weighting g.p.a. to assist in improving student achievement

WEIGHTING GPA RURAL 1

WEIGHTING G.P.A. TO ASSIST IN IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:

CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE SYSTEM FOR A RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

By

Daniel Nett Jr.

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

Aug 5th

, 2009

APPROVED BY: Derek L. Anderson, Ed.D.

DATE: August 5, 2009


Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter I: Introduction…………………………………………………………………….4

Chapter II: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………..8

Chapter III: Results and Analysis Relative to the Problem……………………………...18

Chapter IV: Recommendations and Conclusion…………………………………………22

References………………………………………………………………………………..26

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………29


Abstract

Schools continuously evolve and adapt the way they grade student achievement.

Weighting classes is common practice in attempting to reward students for challenging

themselves in the classroom. However, no standardized system exists for weighting

grades, in part due to the various backgrounds of school districts involved. The purpose

of this paper is to research appropriate methods of weighting GPA and choosing a system

for a rural school district with a traditional grading system, small enrollment, and fewer

classes to choose from than larger districts. Multiple studies exist documenting numerous

systems and variations in grading across the country. Accounting for various studies and

methods for weighting GPA, an appropriate method seems to be suitable for this rural

school district.


Chapter I: Introduction

In the United States, grading and reporting are relatively new concepts in

education. Prior to 1850, grading and reporting was unknown to schools in the United

States because of the use of one room schools and multi-age groupings (Guskey & Pollio,

2002). By 1910 most grading standards were based on percentages and students were

provided an A through F. Later, in the 1930’s came a push to distribute grades more

fairly, resulting in students graded on a curve (Pardini, 1997). As our schools evolve, so

have our grading systems. Currently, secondary schools utilize letter grade systems,

weighted letter grade systems, and non-letter systems. Utilizing weighted grading

systems in public high schools receives a lot of attention and use in our country (Talley &

Mohr, 1997). As the system stands, GPA is not decisively measuring student learning or

achievement, and at times continues to reward students whose academic performance has

been less challenging compared to students with lower GPAs (Imber, 2002; Lang, 2007).

Miley and Gonsalves (2004) summed it up by suggesting that grades have become valued

shorthand for students’ abilities.

Most educators understand that by providing a GPA, schools are able to rank

students. According to Imber (2002), ranking students motivates students to learn and

provides understanding of their accomplishments compared to others. However, students

often find themselves forced to choose between a class that requires a great deal of work,

but could damage his or her class rank. So, it should be no surprise that an ambitious

student who understands the importance of GPA opts for less educational value (Imber,


2002). To counter this problem in schools, educational institutions adapted weighted

systems.

In researching and trying to choose a system, difficulties arise because many

schools throughout the United States use a weighted system that is unique in nature. For

example, two school districts next to one another may use a weighted system to calculate

grade point averages for their students. Nevertheless, the separate districts may use

different weights for different classes. One school may provide extra weight to AP or

Advanced Placement classes, while the other school provides weight to honors and AP

classes. As a result, the goal is to utilize research to justify what weighted system is most

appropriate for rewarding and challenging students academically in a rural school district

with a K-12 enrollment of 415 students. Currently, the school utilizes the traditional non-

weighted system where A=4, A-= 3.67, B+=3.33, B=3.0, and so on.

In other places around the country, weighting grades in AP courses is common

practice in most schools and 98% of all Texas public high schools provide more weight

to an AP class than traditional courses, when figuring class rank (Gewertz 2008;

Klopefstein & Thomas, 2009; Sadler & Tai, 2007a). In other data, surveys reported as

high as 85% of schools utilize variations of formulas for weighted grades (Lang, 2007).

In one example of weighting, a traditional A received 4.0 grade points, that same A in an

AP or Honors course could equal 4.5 or 5.0 points respectively, depending on the set

system. In every school district that utilizes weighted classes, students who take these

courses and do well, tend to increase their GPA and class rank more so than students who

do not take weighted classes (Lang, 2007).


Basic goals of weighted systems are to reward students for their efforts by

providing them with a higher GPA for taking more rigorous classes, and to stop students

from dropping classes to increase their GPA and class rank. By keeping students in a

more challenging academic curriculum, educators hope to increase students’ standardized

test scores for college acceptance and better prepare them for college-level classes. Sadler

and Tai (2007a) described that enrolling in rigorous high school classes is a better

predictor of college success than receiving good grades in lower-level classes. The

importance of grades also impacts students in the areas of national honor society,

scholarships, college admissions, and future employment opportunities (Gilman & Swan,

1989). Consequently, administration, school boards, parents, and students need to

exercise caution with change, because when a group attempts to eliminate unfairness in

evaluation systems, an entirely different problem may occur (Gilman & Swan, 1989).

