Being punished for finishing school early

[RYCeT]

Technicality keeps Grapevine High's top student from being valedictorian | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

Quote:

"I have not heard of any educational institution penalizing a student for excellence – for completing a demanding set of classes 'too quickly,' " said her father, Deepak Datta. "Anjali's experience will surely send a strong negative signal to other talented students trying to excel. "They will most certainly be discouraged from trying to do their best – instead will be more focused on gaming the system."

This is just so stupid. These people don't deserve to work in school system. What kind of message do they want to send to their student?

 

[blessingx]

Well you can argue that it's not fair (though policy), but is it really sending a big message? Really "most certainly be discouraged from trying to do their best"? Will students now spend extra years in school to maybe get the title (though she's still getting it) and one year of state scholarship (which is the larger issue and possibly not linked to title)? Seem definitely worth arguing about, but not inflating the importance. I also don't see how it's stoopid as I doubt board wanted to 'cheat' anyone.

BTW, when did we start having a 6.0 scale? I'm so out of date.

 

[GSurge]

4.0 is the norm, I've never heard of a 6.0. It might be a typo.

 

[juniperlater]

I have taught high school before and one of the reasons I stopped was exactly this sort of thing. Bureaucracy takes over in schools. I worked in a school that was revolutionary - amazing students, staff, etc. However, once they found a certain formula for success, anything that didn't fit that mold was considered a negative, no matter how creative or successful it might have proved.

 

[marvin]

It's difficult to blame the school district since allowing early graduation into the mix brings up all sorts of destructive gaming of the Valedictorian/Salutatorian system. Giving her Valedictorian status on paper but not at graduation isn't a bad compromise at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, when did we start having a 6.0 scale? I'm so out of date.

Ever since it started getting really crowded at the top due to gunners and optimizers.

The 5.0 system was created to address the difficulty level difference between honors courses and regulars courses. Honors got an extra point tacked on in order to prevent students from gaming the system and taking a regulars course in order to receive a higher GPA than they would have in the harder honors course.

Course, many schools further differentiated their honors courses by subdividing even more. Typical setup is AP for those taking the AP test, College Prep for those too bright for a normal class, but not bright enough for AP. That also encouraged gaming as students would skip out on the AP course because the college prep course was easier while maintaining the same GPA bonus. Thus the 6.0 system. 2 bonus points for the higher level honors courses and 1 bonus point for the lower level honors course pretty much forces valedictorian intenders into the higher level honors course.

That still leaves you with all the low level optimizing through elective selection to avoid any that don't provide the full honors benefit or only taking those that don't count towards the GPA, along with taking GPA killers (classes with no or low honors boost) as summer correspondence courses or at the local community colleges. Lots of low level "not in the student's best interest" harm is possible here. Allowing "I'm quitting while I'm ahead" by giving Valedictory status eligibility for early graduates can have significant negative effects.

 

[aaron313]

My guess is that it's a 5.0 scale. I had a ~4.3 on a 4.0 scale, so her GPA is pretty astronomical for a 5.0 scale. As for the issue, I think that the school's rule is stated clearly: four year valedictorian. The college's rule is not stated as clearly. However, she is being cheated, because as long as EVERY high school credit she earned, starting in middle school, is included in her GPA, her GPA is legit. For example, if you counted only the last three years of my HS grades, my GPA would have been ~4.5 because of AP classes. But this is not the case for that girl.

EDIT: above post clarified it.

 

[jellojoe]

I'm glad my high school never had valedictorians.

 

[juniperlater]

I was for sure never in any danger of becoming valedictorian.

 

[aaron313]

At my school, anyone with a 4.0 unweighted was a valedictorian. In my class there were 6 of us. But there was only one person who didn't deserve the designation (took easy classes). Four went to Berkeley, one to Cornell, so it worked out fairly.

 

[plainsong]

I can't remember how it worked, but in our class of 723, we had the 4.0 scale, but it was weighted. The top in the class were taking all honors and AP courses. We had college prep, honors, and AP. Those taking the few general courses there were eventually went to a tech school to learn a trade.

Then again, in our state, we performed so poorly nationally because EVERYONE took the standard tests.

As for the article, no it's not fair at all. She took the required courses to earn graduation. She took 4 years worth of courses. If she has the highest GPA, then the position is hers, pure and simple. Anything else is new math.

Now if she breezed through with college prep and basic courses, then the issue of not having a good weighting system comes into play, but it's a different issue from having completed all of the required courses.

