move from 5 classes with a load of 150 students + 1 prep, to 6 classes with a load of 180 students + 1 (shorter) prep + advisory (30 more students).
doesn't compute
@ doesn't compute, they suggest that teachers would teach 6 classes, so under the 8-class scenario they'd have 2 prep periods instead of just one. But still, more students overall. And advisory is essentially a 7th class. (So many must be essentially teacing 6 now, 5 regular plus advisory?).
This all seems like a lot of unnecessary turmoil and extra cost and complication to me...
6plus
If advisory earns credit, and teachers need to provide instruction and enter grades, it sure sounds like a class. That leaves one prep period, but with even less time per week than teachers have currently.
I think you missed something. Yes, advisory sounds like (is) a class, but as I said earlier, when they talk about the 8-class scenario there would also still be an additional advisory, so it's more like 9 classes from the teachers' perspective. They would teach advisory plus 6 classes (so 7 total), but they'd have 2 of the 8 non-advisory classes off as prep. In other words, 6 on, 2 off, plus advisory.
6plus
6plus Why don't you suggest your idea to SPS administration & Michael Tolley, maybe it is viable or maybe they already considered it. They seem to be moving forward to the next steps which is bargaining with SEA. If they reply, maybe you could post.
LP
@6plus, all variations of the "8 with AB rotation" have advisory as a class, with 7 additional periods. The "7 straight" scenario should really be called "8 straight" as it includes advisory as well. Based on the 2/28 materials, there is no 9 class scenario (8 periods + advisory).
The overwhelming majority of students in SPS graduate high school, 4 year graduation rate is 79%; the aim is for everyone to graduate.
Right now, of those who graduate, most do so with 24 credits.
Current high school 4 years x 6 period day with a pass in each class = graduating on time even with the future higher credit mandate.
So the question is, of those who graduate, how many have *not* hit the 24 credit mark? In other words, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM SPS IS TRYING TO FIX?
If the problem is defined as students who would graduate under the current credit requirement failing to graduate as the 24 credit system kicks in, then **how many children are affected**??
Why that matters: because if it is only 100, and only in 2 high schools, you need a laser focus to support those kids. If it is, say, 30% of all graduating kids, then, you need a universal and diffuse solution. You can't design a solution if you have not defined the problem.
There is a tremendous cost to pushing in a A/B 8 period block schedule: LESS DIRECT INSTRUCTION. How does that help failing kids???
Why can't a 6 period day be preserved with a zero period and 7th period be added as needed to a given high school, with those classes being primarily things needed by kids at risk of not graduating on time? The WSS formula could be tweaked to load in percentage of failing marks to boost budge available to schools with kids who need to approach credit retrieval.
Six period day plus before and after school classes causes the LEAST DAMAGE TO the most kids, won't impact the number of direct instruction for the most number of kids, and allows for kids to undertake credit retrial in a way that can accommodate a number of needs. There is also summer school and skills center. Kids who have after school job or family obligations could take the zero period route and graduate on time.
Seems like this district is determined to make high school an optical illusion of education. But, the AP exams and ACT scores will always tell the truth. Watch for inequity to actually GROW if the district pushes through this deleterious A/B 8 periods. Those with means will escape or tutor to ensure their kids clear the bar. Those without flexibility or time or resources will have no opportunity to make up for the poor practice of a shorten instruction approach. (And this at a time when Garfield has indicated they are going to adopt an AP for ALL approach; the results for that are entirely predictable).
Bottom line is that 24 credits does not equal cutting up days into finer and finer slices of multiple courses (Would teachers get 7 out of 8 periods to teach and one for prep, which is an increase in teaching time without an increase in pay? Would their student load go up from 150 to 210 students? And yet, they would have to deliver the same bench marks with LESS time per student and MORE students to divvy themselves up amongst? In what universe does this make sense?). How would world language be taught? Not hearing a language every day is a huge impact on quality of instruction and opportunity for learning. Instrumental music would also suffer particularly. And, shortening AP courses would put Seattle at an extraordinary disadvantage: we already are seeing a decay in the number of national merit scholars from SPS even while the size of the high school graduating class swells.
