Our Administration cannot add any courses to the exemption list unless the Board approves them.
Please help the Board understand how unfairly this rule is to students that are taking AP 5.0 courses and participating in journalism and fine arts. Because if the policy remains in place, then several injustices will happen to students who participate in those courses without an exemption.

If we truly believe the policys is an “improvement” for our Senior Class, then it should apply to all students in this class and the current policy does not.

Don’t waste time, please contact any of the Board members you may know, or contact the President, Leslie Melson.

Seniors typically do not get their junior year transcript until after school starts, so those hovering around the top 10 or top 10% may have to make a decision on the first day of school without knowing how it truly affects them. Act Now.

In fact, I have always argued for GPA-exemption for all extracurriculars with no GPA bumps for any extracurriculars. This would be simple and fair.

The new rule IS an improvement for everyone EXCEPT a student with over a 4.5 that is not given the option for exemption. As I have stated many times, NO extracurricular should ever hurt a student’s GPA. I honestly do not know how this policy will affect my child’s rank, but I would NEVER want my child to be elevated over someone more academically deserving based on his choice of a trumped up GPA in an extracurricular or because someone else was penalized by their choice of extracurricular. My goal is for fairness across the board no matter how that ultimately effects my child, and let me be clear: I do not think number #3 should surpass #2 because #3 gets to exempt his athletics and #2 is forced to average in a 4.5 that dilutes his GPA.

In answer to your last question–YES. #2 deserves a remedy.

If you repeat, “The new rule is simple and fair,” enough times, you and Karl Rove think that will make it true. It is “an improvement” to you because it improves your own child’s class rank. If your child were a journalist with a GPA > 4.5, you would not think it “an improvement.”

If the policy of the new rule is desirable, either leave the seniors out of it or allow seniors to exempt all electives next year–not just athletics, Belles, and cheerleading. That would be fairer, so are you lobbying the Board to do that?

Take extracurriculars out of the equation (at a minimum after state requirements are met) and there would not be an argument that the system is not equitable or fair. A student could enjoy his extracurricular activities without concern that his participation will be detrimental to his GPA. This can be accomplished with GPA-exemption for extracurriculars (with no preferential bumps) or by determining RIC and top 10% based on core academic subjects or state-requirements.

The June 12th decision was an improvement over the prior policy though not perfect. To have done nothing and to have allowed high-achieving athletes/Belles with GPAs above 4.0 to have continued to be further penalized by their participation would not be acceptable.

@Hmmmm…. you made my night. Hysterical! Darn, if only I had known that earlier!

Also, why arent the board minutes from 2009 still up or archived on the HPISD website? Would be nice for us newbies to be able to research.

The change in class rank reporting in 2009 converted HPHS from being a pressure cooker for ALL kids with GPA>4.0 to being an even worse pressure cooker for those in the Top 15%.

Overnight, 11-15% went from having documentation of their position in the class to not having that – the pace of the rat race to make the Top 10% increased. In 2009, performing arts parents increased their efforts to get those courses removed from GPA calculations, like athletics (either 2 or 4 years).

Mr. Kelly refers to those parents in the original March 29th PCP print article.

The June 12th decision was a complete slap in the face to all of the Class of 2013 parents who have been working on this for years.

Making this change affect this year’s seniors is unfair.
When the Board reduced PE requirements from 3 to 2, it did not apply the change to the class of 2012 because they had been playing under the old rule for more than a year. Why now does the Board decide to change the rules that Class of 2013 has been playing under for three years?

There are two issues here. One is fixing the system, which I encourage. Other districts have attacked the same problem. The Board should learn from them, do it right. (What they have done here is mere tinkering.)

The other issue, my issue, is making changes fairly. Knocking #2 out of his or her position and changing who’s in the Top 10 at this late stage–even if they all perform the very best this year–is not doing it fairly. Period.

It is as if the Board has in mind certain individual students they want to help at the expense of others. And that both angers and saddens me.

Kudos to the athletes, Belles, and Cheer parents for organizing themselves and getting the attention of the board, as yes, a fair change needs to be made. However, while it was being done earlier this spring the Board and Administration never made any announcement to the HPISD community about the discussions. Maybe if communication had been made and more input considered, then these kinks could have been worked out and a new policy that let all students exempt a course that “negatively impacted” their gpa could have been passed. But once again, it didn’t happen and we can’t go back and change things.

But to change it unfairly, even if the policy is a step in the right direction, is simply unfair. Let’s deal with the policy they have passed that will not allow all seniors to be treated equally. Remember, these seniors have been treated equally up to this point. So this issue of the fine arts and journalism getting an extra bump no longer applies to this senior class of 2013 since the athletes/belles/cheer students are gettng the exemption. If they take any AP courses, they are getting negatively impacted by anything less than a 5.0. I am not saying the bump for 4th year fine arts and journalism was fair in the first place, but it didnt apply to every senior in those courses anyways. So go ahead, with this new policy, get rid of the bump, but let those seniors that the exemption. That too would be an even playing field.

Honestly, I don’t know what the best overall policy would be for our school. Am glad to hear the Administration is studying it further. If it was based soley on grades in core subjects, the current top 10 would be totally different. Would that be fair to the seniors, no it would not this late in the game, and I am saying that knowing that my student could possibly move higher. If only core subjects, or what is required to graduate is used for gpa, then what motivates students to take AP European History,AP Psychology, AP Economics, or AP Art?

There are so many factors that affect a good policy for our HPHS students. Let’s strive to find the best policy and apply it to whatever Class can benefit entirely from it. In the meantime, let ALL seniors chose to exempt one course that “negatively impacts” their gpa.