It's a slap in the face, especially not getting the scholarship though she should qualify for some scholarship somewhere where they actually read applications. But if she's that smart, she'll cool down, and that little Po-dunk BFE High School, home of the Cow Patties, won't even be on her radar.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the article, no it's not fair at all. She took the required courses to earn graduation. She took 4 years worth of courses. If she has the highest GPA, then the position is hers, pure and simple. Anything else is new math.

Or just plain English.

"The valedictorian shall be the eligible student with the highest weighted grade-point average for four years of high school."

It says right there straight out, four years of high school. She was in high school for three years. As three ain't four, she flat out doesn't qualify for Valedictorian when the rules are read literally. That should be a perfectly fair interpretation even if you don't like the results. If someone is to blame, it's the idiot councilor who advised her without being damned sure on the rules in the first place.

Either way, Anjali Datta should learn two valuable lessons from this: Trust but Verify. Get it in Writing.

 

[nysulli]

so glad my school didn't have a valedictorian, then again the top was way to crowded, too many kids with 5+ AP courses and perfect 4.0's

then again, the one who everyone considered the brightest graduated in 3 years, went to harvard, where he again graduated in 3 years, but the school still let him come back and be one of the 2 top students to give a speech at graduation

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif At my school, anyone with a 4.0 unweighted was a valedictorian. In my class there were 6 of us. But there was only one person who didn't deserve the designation (took easy classes). Four went to Berkeley, one to Cornell, so it worked out fairly.

This is interesting. At my school we voted for the valedictorian but those with a 4.0 were awarded with a special school scholarship and letter. The school letters, common in the US for jocks were reserved for students at our school who managed to achieve a 4.0 for all 5 years of high school (we had a pre-university year in my province until about 1997).

the idea of penalizing a kid for fast tracking is heinous. This happened at my school actually with myself an another student. Our parents were counseled against letting us graduate early. Had we been able to, both of us would have graduated after the typical grade 9 year but instead we had to suffer through 4 more years of high school for absolutely no reason save for appeasing the school system.

Anyhow, I figure if the kid is bright enough to sale on through then let him/her. My best friend is a highschool teacher and he is completely depressed regarding how difficult it is to fail a student these days. Though in Canada we don't have that "no student left behind policy" we come close in Ontario.

My kids are going to private schools no doubt about it. I don't care if I have to sell body organs to achieve it. They won't suffer through what I went through nor the horrid conditions even decent public highschools provide.

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or just plain English. "The valedictorian shall be the eligible student with the highest weighted grade-point average for four years of high school." It says right there straight out, four years of high school. She was in high school for three years. As three ain't four, she flat out doesn't qualify for Valedictorian when the rules are read literally. That should be a perfectly fair interpretation even if you don't like the results. If someone is to blame, it's the idiot councilor who advised her without being damned sure on the rules in the first place. Either way, Anjali Datta should learn two valuable lessons from this: Trust but Verify. Get it in Writing.

Oh jeez, I forgot. It's the internet. You have to spell it out. The courses are designed to take 4 years to complete. The required courses were completed before the fourth year. Amount of credits taken = 4 years.

But as I said, you can apply the new math and add the red tape if you like. I mean if you live in such a district, you'd be paying for such students to sit there an extra year and take Basket Weaving.

Thinking back, I guess I was one of those paid for by taxpayers in my district. They paid for me to take chorus I and drama 1, and continue with the band classes. I guess I just never thought of it that way because my parents wanted me there for 4 years. But yeah, I was done in 3, just took electives in the last year. It left room in the schedule for very important senioritis-related activities.

So hey, it's your money. I see no reason to pay a bill that starts to add up just because of a college-prep like interpretation of the English language.

 

[Zanth]

I agree with plainsong...considering 4 years to mean 4 actual years rather than 4 years worth of courses is horribly literal and completely assinine. Seriously, if a kid can do it in 3 or 2 or 1 why not? Let them take the exams, do the assignments, let them just get through this stuff. Some say highschool is necessary for maturation, I say highschool is the last place I would want my child maturing. Undergrad is a far better spot and grad school even better. Seriously...provided the parents don't put pressure on the kid just let them do their thing, keeping them back makes them BORED! I know from experience. Highschool was the most horrible experience of my life because every day was a day of complete boredom. My teachers knew it; my parents knew it. The highlight of course were the friends I made but those friends I would have kept regardless as I met them in extracurriculars. They just happened to go to the same schools as I did. Helped that most of them lived on my street too