With enough planning and foresight, professionals can minimize the problems in the

system to make it fair and equitable.

When improper research has been conducted, school districts must adjust back to

traditional systems of un-weighted classes because students, staff, and parents discover

ways to manipulate the new system (Gilman & Swan, 1989). Gilman and Swan (1989)

and Morgan (2002) expressed to school districts not to expect that any attempt to make

the system fairer will produce fewer problems then the system it has modified. If

incentives are constructed inappropriately, students will suffer and class rank will

continue to be inaccurate, like traditional systems (Lang, 2007).


Suggesting another factor for a new GPA system to work, Pardini (2007)

expressed that continuous and effective public communications must be in place to relay

the merits of the new system to the community and teaching staff. School districts must

understand that parents and students have a stake in grading adaptations (Munk &

Bursuck, 2001). Besides quality communication and planning, and an overriding concern

for the well-being of the students will also result in more acceptable ways to grade

students (Guskey & Pollio, 2002).


Chapter II: Literature Review

Guskey and Pollio (2002) suggested that grading and reporting serve many

purposes but no single method serves all purposes well. They described that grading and

reporting methods are used to communicate student achievement, provide information for

self-evaluation, identify students for certain paths, provide incentives for learning, and

document students’ performance to check effectiveness of instruction. Due to no single

grading method serving all purposes, school staff must evaluate their primary purpose for

grading and select or develop the best approach with all stakeholders coming to a

consensus (Guskey & Pollio, 2002).

Without a doubt, there are many factors besides weighted GPA that play critical

roles in students’ choices of their academic curriculum. How classes are graded, who

they are taught by, and what types of classes schools offer are just some of the aspects

students and parents take into consideration before enrolling in classes. Studies show that

wide variations in grading provided by a wide variety of staff, in the same sections prove

a serious undermining of the current GPA system (Felton & Koper, 2009). Another factor

for enrolling in classes include, inflation of grades to the point that those classes become

inviting for class rank reasons. Easier courses are appealing to kids with immature

educational goals, and inflated grades eliminate time wasted dealing with parents or

students who complain (Felton & Koper, 2009). Miley and Gonslaves (2004) suggested

that if decided by students, the amount of effort they put toward a course should play a

significant role in their grade; however, even students admitted that effort is difficult to

measure. In a study by Talley and Mohr (1997), surveys asking preferences for weighting


or non-weighting were sent to 323 high school guidance directors and 185 college

admissions directors. Of the surveys sent out, 329 responses occurred, with 206 guidance

directors and 123 college admissions directors responding. The researchers found schools

that use traditional grading systems have students who take courses to raise their GPAs

and avoid taking courses that aren’t weighted.

To solve the GPA dilemma, numerous weighted formulas need to be evaluated.

The different types of formulas include, but are not limited to, a Two-Tier System, an

Additive System, a Multiplier System, and a Three-Tier System, (Gilman & Swan, 1989;

Lang, 2007; Sadler & Tai, 2007b). These systems may be utilized independently or, at

times, in combination with each other.

The most common weighted system is the Two-Tier System (Sadler & Tai,

2007b). In this system, higher weights or “bonus” points are given to certain courses that

tend to be more academically challenging. In some cases, college prep classes are

assigned higher weights than those assigned as basic (Gilman & Swan, 1989; Lang, 2007;

Sadler & Tai, 2007b). So, in one group of classes, student grade points are added to for

weighted classes, and in the other group of classes, the traditional 4 point system is used.

The combining effects of both scales create a student’s GPA. In this method, students

who take more honors classes and less electives, have the highest GPA. So, if two

students with exactly the same grades have the same number of honors courses, where an

A = 5.0 grade points, but 1 of the 2 students had less electives, the student with less

electives would have the higher GPA (see table 1 for example). Students are actually

penalized for taking more electives in the non-weighted curriculum (Sadler & Tai,


2007b). Cross (1996) explained that one must be careful when utilizing this system

because it more easily stereotypes kids into two different groups, those with GPAs above

4.0 and those with GPAs below 4.0. However, Cross suggested that based on American

work-ethic, more effort should result in greater reward, which does not occur in this

situation.

