So-called ‘compromise’ isn’t — it’s no change at all
By Mike McGann, Editor, the Times
Less than a week from now, the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Board of Education is slated to vote on revising a policy about ranking Unionville High School students by decile — slices of 10% based on grade point average (GPA).
It’s an issue that’s generated a lot of passion and debate in the greater community (although turn out for last week’s board work session, a handful of parents and only one media member actually at the meeting, might suggest otherwise). The board seems poised to embrace a compromise by eliminating decile and replacing it with GPA distribution.
Generally speaking, I’m in favor of compromise — but this isn’t compromise, it’s a surrender wrapped inside a horse manure rebranding.
To be honest, anyone with half a brain can take the GPA distribution data and figure out where a given student falls within a specific decile. So other than a feel-good for doing “something” it basically amounts to nothing. Worse, it is intellectually and morally corrupt while also teaching poor lessons to students, essentially that life is one big political campaign, where the truth can be rebranded to avoid really dealing with an issue.
By rebranding something unpalatable as something else, yet with the same basic core, one can do wonders. Like, say, I dunno, “racist” becomes “ethnically selective.” Political operatives have been doing this for years now, but one would hope our local school board members would be better than this.
So, in review: from a functional standpoint, decile ranking = GPA distribution.
Which takes us back to the basic argument: does decile reporting hurt more students than it helps?
Well, simple math suggests so. Assuming that roughly 35 students will make up the top decile, and the second, third and fourth deciles (and arguably more) are probably hurt at Unionville. That’s a minor, theoretical benefit for 35 kids with a more likely disadvantage for more than 100. The truth of the matter is that decile is a silly way to rank students — a fourth decile student at Unionville might just be better than first decile students at high schools just a few miles away. With the decile system foolishly driving college admissions (itself a corrupt and horrific process less about educating students than generating revenue) those lower decile but arguably better students suffer.
“Gee, kid, you have a 3.3 GPA at one of the best high schools in America and 1,200 on the SATs — looks like you should go to trade school,” is what this says. Which is, of course, utter insanity.
Worse, it further underlines two continuing points of crisis in the UCF School District: first, that while elite and special needs students continue to get exceptional focus, average students are largely left under the radar, frozen out and basically told they lack worth; second, it perpetuates a seriously unhealthy culture within the schools with students and in the greater community among parents.
On the first point, I can’t tell you how many times the point has been made about how UCF “is amazing with gifted students, amazing with special needs students, but tends to forget the rest of the students in the middle.”
While I don’t think this is the intent of the board or the administration, it is often the outcome.
Those students not among the elite, are left to feel unimportant or with a less than bright future — even if they have skills, talents and abilities not well reflected by GPAs. Eliminating decile rankings entirely — as the administration wants — is a good first step to helping Unionville’s average students (who might well be considered exceptional elsewhere) to aspire to the right college or university for them.
On the second issue: As great a school as Unionville High School is and a as great community as Unionville is, the unhealthy, excessive focus on academic achievement is a problem. We all want our kids to do well, to learn and to grow. But it shouldn’t become a blood sport.
But then you hear stories of students getting a C in a single class as a freshman and deciding their life is over is over at age 15 because their GPA has taken a fatal hit. And you hear about kids bursting into tears when they get an 89 on a test. And you hear about kids are doing three to four hours of homework and studying a night to maintain nosebleed GPAs. These are symptoms of a serious problem.
All too often, pressure is placed on kids to achieve more as a boasting point for parents, as a validation of their exceptional parenting.
Unionville is one of the few high schools where a student (and his parents) might feel shame for a 3.5 GPA — which to be blunt, is nuts.
And lastly, some of these mind-boggling GPAs come from either parental micromanagement of students, or worse, the parents actually doing some of the school work, rationalizing it as helping their kids get along.
We don’t allow our kids to fail — they don’t learn from adversity and fight their way back, a crucial life skill. We create gorgeous student records and college applications for kids woefully unprepared for the realities of life.
