Class Rank Honoring Academic Rigor and Preparation for Success in College

1
Class RankHonoring Academic Rigor and
Preparation for Success in College
2
Why Do We Rank Students?

• Class rank is used solely for the purposes of
• college admission
• scholarship eligibility

3
College Success

• Research shows that the most important factor for
  success in college is the rigor of coursework
  taken in high school
• The best predictor post-high school success is
  the quality and intensity of High School
  curriculum
• Cliff Adelman, Answers in the Tool Box, U.S.
  Department of Education

4
Why Did NEISD Develop the Current Policy?

• Under the previous policy
• Academic and Non-Academic courses had the same
  value i.e.
• Office Assistant vs. English
• Cheerleading vs. Calculus, etc..
• Class rank was not a true indicator of rigor and
  academic preparedness for college success.
• There was a lack of incentive for taking rigorous
  coursework, and
• Multiple students were tied for rank

5
Differences Between the Previous Policy and the
Current Policy

• The current policy uses cumulative weighted rank
  points for selected courses
• The previous policy used an overall Grade Point
  Average for all courses

6
What Does the New Rank Policy Measure?

• The policy measures each students academic
  performance and rigor in selected courses
• English
• math
• science
• social studies
• foreign language
• All Pre-AP and AP courses

7
HS Academic Excellence Committee

• Convened in 2002-2003
• Responsibilities
• Review current rank in class policy
• Study various ranking scenarios
• Provide Superintendent with recommendations for
  change
• Common Goal
• Ensure rank in class represents academic
  preparation for college success
• Fairness and equity for students

8
High School Academic Excellence Committee

• Campus Administration Staff Churchill Joe
  Reasons, Principal Jeanette Salinas, Assistant
  Principal Linda Steitle, Dean - English
• Carl Gustafson, Athletics ISA Shari
  Albright, Director Heidi Anderson, Dean
  Math/ScienceLee Donna Taylor, Principal Lee
  Matthew, Assistant Principal Ileana Liberatore,
  Foreign Language Monica Ruiz, Fine
  ArtsMacArthur Wendell Watson,
  Principal Sofia Gallo, Counselor Perry
  Calloway, Career Technology David Bordelon,
  Dean - ScienceMadison Bobby Smith,
  Principal Doug Lansing, Assistant
  Principal Angelina Kiser, Teacher
  Math/Computer Science
• Jim Streety, AthleticsReagan Joe Hannon,
  Principal Elaine Hitzfelder, Assistant
  Principal Diane Seitz, Counselor Stephen Gibbs,
  Dean-Social Studies
• Lori Hollis, Career Technology
• Roosevelt Robert Todd, Principal Melvin
  Echard, Assistant Principal Natalie Bates,
  Counselor Barbara Dielmann, DATA Counselor Bill
  Sturgis, Career Technology Pam Walls, Special
  Education

• Chair Theresa Miller, Guidance
• Central Office Personnel Mark Scheffler,
  Campus Support Alicia Thomas, Instruction
• Jerry Comalander, Athletics
• David Cook, Data Processing
• Don Dalton, Curriculum Compliance
• Carol Harle, School Improvement
• Judith Moening, Special Education
• Doris Kays, Curriculum Compliance
• Michael Lara, Research Ed Technology
• Carol Mendenhall, Staff Development
• Elizabeth Platt, Career Technology
• Diana Schumacher, Fine Arts

• Parent Community Members Steve Albert
  Martha Bazan Yolanda Edwards Sybil Pici
  Becky Roberson Jeannie Wiedenbach
  Karen Wilson

9
How is Class Rank determined?

• Semester grade x Rank Factor Rank Points
• Sum of all Rank Points Cumulative Rank Points
• Cumulative Rank Points of each student compared
  to all students in class Rank Position

The student with the most points is ranked 1.
10
2006 Class Rank Clarification Process

• In Summer 2006, the NEISD Board of Trustees
  approved revisions that went into effect
  immediately based on input obtained from
• parents
• counselors
• administrators
• district staff

11
What Are the New Revisions?

• Increase existing rank factors for all Advanced
  Placement (AP), Pre-Advanced Placement
  (Pre-AP) and Honors courses
• Pre-AP/GT-Pre AP/Honors 1.15 previously 1.1 was
  used
• AP/GT-AP 1.29
• previously 1.2 was used

12
What Are the New Revisions?

• Increase existing rank factors for all Advanced
  Placement (AP), Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP)
  and Honors courses
• Pre-AP/GT-Pre-AP/Honors 1.15 previously 1.1 was
  used
• AP/GT-AP 1.29
• previously 1.2 was used

13
What Are the New Revisions?

• Exclude all Summer School and Evening School
  courses from rank
• Limit the number of semester courses used in the
  calculation of class rank to no more than eight
  per semester (the highest eight ranked grades
  will be used)
• Include all AP and Pre-AP non-core courses in
  calculation of class rank
• Break any ties between students by using a
  secondary indicator based on the number of
  courses taken for which a weight of 1.15 and/or
  1.29 was given

14
How Did NEISD Communicate the New Policy?

• Spring 2004
• District meetings held at high schools to explain
  the new
• ranking policymiddle school parents invited
• Supporting materials posted on the Guidance
  Website
• Fall 2004
• Counselors held small group meetings with ninth
  graders to review important topics including
  rank
• Spring 2005
• HS and MS counselor held meetings with groups of
  students to explain graduation requirements
  and rank
• General orientation meeting held prior to course
  fair
• held in January
• High school course catalog contained graduation
  requirements
• with reference to class rank and a separate
  rank policy
• explanationprinted in a special section for
  incoming 9th graders

15
How Did NEISD Communicate the New Policy

• Fall 2005
• Counselors held small group meetings with ninth
  graders to
• review important topics including rank
• Spring 2006
• HS counselors met with groups of ninth graders to
  review requirements
• for graduation and important topics such as class
  rank
• General orientation meeting held prior to course
  fair
• Detailed letter mailed home with end-of-year
  report card explaining new
• policy clarifications Updated supporting
  documents posted on Guidance website
• Summer 2006
• North East Connections mailed to all residing in
  NEISD with a special
• article, Update High school rank system
  changes.
• Fall 2006
• Students received Class Rank on their report card
  for 1st nine weeks
• with an explanatory handout HS counselors held
  Class Rank meeting
• for all 10th and 11th graders and their parents

16
How Did The New Policy Influence Rigor?Top 30
Pre-AP/AP Courses
17
Current Sophomores (2006-2007)
1 Position
18
Distribution of Ranked Courses by LevelCurrent
Sophomores (2006-2007) in Top 10
N89
19
Current Juniors (2006-2007)
20
Distribution of Ranked Courses by LevelCurrent
Juniors (2006-2007) in Top 10
N86
21
Why not consider an Overall Rank
Average?
22
Rank Example Current Juniors (06-07)
Student A
Student B
23
The Problem with Averaging
1085.4 Rank Points 108.54 GPA
1395.9 Rank Points 107.38 GPA
24
Example Students Sorted by Rank GPA
25
Example Students Sorted by Cumulative Points
26
Current Sophomores (2006-2007)
Pattern of data suggests that both quantity and
quality of coursework are important
Conclusion Many calculation methods are possible
for determining students class rank. However, a
cumulative rank point total honors both quantity
and quality of students academic course work.
1 Position
27
Questions?