Table 1

Student 1

Student 2

Class Grade Grade Points

Credits Total Points

Grade Grade Points

Credits Total Points

Honors English

A 5 .5 2.5 A 5 .5 2.5

Honors Calculus

A 5 .5 2.5 A 5 .5 2.5

Honors Physics

A 5 .5 2.5 A 5 .5 2.5

PE A 4 .5 2 A 4 .5 2 Art A 4 .5 2 Total 2.5 11.5 2 9.5 GPA 11.5/2.5= 4.6

GPA 9.5/2= 4.75

GPA

In an example of an additive method of computing GPA, the traditional four-

point system is calculated first, then a fraction equal to weighted courses completed

divided by total courses completed is added to the original GPA (Gilman & Swan, 1989).

Difficulties arise when trying to determine the appropriate weight to be factored with the

traditional GPA. Other studies have labeled an additive method as the value-added

method (Hallock & Omnert, 1997). The additive method was constructed to eliminate

student penalties for taking more electives in other weighted system. In the value-added


method, initial GPA is first calculated using the traditional four-point scale. The second

step is to total the number of honors and or classes that will be weighted and multiply by

a percentage like .04, for example. Finally add the product from the second step to the

initial GPA (Hallock & Omnert, 1997). The value-added model is a simple way to

calculate GPA, but does not take into consideration the grade received in the class. This

method simply rewards the effort of enrolling in and passing the class. See Table 2.

Table 2

Course Grade Credit Quality Points

AP English B 1 3.0

Am. Government A .5 2.0

Consumer Ed. A .5 2.0

AP Calculus A 1 4.0

AP Chemistry A 1.2 4.8

Band A 1 4.0

Total 5.2 19.8

Step 1 19.8/5.2= 3.808

GPA

Step 2 Honors Classes

3 x .04 = .12

Step 3 Final GPA is

3.808+.12 = 3.928


Another system, the multiplier system, each weighted class receives quality points

that are equal to standard grades multiplied by a factor. Assume that the multiplying

factor is 1.5. In this example, all B’s would receive 4.5 GPA points, 3x1.5=1.5.

3+1.5=4.5 Grade Points (Gilman & Swan, 1989). In this system, A’s would be worth six

points, which is not advantageous in a small school district with limited enrollment and

class sections. The class rank would stretch widely from top of the class to even the

middle of the class.

Another potential system is the Three-Tier System. In this system, college prep

and honors courses are treated with a 5 point scale, basic classes with a four-point scale,

and non-academic classes like gym with three-point scale. The 5, 4, and 3 point scales

would interact to produce a student’s final GPA (Gilman & Swan, 1989). However, this

system is not fair to students’ GPA who truly enjoy electives like PE and put forth more

effort in those classes. In addition, the more non-academic electives that a student enrolls

in, the lower their GPA would be in respect to other students.

In assistance, Lang (2007) offered compelling statistics in considering methods in

weighted grading. Lang surveyed 232 of the largest 500 schools in the United States, and

the majority of these schools added weight to their AP and or honors courses. The goal of

the survey was to analyze the exact calculation for measuring GPA and how this affected

class rank. Findings showed more incentive exists for academically weaker students by

adding more grade points to completed classes, regardless of grades. For example, a

student who achieved an A in a weighted class and receives 5 grade points rather than 4,

those students are actually receiving 25% premium on their grades. However, if we


consider a grade of B, the grade points awarded are 4 rather than 3. This is a 33%

premium. Thus, students are receiving different incentives for enrolling in exactly the

same course. One system utilized for eliminating premiums is a factored system like the

value-added method explained previously.

Another consideration in adopting weighted systems is difficulty dealing with

transfer students. In a research study scrutinizing 3,400 students comparing current

transcripts and grade weight simulations, transfer students with more courses could create

conflict by attempting to figure which courses, AP, IB, Honors, or College-Prep type

classes receive weight (Siegel & Anderson, 1991). Although similar courses exist from

district to district, some high schools offer more classes than the school the student is

moving into. Therefore, parents may demand that previous classes be considered for

calculation in the weighted system. As a result, workload will increase for district

secretaries, counselors, administrators, or policy committees. Without transfer students

considered, Attewell (2000) stated, students in districts that offer less advanced classes

feel wronged. This feeling would only be polarized provided a student moved into a new

district and propelled themselves to the top of the class due to the number of honors

courses they completed at a former district.