It is up to the school board to revolt and put their feet down. They have to speak reject this and speak truth, putting their foot down and telling Tolley 'not on their watch' : the A/B 8 period block days with advisory is going to short change students, put unfair expectations on teachers, and damage the overall quality of learning for every student, with a particular harm on the most vulnerable kids, who are ostensibly the ones they would like to help the most.
Evidence-based Decision-making
oops, I was mistaken re: the 9-class days. Yes, the 8 options are really 7 plus advisory--just like the 7 option is.
What really gets me is how district staff try to influence the outcomes by presenting pros and cons in such obviously biased ways. For example, they present a slide on the "8 with AB Rotation Scenario – Summary of Key Elements & Other Benefits." These include:
• Provides more credit-earning opportunities.
HOW SO? ALL THE 8AB VARIATIONS INCLUDE 7 CORE CLASSES AND AN ADVISORY--JUST LIKE THE STRAIGHT 7 SCENARIO DOES. IT'S MORE THAN THE CURRENT 6+ADVISORY, TRUE, BUT IT'S NOT A "PRO" OF THE 8 MODEL AS COMPARED TO THE 7 MODEL...
• Provides opportunities for longer instructional blocks. TRUE. BUT IT ALSO MAKES IT HARDER FOR STUDENTS WHO MISS A CLASS TO CATCH UP, SINCE IT MEANS THEY MISSED MORE MATERIAL AND ARE FURTHER BEHIND. THERE ARE CONS THAT ACCOMPANY THE PROS.
• Includes time for social and emotional learning, academic support, and high school and beyond planning. THIS SEEMS TO REFER TO ADVISORY--WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE 7 MODEL, AND MANY OF THE CURRENT 6 MODELS AS WELL. THIS IS NOT A 8-MODEL BENEFIT ONLY. I'M SO SICK OF THE BIASED WAY THEY PRESENT THEIR "ANALYSES."
• Providing different block lengths matches survey feedback from content areas and align with college course schedules (e.g., David Conley’s research). IT SEEMS THEY ARE PARTLY REFERRING TO THE ABILITY TO HAVE "SKINNIES" AS WELL, SHORTER CLASSES THAT MEET DAILY. BUT EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION THEY SEEMED TO BE SO WORRIED ABOUT HAVING MORE/SHORTER CLASSES PER DAY AND HOW THAT TAXES EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING. HAVING A COMPLICATED MIX OF LONG AND SHORT AND DAILY VS. EVERY-OTHER-DAY CLASSES WON'T SIMILARLY TAX E.F.?
• Students would benefit from fewer transitions during the day. SEE ABOVE. NOT SO MANY FEWER IF THEY ADD IN SKINNIES. AND LONG CLASSES CAN HAVE THEIR DRAWBACKS, TOO...
• Teaching 6 of 8 periods would provide more planning time for educators. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE 8AB MODELS, AS THE 7 STRAIGHT MODEL SIMILARLY INVOLVES 7 MAIN CLASSES AND AND ADVISORY--IF THEY CAN ALLOW TEACHERS TO TEACH 6 0F 8 UNDER THE 8 MODELS, THEY CAN ALLOW THEM TO TEACH 6 0F 8 UNDER THE 7 MODEL, TOO. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT TEACHERS COULD GET SHORTER PREP PERIODS DAILY, VS. LONGER EVERY OTHER DAY.
• There are many examples of schools and districts having success with this kind of schedule (Source: Darling-Hammond, 2008). COOL. ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES WITH DISTRICTS HAVING SUCCESS WITH THE 7 STRAIGHT (PLUS ADV) MODEL, OR WITH 6 (PLUS ADV) MODELS? DID THEY LOOK?
