May 27, 2003 By Christine Haines 4 min read

CALIFORNIA – There will be no changes in the way student grades are calculated this year in the California Area School District, despite a public outcry by parents that they were given improper information about the grading scale by the school board. There was about an hour of public comment on the issue at the school board meeting. One parent, Loring Prest, said he was told that the new grading scale was mandated by the state, only to find out that there was no such state mandate.

“One of my biggest concerns is last year, when the strategic plan was implemented, we were told the scale was mandated by the state. You should be saying, ‘We are doing this because we put it in the strategic plan,'” Prest said.

Prest said the scale used for the 2002-2003 school year was actually higher than called for in the first year of change listed in the strategic plan for the C, D and E ranges. The strategic plan called for a grading scale of 71-83 for a C, 65-70 for a D and below 65 for an E. That was to have been implemented for the 2001-2002 school year, but the district decided not to make any changes last school year.

The grading scale implemented at the start of this school year set the scale at 73-83 for a C, 67 to 72 for a D and below 67 for an E.

Dr. Marian Stephens, the district superintendent, said she is still looking into how that grading scale came about, but she said no grades will be changed at this time.

“We sent a letter out. We clarified what the grading scale would be for 2002-2003,” Stephens said.

The letter was sent out Sept. 10. Stephens said the information also appeared on the district’s Web site and a sticker was placed over the old grading scale in the student handbook, showing the new scale.

Director John Bayer said the district needed to adjust the grading scale to better reflect what the district expects of the students.

“There are a lot of concerns about public schools that students can’t read, they can’t do algebra, they can’t do math.

“Accepting a below-D average is not acceptable. The kids think they’re doing OK, then they can’t pass the PSSA test,” Bayer said. “If you want them to do proficient work, you have to demand proficient work.”

Prest said his complaint is not with asking students to do more, but that the parents were told the scale was mandated, not that it was something that they could and should have had input on.

“I think that the next time we look at this issue, we need to encourage public debate,” said John Warren, another parent in the district.

The issue could come up again before next school year, when the strategic plan calls for the scale to move upward again, this time affecting all grades.

Under the scale proposed for next school year, 95-100 would be an A, 84-94 a B, 74-83 a C, 70-73 a D and anything below 70 would be considered a failing grade.

Denise Prest said she doesn’t see the higher grading scale resulting in more studious students.

“If you raise the grading scale, teachers are going to do something to get the kids to pass. We don’t like having lots of kids repeat a grade. I think we’re just going to dumb everything down so more people will pass,” Denise Prest said.

Cheryl Bilitski urged the board and administrators to stand behind the teachers when the parents of failing students storm their offices.

The board also adopted a tentative budget of $12,089,318 that would require a 3.2-mill property tax increase.

Stephens said it is likely that there will be no increase in the final budget, following review and revision and receipt of state funds.

Stephens said she anticipates an increase in state funding for the 2003-2004 school year.

Property taxes are currently levied at 91.07 mills in the California Area School District.