In another study supporting the use of weighted GPAs, Sadler and Tai (2007b)

stated that timing is an issue when dealing with AP type classes. In this study, the authors

establish a relationship between the grade earned and type of high school science course

taken for 7,613 students by showing their later performance in introductory college

courses. Key to the survey in this study was to measure weighted and non-weighted GPA


effects on high school enrollment choices made by the students and their performance in

those classes and how that effected their college level work. The sample is drawn from

more than 100 introductory college science classes at 55 randomly chosen universities. In

their study, 66% of students take AP science courses in their senior year. As a result, the

majority of their exams are taken late in the year, after the admissions process for college

is completed. Sadler and Tai (2007b) continued, almost half of students in AP courses

nationally do not go on to take the AP exam. With no guidance and intrinsic motivation

as a sole reward for enrolling in AP classes, and fear of a traditional system high school

GPA dropping, high schools and colleges adapt weighted systems at the request of

teachers, parents, administrators to deal with rewarding and accounting for their efforts

(Sadler & Tai, 2007b). To add, the study supported students who enrolled in AP or

honors science courses in high school and scored better than a C, performed better in

follow-up college science courses. In concluding their study, due to the number of high

schools who offer weighted curriculum and more students enrolled in those classes, and

measuring their success at the college level, they found the practice of adding bonus

points to high school GPA is supported (Sadler and Tai, 2007b).

In dealing with how to weight honors versus AP classes, Sadler and Tai (2007b)

found a large difference between AP and honors in their predicted impact on college

grades. They found AP classes to be more valuable and did not support valuing AP and

honors courses equally in a grade points. Attewell (2000) found that of all the weighted

systems, approximately 7% provide more reward to AP classes than non-AP classes.


Certainly, school staff, board members, parents, and students will consider the

impact of a newly implemented weighted GPA on college acceptance. Conley (1996)

acknowledged from a college perspective, more than 85% adjust their admission

standards on a yearly basis due to applications received and how many seats they have

open. Implying, colleges are acting as businesses, adjusting their enrollment criteria to

ensure income for the university. In some startling date uncovered by Imber (2002),

many state universities do not take into consideration the difficulty of classes taken by

high school students, and once completing college statistics evaluated by the Association

of American Medical Colleges show that a significantly higher percentage of applicants

who major in non-science programs are admitted to medical school.

Opposing the above statements, Sadler & Tai (2007a) feel that a majority of

colleges re-compute GPA by eliminating basic classes and consider only advanced

courses, while accepting most high schools add points for more academically challenging

coursework. In the acceptance process, College admissions personal rank AP course

enrollments over standardized test scores and favor weighted GPA systems (Sadler & Tai

2007a). Sadler and Tai (2007a) & Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008)

continue that weighted GPA is a better predictor of first-year college GPA than non-

weighted systems. In Sadler and Tai’s (2007a) study, the method was to relate high

school science grade, high school course level (regular, honors, Advanced Placement),

and AP examination scores. In total, self- reported data was collected on more than

18,000 students at 63 randomly selected colleges and universities.


Klopfenstein & Thomas (2009) tracked the success of over 28,000 Texas high

school graduates who attended 31 four-year Texas public universities the following fall.

The authors measured the impact of the total number of AP credits taken in core subject

areas on college retention and GPA, as well as the effect of experience in specific AP

subject areas on the same outcomes. Early college success, in this study, is considered

second year retention and first-semester GPA. The authors sought AP experience

improving academic performance in college and increasing the likelihood of returning for

the second year. In analyzing college acceptance policies, Klopfenstein & Thomas (2009)

warn that AP high school students will no longer share the same predictor success status

if more students are allowed into AP classes due to human capital benefits alone.

Meaning, that parents, students, and administrators who know that advanced placement

classes in high school helps student entry to college, may be willing to manipulate the

system by increasing enrollment in those classes. When all demographics are considered,

studies show non-AP enrolled students are able to obtain academic success in college, but

AP participation is a strong predictor of college success (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009).

Imber (2002) shared concern that teachers’ desire to not adversely affect their

students’ GPA has likely been a critical factor in the grade inflation plaguing our schools.

Conley (1996) continues, grade point averages for high school students have continually

increased although SAT and college graduation rates remain stable. Colleges feel that by

weighting GPAs, they curb the grade inflation that has occurred since 1968 when only 18

percent of students had an A average as opposed to 2004’s data of 47%. By eliminating


the maxing out effects of a traditional 4.0 GPA, students who challenge themselves with

rigorous curriculum will be more distinguishable (Sadler & Tai, 2007b).