6 plus
I agree with evidence-based. If most students can graduate with the current setup, what's the problem we're trying to fix? How many of those who haven't been able to earn 24 credits with our 24-credit schedule (6 periods) would have been able to earn 24 credits if they were also given 2 credits for advisory (since schools now seem to be awarding 0.5 cr per year for advisory, on top of the 24 credits regularly available)? If that provides the extra wiggle room that many need, that get us much closer with no additional disruption. The small group of students who can't manage 24 credits out of 26 opportunities probably need some additional supports, so why not use the significantly increased funding that any of the new scenarios would require and instead put it toward helping those students to (a) pass their regular classes) and/or (b) recover credits via summer/zero-period/afterschool classes instead?
Spending more money to provide more breadth at the expense of depth is not a good investment, imho.
Sorry for the continued rants. I'm done. :)
6plus
It is not just 24 credits, it is also where those 24 credits need to come from. You need a certain number of credits in math, LA, SS, science, etc. I admit I don't know what the number of credits needed is, but this matters. If you fail say freshman LA, there is no place in your schedule to recover that credit during the regular school day.
In my mind, the only solution is to go back to 50 minute periods, lengthen the school day some and have a 7 period day. The will allow a student who makes a mistake as a freshman and fails a class a chance to recover from that mistake and still graduate. I know Ingraham has been making freshman success a major point of emphasis over the past few years and we have done a good job, but there are still kids who don't figure things out till they are juniors. Having a 7 period day of 50 minute periods will give them a chance to catch up as they mature.
24 credit graphic from OSPI:
http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/GradRequirements/GradReqVisualsAug2014.pdf
@ Michael Rice, good point. Offering credit for advisory is kind of meaningless, since it likely doesn't fulfill any of the core 24 requirements. Meeting the specific requirements is key, and there is less flexibility than before.
As a teacher, can you clarify how that sort of credit recovery has usually been done? If a student fails 9th grade LA, do they take both 9th grade and 10th grade LA in 10th grade? Or do they move on to 10th and have to make up 9th later? Or do they repeat 9th and get on a year-behind track? Having students who have trouble in a particular subject double-up in that subject one year seems like a recipe for disaster, so I'm not sure how the expanded number of classes is supposed to help with that scenario.
The SBE already has lots of online providers lined up that offer free courses for credit recovery (or advancement), so why isn't that enough? If students need more support for those online classes, why don't we provide that instead?
Or is the real concern not credit recovery, but the district's inability to provide full and appropriate schedules for all students due to poor capacity planning? If students can't get the 3 years of science they need or the 2 years of foreign language, that's a failure of the current system. Does SPS actually want to move to a 28-credit (non incl. advisory) system so that there's more wiggle room for those students who end up stuck in TA positions multiple times because they can't get another class?
6plus
"In my mind, the only solution is to go back to 50 minute periods, lengthen the school day some and have a 7 period day."
That sounds appropriate. However, making the school day longer is probably not on the table due to funding. But as they are otherwise asking teachers otherwise to increase their student load considerably in the other scenario, that could also result in a funding issue.
Evidence Based Decision Making you really nailed it....they are impacting all kids & teachers negatively with this plan.
It seems like this train is rolling fast and will impact all schools and student negatively. Now is the time to send your criticisms and suggestions to the board, Michael Tolley etc or maybe it is already too late.
HT
I added the info on the next HC advisory committee meeting to the top post.
The district is not in the position to fund a longer day, more teachers, or more classrooms, and it's difficult to imagine teachers agreeing to take on an increased student load with no additional pay. The 8 period schedule seems like a lose-lose: all teachers would be asked to do more for less and students would lose instruction time for every class (does anyone think the quality of instruction could be maintained?). I'm not looking forward to the possibility of another protracted bargaining period or teacher strike should this plan be pushed forward.
Did anyone attend last night's HCS-AC meeting, and was there any discussion of the 8 period schedule and potential impacts on AP/IB/Running Start?
Spoke with SPS Caleb Perkins, working on core 24. He mentioned the Garfield messenger would be coming out with a new article, as he spoke to a student to correct some misinformation. AP classes would not be realistically limited to 3 per year in the proposals being considered. They are talking about skinny periods, longer block schedules etc, so not two full periods for an AP or IB class etc. Also, why they are not considering a zero period is "not equitable" as the kids already having issues meeting credit requirements would still have issues in that scenario. The model they are looking at right now is Bellingham. Also, Cleveland High School has 8 periods and more kids are meeting credit requirements.