As one sports team coach told me some years back, “these kids don’t know how to cope with failure.”
Like it or not, it is failure that defines us — and how we learn and recover from that failure — not success. When we create a system that makes failure of any kind — heck, a B grade for the year — unacceptable, we do a terrible disservice to our kids.
Ending the decile reporting and not offering a GPA distribution is one step toward creating a healthier school and community.
It’s long overdue.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. McGann and Ms. Walter. Mr. Knauss’ reply is no surprise. Colleges need to de-emphasize such measures as class rank – they’re meaningless. There are no strong studies to support any direct correlation between decile ranking and life success. GPA’s and decile rankings speak nothing of a person’s ability to read others, to pick up on emotional undercurrents and nuances, and generally to function in society. While those numbers might translate to higher IQ measures, it’s not clear that such numbers offer anything more than vicarious pride for overly anxious or unfulfilled parents. Such measures also do not necessarily indicate other qualities, such as work ethic and integrity. Indeed, in some cases striving to maintain the highest GPA/decile ranking has lead to compromised integrity in the form of cheating, which is often a symptom of the pressure students feel to compete for the top colleges. And should they gain entry to such esteemed institutions, there is no guarantee for success. Nobody cares in job interview settings what one’s GPA and decile rankings were. In short, they are woefully inadequate indicators of the student’s ability. The school board needs a major reality check if they pursue their current “compromise” plan.
I could not agree more with Mr. McGann. The academically talented and the special needs students do receive more attention. Thus you can assume I am the parent of an “average student” with a 3.9 GPA.
What separates his GPA from his decile ranking is that my student “earned” his GPA. To determine his decile–or class rank–he is at the mercy of every other student in his grade. The top student in his grade determines my student’s decile ranking. If the top student has a 4.3GPA, that student influences where my child will rank in the decile. If the top student has a 4.0, that significantly could affect my student’s decile, possibly changing the decile in which he falls. My student earns his GPA; another student in his grade ultimately determines my student’s decile.
As for Mr. Knauss contention that a student’s GPA from one school may indicate superior achievement while that same GPA at another school may indicate average scholarship, there is a way to compare apples to apples. Simply include a student’s percentage grade from a specific class on the transcript as well as the corresponding letter grade. The GPA does not matter. When admissions folks compare students, they look at grades, not just GPA. Thus if a 98 at Unionville is an A+ and a 103 at Conestoga is the same A+, the comparison is simple. It’s not the percentage grade that is most significant, it is the letter grade. An A+ is an A+, period, regardless of the numerical scale used.
Decile ranking is influenced by one primary factor: how “smart” are the students in a particular grade. The smarter the students in a particular grade are, the less likely the ‘average student” with the 3.9 GPA will be ranked within a high decile.
The School Board should not allow another student in my child’s grade to determine my child’s decile ranking. My student should be evaluated by prospective colleges based on his academic achievement–what he has earned–rather than on a “number”–his decile ranking–which is determined by the academic achievement of another student.
You are right on, Mr. McGann. School ultimately is about what a student learns, not some numbers a student earns.
I found 3 themes in Mr. McGann’s article.
.
1) We should do away with decile rankings. I disagree. Without a decile ranking or a distribution a student’s GPA has no meaning. Many readers assume the maximum GPA is 4.0. That’s what it was when I went through high school and college. But times have changed. Some districts have a GPA maximum of 4.5, 5.0 and even 5.5 giving an extra half point (above a 4.0) for a honors class an extra point for an AP class and an extra three-tenths of a point for an A plus (rather than an A). Thus, a student with a 3.8 GPA might be performing extraordinarily at one school, but average at another.
.
2) Average students are left “under the radar”. I’ve also heard from other parents that gifted students don’t get the attention they deserve and special ed students don’t get the attention they deserve. What’s common among all these perceived feelings is any supportive data.
.
3) We don’t allow our kids to fail. Mr. McGann laments that we don’t allow our kids to fail and learn to fight their way back. This theme seems to contradict theme #1 where he advocates for meaningless GPAs.