Chapter III: Results and Analysis Relative to the Problem

In a rural school district, due to various students, parents, and teachers inquiring

about a weighted GPA, selected school staff and school board members initiated research

to better suit the school academically. The formed curriculum committee of the school

board, administration, and counseling staff conducted research during curriculum

committee meetings and during personal time. The first goal was to research various

effects of different weighted systems on our high school’s recent graduates. In particular,

concern was placed on the effects of weighting grades on overall class rank.

In the next step, all transcripts and class rank reports of a recent graduated class

were printed. On the transcripts, all college preparation classes were tallied, due to certain

board members interest in adding weight to all college preparation classes. College

preparation classes were all classes required for entry into four-year colleges in

Wisconsin. The labeled classes include courses in English, Math, Social Studies, and

Science. In addition to college preparation classes, honors classes needed evaluation for

weighting. Honors courses in this school district included Calculus, Physics, Advanced

Chemistry, and Advanced Biology. Advanced Biology and Advanced Chemistry are both

.5 credit courses, which when combined, earned the same amount of GPA points as

Calculus or Physics. In counting college preparatory classes, honors courses were

included in this count, which will be explained later.

After initial research, the most appropriate method of weighting GPA in this

school district was the value-added method. The value-added method was chosen because

fewer manipulations were available to students to adjust their class rank. In a traditional


system, students are dropping classes or taking easier classes to move up in class rank. In

other weighted systems, depending on how one calculates, if honors courses are taken

with fewer electives, GPA and class rank balloons. By calculating the traditional GPA

first, then adding fractioned weight to classes to finalize the weighted GPA, allowed for

less manipulating on students’ part. Keep in mind that numerous ways of calculating

under the value-added method exist and fractions of the equations had to be adjusted to

avoid massive GPAs.

With a method in place, Microsoft Excel was utilized to construct data on 7

different GPA models to demonstrate effects of different weights to grades (see

appendix). First, traditional class rank was entered, followed by GPA credits, GPA

points, overall GPA, number of college preparatory credits (combined with honors

credits), and number of honors credits. Following the number of honors credits, value-

added method formulas were set up to represent potential GPA systems to utilize in a

school district. Due to the small size of the district and limited number of classes

available to students in comparison to much more populated districts, weights were kept

low to avoid excessively high GPAs. Initially, this may look like a two or three tier

system because of different weights to particular classes like college preparatory, basic,

and honors, however final GPA is calculated after traditional GPA is calculated first

(Hallock & Omnert, 1997).

In the first example, the equation Weighted GPA = GPA + (# of college

preparatory credits * .025) was utilized to see the effects on class rank and GPA. First,

.025 is multiplied by the number of CP credits. That answer is then added to the students’


traditional GPA to equal their new weighted GPA. The same step was taken in the next

column to understand effects with .0125 weight in the equation.

With both equations, number two ranked student moved up to number one

because of the number of college preparatory classes he or she took. Neither equation

provides extra reward for honors classes taken in high school, as demonstrated by the

student ranked third in the traditional system. There was little, if any, shift for students

with the most honors classes in this graduating class. So this system, though slightly

different than a traditional grading system, has very similar effects on class rank.

In the next three columns, only honors courses were provided various weights in

GPA calculation. In the first equation under this model, Weighted GPA = GPA + (# of

Honors credits * .1) was utilized to see the effects on class rank and GPA. Like the model

mentioned previously, the number of honors credits is multiplied by .1, that number is

then simply added to the traditional GPA to equal the new weighted GPA. The same

steps were taken to understand the effects of .05 and .025 weights for honors credits in

the school district ranking system.

When analyzing the effects of the .1 and .05 honors credits systems in this school

district, more upward movement in class rank is created for students with the most honors

courses than the .025 weight. With a .1 system and .05 system, the third ranked student is

propelled to the number one ranking because of the honors credits taken. Similar upward

movement occurred for other students with the maximum number of honors credits

passed. With limited honors credits to obtain, the .025 weight in the value-added method

employed here, had little effect for students who had the most honors courses.