Not considering (Michael's Rice's great suggestion) just making 50 minute classes and a longer day as changing bell times was very difficult with the community. IMO parents might be supportive if explained that the alternative means cutting (AP, IB etc) class times from 150 to 129, increasing teacher load etc. It was explained the plan is still in negotiation and there are several next steps, SEA, School Board etc.
L
Does anyone really think that if students go from studying six subjects per term to eight subjects per term--a 33% increase in what's "covered"--they will actually learn more? Chances are slim. Time per class will be significantly cut, and homework will likely also be cut to accommodate the larger class load. Overall, students will get more breadth--primarily more electives?--and less depth.
How unfortunate
I think cutting course time down (150 to 129) combined with the AP testing schedule where students are already being tested prior to course completion is a bad idea.
Make no mistake, they are combining a plan of cutting core class time, increasing teacher loads from 150 to 180-200, with a plan of adding in additional support classes for credit which will be what many kids are forced into taking (needed or not) to fill their new 8 period schedule. The school day length remains the same. They just chop away at core class time and add filler that is not applicable or needed by all. They are not gearing this plan toward the majority of students in SPS who need to be prepared to be college ready.
What ever happened to summer school, or other alternatives for students who are failing to garner credit. Restructuring the high school content is inequitable to all students. This seems like a plan unfair to all that helps none in the long run academically, including the kids who are getting credit during school time for "support classes".
MP
The proposed 8 period schedules have 7 subjects + advisory (for credit). The shorter periods and "skinnies" seem like they would be a problem for classes like science/labs, band, orchestra, studio art, or anything that requires set-up and clean-up.
@ March 10th 9:19PM- The 7 straight clearly clearly proposes 7 courses plus advisory daily which does not change. However, the proposed 8th period AB rotation could potentially mean some students would end up with more courses (& they alt days) per semester/year taxing executive functioning. It is under the summary of questions/concerns. We have no idea what courses will fit into skinnies etc.
MP
If a student fails English class one year, how do they make that up to get the required 4 years? If they fail 9th grade LA, do they take both 9th AND 10th grade LA the following year, or are they required to go outside the regular school schedule (e.g., summer school, state-approved online courses, etc.)? If they have to go "outside" for credit recovery for some classes, why can't that be the model for all?
Where's the analysis of who doesn't earn credits that align with the new requirements and why (i.e., are they failing classes? Not getting the classes they need? Missing too much school due to other issues? Other?)? We need to understand the root of the problem before we can propose a reasonable solution.
Anna Lyzit
All plans are variations on a theme: moving from 6 subjects to 7 subjects + advisory, with no additional time to the school day. They all cut back significantly on time per course per year, while adding to the teacher load.
The plans look like a recipe for increased anxiety and burnout, for both students and teachers. Extended passing periods or short morning breaks (time to eat a snack, take care of basic needs...) are not included in the proposed scenarios.
(MP, are you suggesting some students would replace advisory with a class, like double math?)
Does anyone know if they plan to include the parental community at all? So far, I have not heard of any plan at all on community engagement. Only that next steps involve bargaining with SEA (sounds like they are moving forward right now) & more discussion with the SPS board.
Parent
I really don't like the fact that they are modeling their recommendation after Bellingham school district (& one high school only Cleveland), and not schools districts in our area such as Bellevue, North Shore etc. What works for Bellingham students applying to a local university in their area such as WWU, may not work for SPS students applying to their local university UW which is more selective. Bellevue's 24 credit adaptation has a zero period, and 10 minute longer day. We should be similar to other districts in our own area for our students to be best prepared for college admission.
There's plenty of serious things afoot today with the gun violence walkouts but I thought a small note of whimsy would be ok and added a video for pi day at the top.
Article in the Economist about gifted ed.