In the last two columns, both equations for weighted GPA weight honors and

college preparatory credits the same, then add additional weight to honors credits. As

mentioned previously, college preparatory classes included honors classes. The method

of including honors classes in college preparatory category was to figure weighted GPA

in the very first to columns, providing the same amount of weight to all classes. The

following three columns provided weight only two honors classes. In the final two

columns, the same amount of weight was provided to college preparatory classes with

additional weight provided to honors credits. Additional weight provided to honors

classes was .025 to total .05 and .075 to total .1. The example equation is calculated in

this fashion, Weighted GPA = GPA + (# of college preparatory classes * .025) + (# of

honors credits * .025). First the number of college preparatory credits is multiplied by a

weight of .25. Then, the numbers of honors credits is multiplied by .025, that number is

added to the previous number and GPA to equal the new weighted GPA. In scrutinizing

the spreadsheet, the effects are very similar to weighting only honors credits with the

only observable difference being a ballooned GPA. Again, the third ranked student in the

class would be number one, but now with a 4.708 GPA.


Chapter IV: Recommendations and Conclusion

Of the different value-added methods employed, the one equation that seems to

have the best fit for a rural school district is the Weighted GPA = GPA + (# of Honors *

.1). First, this equation is easy to communicate and calculate. Smooth transitions should

be expected with reporting programs that districts utilize to calculate transcripts.

Knowing that students must challenge themselves academically, school boards may be

more willing to weight honors or AP classes instead of the college preparatory classes.

Another problem with the college preparatory class model is deciding which classes

represent college preparatory classes. Certainly, if any of the college preparatory models

were used above, drawn out discussion and discretionary issues would exist with art,

physical education, and technical education staff and the students who excel in those

classes. As stated before, extended research on weighted GPAs must be scrutinized to

find the most appropriate system for school districts (Morgan, 2002).

In the rural school district comprising the data in this paper, the teachers are

extremely passionate about their subject area and curriculum. If a college-prep system

were developed, these teachers would certainly propose to the school board that they

teach a class that was considered for weighting. This request would certainly create issues

due to declining enrollment and budgetary concerns of small schools. The school board

and administration would certainly deny this request based on finances alone. There is no

business sense in offering an honors Art or French course, if only a few students take

advantage of the opportunity. Under this particular situation, school teachers could feel

deceived or mislead, which is another potential area of further research.


Another factor to consider in this district, because of a dual enrollment program,

college level classes may be taken by high school juniors or seniors. Close to the school

district is a technical college, and community college, both of which offer an array of

classes available to students. Fortunately, the school district’s demographics and logistics

have a positive impact on students’ opportunities, which does not always exist for other

schools and families in more disconnected areas.

Another reason for selecting the honors weighted system mentioned above is to

avoid the ballooned GPAs. In another model, almost half of the student body earns a

GPA over 4.0. This may send mixed messages to the community, which creates more

work justifying the new system. However, other weighted systems increase as high as 5

points and possibly higher. Again, parent, staff, and student communication is crucial in

communicating the new weighted system (Pardini, 1997).

One potential drawback of the proposed system is that the value-added system

simply rewards effort. The system awards students the weighted points regardless of their

grade. Some may or may not agree with the fact that regardless of an A, B, C, or D

everyone receives .1 added to their GPA per honors class. The situation of students

receiving the same amount of weight, regardless of grades, is a similar argument Lang

(2007) posed. An increased enrollment of less academically able students for the

coursework may result, frustrating staff and parents. Teachers and administration must

remain strong and keep the curriculum appropriately academically challenging, not

surrendering ballooned grades to avoid justifications to students and families (Imber,

2002).


In dealing with transfer students, policies should be adopted to allow only

corresponding classes from the other school be weighted to circumvent unfairness in the

system. If already stated in the policy handbook, parents may be least apt to argue when

moving their son or daughter into a new district. In the rural district mentioned in this

paper, most honors courses are not taken until senior year. Regardless, schools need to be

cautious and have policy in place for any high school student transfer.

Another consideration in moving to a weighted system, from a global and

systemic perspective, weighted GPA is not a cure-all. Teacher standards, academic

appropriateness, and consistency are integral characteristics of a classroom. Enrollment in

AP and honors courses alone is not a guarantee for success at the college level

(Klopenstein & Thomas, 2009). More students will enroll in the weighted courses to

boost their GPA and teachers can’t grade easier to avoid confrontations (Imber 2002;

Klopenstein & Thomas, 2009).

The movement under the .1 honors system may be appropriate for our school, but

a .025 weight would probably have a more astounding effect in larger districts where

students enroll in more honors courses. In the example district, with a .025 weight in a

value-added method, limited movement is allowed because of the limited honors courses.

A major factor in weighting GPAs is rewarding students who challenge themselves the

most. Weighting .025 times the number of honors classes does not do that for students in

this district. When choosing a particular weighted system, practitioners must pay special

attention to the size of the district and the number of honors classes available.


References

Attewell, P. (2000, July 17). Mirage of Meritocracy. The American Prospect, p. 11, 12. Conley, D. (1996). Daddy, I’m Scared: A Prophetic Parable. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (4),

290-296 Cross, W. (1996). The Honors Course Dilemma. Bulletin: The National Association of

Secondary School Principals, 80(578), 116-119. Felton, J., & Koper, T. (2004). Nominal GPA and Real GPA: A Simple Adjustment

That Compensates For Grade Inflation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (6), 561-569. ERIC Reproduction Service No. EJ718849

Gewertz, C. (2008). Texas Move to Tighten GPA Formula Sparks Backlash. Education

Week 28 (6), 18-21. Gillman, D., & Swan, E. (1989). Solving GPA and Class Rank Problems. NASSP

Bulletin 73, 91-97. doi: 10.1177/019263658907351515 Guskey, T., & Pollio H. (2002). Grading Systems. Encyclopedia of Education, 3 (2),

954-962. Hallock, P. & Omnert, D. (1997). The Value Added Method of Calculating Grade Point

Average. NASSP Bulletin 81, 116-118. doi: 10.1177/019263659708158519 Imber, M. (2002). The Problem with Grading. American School Board Journal 189 (6),

40-41, 47. Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. (2009). The Link Between Advanced Placement

Experience and Early College Success. Sourthern Economic Journal. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc.1G1-19312392.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc.1G1-19312392.html�


Lang, D. (2007). Class Rank, GPA, and Valedictorians: How High Schools Rank

Students. American Secondary Education 35 (2), 36-48. Miley, W. & Gonslaves, S. (2004). Grade Expectations: Redux. College Student

Journal 38 (3), 327-330. Morgan, R. (2002). California may Ban Extra Points for AP Courses. The Chronicle of

Higher Education 48 (41), 23. Munk, D. & Bursack, W. (2001). What Report Card Grades Should and Do

Communicate: Statistical Data Included. Remedial and Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com

Pardini, P. (1997, December). Report Card Reform. School Administrator 54 (11).

pp.19-26. Sadler, P. & Tai, R. (2007). Accounting for Advanced High School Coursework in

College Admission Decisions. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Retrieved from http://www.high beam.com

Sadler, P. & Tai, R. (2007). Weighting for Recognition: Accounting for Advanced

Placement and Honors Courses when Calculating High School Grade Point Average. NASSP Bulletin 91 (1), 5-32. doi:10.1177/0192636506298726

Siegel, J. & Anderson, C. (1991). Considerations in Calculating High School GPA and

Rank-in-Class. NASSSP Bulletin 75, 96-109. doi: 10.1177/019263659107553716 Talley, N. & Mohr, I. (1997). Weighted vs. Non-weighted: The Argument for Non-

weighting. Journal of College Admission 155, 22-25.

http://www.highbeam.com/�


Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008). Written Testimony Submitted at the

Public Comment Hearing Concerning Proposed Rules for the Standard GPA Calculation. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/docfetch.cfm?


Class Rank Report - Rural School District APPENDIX Table 3

Effects of Weighted GPA Systems

Value - Added Methods

Rank GPA

Credits GPA

Points GPA

# of College

Prep Credits

# of Honor

s Credit

s

GPA + (# of CP * .025)

GPA + (# of CP

*0.0125) GPA +

(#H*0.1) GPA + (#H

*0.05) GPA + (#H

*0.025)

GPA +(#CP*0.025)+(#H*0.025)

GPA+(#CP*0.025)+(#H*

0.075) 1 29.25 117 4 19 2 4.475 4.2375 4.2 4.1 4.05 4.525 4.625 2 32 127.67 3.99 21 2 4.515 4.2525 4.19 4.09 4.04 4.565 4.665 3 27.5 108.845 3.958 21 3 4.483 4.2205 4.258 4.108 4.033 4.558 4.708 4 31.25 122.85 3.931 21 2 4.456 4.1935 4.131 4.031 3.981 4.506 4.606 5 26.25 100.938 3.845 19.5 2.5 4.3325 4.08875 4.095 3.97 3.9075 4.395 4.52 6 32.25 123.938 3.843 22 3 4.393 4.118 4.143 3.993 3.918 4.468 4.618 7 26.75 102.343 3.826 18 1 4.276 4.051 3.926 3.876 3.851 4.301 4.351 8 26.25 97.023 3.696 21 3 4.221 3.9585 3.996 3.846 3.771 4.296 4.446 9 26.75 98.345 3.676 18 2 4.126 3.901 3.876 3.776 3.726 4.176 4.276