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21739144-new-research-suggests-new-ways-nurture-gifted-children-how-and-why-search-young
Can anyone help clarify the class rank and weighted GPA policy for SPS high schools? At a meeting at Roosevelt last night about running start, the counselor indicated that they are no longer using either class ranking or weighted GPA after this year. This was in connection to how RS classes could positively or negatively affect a GPA. Does anyone know how high schools indicate on college transcripts how students have done against their peers? I know from various private and public schools that an actual GPA can be very different even for students of similar capabilities and course schedules.
Do they indicate if that is a change District wide, or just at Roosevelt? The current policy is that Running Start, AP, and IB courses have a 1.0 weighting added, while honors classes have a 0.5 weighting added. An "A" in a non-honors, honors, and RS class would be 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0, respectively. Class rank is based on the weighted GPA, so those taking more honors and RS/AP/IB courses have an advantage in class rank, all grades being equal. Isn't the point to encourage taking challenging classes? A "B" in a RS/AP/IB course is equal to an "A" in a non-honors course. Without that weighting, students may be less inclined to take a chance on an advanced course. It would be then be "safer" to stick with an easier class, GPA wise, but not necessarily from a college prep standpoint.
From what I understand, UW admissions considers Running Start to be on par with AP/IB coursework, as long as a student is taking challenging courses (especially in math and science where courses can be more advanced than what's offered at their high school). Some selective private schools have eliminated class rank, and their school reputations with colleges may eliminate the need. Class rank can count against a strong student with a strong cohort of students - it's more difficult to place in the top 10% even with a heavy course load.
Running Start can negatively impact the unweighted GPA because it's much more difficult to get a 4.0 just by showing up and doing the work, like some high school classes. On the other hand, all RS classes have a 1.0 weighting for class rank calculations, so full-time RS students have an advantage in class rank placement (as do students taking a full load of AP/IB classes).
One more note about RS grades: instructors determine the grading scale for their class; it's not a fixed, uniform scale like in SPS. A 90% in one class, for example, may result in a different GPA than in another class. Some instructors curve, some don't.
The comments from the counselor indicated a district change. I didn't know if all schools were doing the same thing initially since we're new to high school. As my student is looking at adding more AP courses to the schedule next year, it seems like without any weighting or ranking the benefit for taking the most challenging coursework is diminished, and perhaps detrimental to GPA. I know other schools like Garfield have tried to limit or reduce the amount of AP classes students can take, but not been successful. I haven't heard anything lately, though. Eliminating ranking or weighting could be just another way to discourage kids from signing up for lots of AP/Honors/CIHS classes, but just in a less obvious way. It's also discouraging to kids who really want to push themselves, as someone taking 4-5 AP courses will potentially end up with a lower GPA than kids taking all grade level courses. On a transcript sent with college applications, will there be any way for universities to gauge how a student performed against their school peers?
The meeting at Roosevelt was packed with many families standing for lack of chairs. It was informative from the college level, but did bring up other questions, such as above.
Thanks, 9:11 AM. What you stated above was what I had always heard until recently. The change was indicated to take place after this year.
Some things to consider when applying to college: The end of junior year is generally the data point colleges see, combined with planned coursework for senior year. Admission will be based on GPA for years 9-11, as grades for 12th wouldn't be known until after applying. Colleges will expect students to take challenging coursework and maintain good grades through senior year, and could rescind offers if performance is low, but it's the grade 9-11 performance they see. Colleges also consider courses taken, so even without weighted GPA or class rank, they will be able to consider the level of challenge by RS/AP/IB courses taken.
My understanding of UW's credit policy for RS/AP/IB is high school grades don't factor into the UW GPA for freshman admits (it's different for transfer students). CIHS classes, however, do factor into the UW GPA, so if a student is concerned about impacting their college GPA, they may want to stick with RS/AP/IB courses. Policies vary by university, so it's important to read up before selecting courses.
My understanding is that college admission departments already understand all of the GPA games between schools and tend to unweight the reported GPAs and then also evaluate the general difficulty of the courses taken. So I don't think this will have a huge effect. As a student you're still left having to balance showing rigor vs. the risk of a lower grade.