10 28.75 104.416 3.632 15.5 0.5 4.0195 3.82575 3.682 3.657 3.6445 4.032 4.057 11 27.25 98.188 3.603 18 2 4.053 3.828 3.803 3.703 3.653 4.103 4.203 12 29.75 107.098 3.6 19 2 4.075 3.8375 3.8 3.7 3.65 4.125 4.225 13 26.25 93.25 3.552 17 1 3.977 3.7645 3.652 3.602 3.577 4.002 4.052 14 27.25 96.58 3.544 17 0 3.969 3.7565 3.544 3.544 3.544 3.969 3.969 15 30.25 107.158 3.542 19 2 4.017 3.7795 3.742 3.642 3.592 4.067 4.167 16 28.5 100.68 3.532 17.5 2.5 3.9695 3.75075 3.782 3.657 3.5945 4.032 4.157 17 25.25 86.428 3.423 17 0 3.848 3.6355 3.423 3.423 3.423 3.848 3.848 18 30.25 100.931 3.337 19 1 3.812 3.5745 3.437 3.387 3.362 3.837 3.887 19 27.25 88.26 3.239 17.5 0.5 3.6765 3.45775 3.289 3.264 3.2515 3.689 3.714 20 26.75 86.34 3.228 19 2 3.703 3.4655 3.428 3.328 3.278 3.753 3.853 21 24.75 79.42 3.209 18.5 1 3.6715 3.44025 3.309 3.259 3.234 3.6965 3.7465 22 25 76.345 3.054 19.5 0.5 3.5415 3.29775 3.104 3.079 3.0665 3.554 3.579


23 23.5 71.678 3.05 17.5 0 3.4875 3.26875 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.4875 3.4875 24 28.25 82.1 2.906 17 0 3.331 3.1185 2.906 2.906 2.906 3.331 3.331 25 23.75 67.833 2.856 16 0 3.256 3.056 2.856 2.856 2.856 3.256 3.256 26 25.5 71.835 2.817 8 0 3.017 2.917 2.817 2.817 2.817 3.017 3.017 27 25.25 70.91 2.808 16 0 3.208 3.008 2.808 2.808 2.808 3.208 3.208 28 28.75 80.678 2.806 11 0 3.081 2.9435 2.806 2.806 2.806 3.081 3.081 29 25.75 71.673 2.783 13 0 3.108 2.9455 2.783 2.783 2.783 3.108 3.108 30 26.75 74.263 2.776 16 0 3.176 2.976 2.776 2.776 2.776 3.176 3.176 31 28.25 78.018 2.762 17 2 3.187 2.9745 2.962 2.862 2.812 3.237 3.337 32 27.25 74.503 2.734 15 0 3.109 2.9215 2.734 2.734 2.734 3.109 3.109 33 26.75 73.095 2.733 12 0 3.033 2.883 2.733 2.733 2.733 3.033 3.033 34 24.25 59.673 2.461 11 0 2.736 2.5985 2.461 2.461 2.461 2.736 2.736 35 23.75 57.248 2.41 14 0 2.76 2.585 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.76 2.76 36 25.75 59.7 2.318 13 0 2.643 2.4805 2.318 2.318 2.318 2.643 2.643 37 23 49.163 2.138 12.5 0.5 2.4505 2.29425 2.188 2.163 2.1505 2.463 2.488 38 23.5 47.093 2.004 10 0 2.254 2.129 2.004 2.004 2.004 2.254 2.254 39 23.5 43.688 1.859 11 0 2.134 1.9965 1.859 1.859 1.859 2.134 2.134 40 27.5 48.76 1.773 7 0 1.948 1.8605 1.773 1.773 1.773 1.948 1.948 41 26.5 46.255 1.745 8 0 1.945 1.845 1.745 1.745 1.745 1.945 1.945 42 27.25 46.623 1.711 9 0 1.936 1.8235 1.711 1.711 1.711 1.936 1.936

weighting g.p.a. to assist in improving student achievement

Documents