Note: this is all moot except for the small pool of very selective colleges. If you're aiming for UW the difference between one B+ in an AP course vs an A in one level down probably won't shift the chances of acceptance much. If you're going for Harvard it might be more significant but when the acceptance rate gets extremely low there is a huge element of chance anyway.
Do not underestimate the selectivity of honors and other competitive programs within larger public universities, UW included. While the policy change may have less impact for admission to in-state colleges who are more familiar with area schools, it's not clear how losing a data point may impact admissions to colleges less familiar with specific WA schools. It would be a good question for an admissions rep.
Also beware parents claiming to know the ins and outs of the UW admissions based on working there. There's been a spate of really bizarre statements made elsewhere.
Ranking and weighting are governed by SPS Policy 2420, which says the additional weights are applied for calculation of class rank but not for calculation of official transcript GPA, which is unweighted. I believe it has been this way for a while. Still, a transcript with good grades on harder courses will stand out more than one with better grades on easier classes. Plus, the student will likely learn more along the way and be better challenged, which is the real goal, right?
The current policy is dated Nov 2017. If they are making changes, that should be discussed and will need Board approval and then updated implementation guidelines.
DisAPP
I should add that this change, if it happens, does seem to be another effort to lower the ceiling for high-achieving students. It provides a disincentive for highly capable students to take more challenging classes, while decreasing the disincentive for low-performing students to do so.
Whether they officially make this policy change or not, they are effectively doing it to some extent already via the move toward "honors for all" classes. HFA classes should contribute the same additional .5 weight for ranking purposes, but if everyone is taking the same HFA class the room for separation or distinction is minimized. Perhaps that's what they were referring to--the lack of weighting contribution in an HFA system? But there are still plenty of other opportunities that SHOULD still contribute to weighted points that factor into class rank.
DisAPP
The K-12 Counseling Services Manual (p 35-36) contains the details on class ranking. Board Policy 2420 states only "...Honors courses receiving an additional .5 Quality Point and courses eligible to receive college credit from an accredited institution, such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, College in the High School and Running Start courses receiving an additional 1.0 Quality Point," but does not explain when weighted GPA is used or reported.
https://seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/College%20and%20Career%20Readiness/CounselingManual.pdf
...still wondering if the policy is changing. We've been told our school reports unweighted GPA on the official transcript, but students can request the weighted GPA and class rank when submitting college apps. That fits with the info in the Counseling Services Manual, but it's updated yearly and doesn't need Board approval, so what we've been told could change.
There's additional info in that manual you may have missed.
"Weighting will be used to determine class rank only and will not affect a students’ official, cumulative grade point average (GPA)."
"...official GPA (which must be shown on the state transcript as unweighted)"
"Class rank does not appear on official transcripts; however, many colleges and universities, scholarship programs and some employers do ask for rank on their applications."
So official GPA reported on transcripts is unweighted. Weighting goes into calculation of class rank, but class rank also isn't reported on official transcripts. However, class rank is listed on Seattle Public Schools Academic Course Histories, whatever those are. Do colleges get them, or are they just for personal info (e.g., so you can list your rank if they ask)? Do those academic course histories also include the weighted GPAs, in case anyone wants those?
Updating the manual doesn't need Board approval, but only if changes are consistent with policy. Current policy provides for weighting, so they can't change that without Board approval.
So far I'm not seeing any evidence that changes are being proposed/planned for next year. What changes do people think/fear are coming, specifically?
DisAPP
...so consistent with what was already stated, @DisAPP. What could change is that they no longer calculate or report class rank. Board Policy only references "Quality points" and says nothing about class rank. There would not need to be a change to Board Policy for that change to be implemented (it's not clear what was changed in the 2017 update).
anon@10:11
Agreed. They could stop reporting class rank. I don't know if that's a huge deal though--it's easy enough to report that your district/school doesn't report that, I think colleges would be fine with it. I know of private schools that don't assign ranks and those kids do fine. Class rank is a statistically funky one anyway. Is it best to be #1 at a low-performing school, or top 10% at a high performing school? Given the great disparities in populations at our schools, class rank is hard to interpret. Courses and grades and test scores are probably a lot more informative.
DisAPP
Post a Comment