The state board of education imposed new weighting on the advanced placement science courses effective immediately in October of 2016. Students who signed up for those classes in the spring of 2016 for the following school year of 2016-17 had their weighting of those classes reduced from 1.5 credits to 1. Students who took those science classes the previous year(s) to my knowledge got to keep the 1.5 credits. The GPA calculation for taking the science courses, for many students, was based on the weighting of those classes counting more than other AP courses. Obtaining a B in the course was more beneficial in class rankings than taking the pre-ap version of the class and receiving an A.
Why does this matter in the state of Texas? Texas has an auto admit policy for students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class for state funded universities with UTA an exception at 7.5%. The state of Texas also awards the valedictorian a full year of tuition at those schools. Class rankings are a big deal. Some scholarships are based on where you graduated percentage wise in your class and now the rankings are based on when you took a class instead.
None of what you say about weighting is true. The weight of an AP class is determined by each individual school/district. Our school has never weighted any science AP differently.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say…but I do agree, please write to the state board of ed and your local state representative. The whole auto admit system in Texas is bizarre. It’s a policy that, at best, needs some serious revamping, if not completely eliminated.
“Texas Education Agency determined in October of 2016 (once your sophomore year was already under way) that these courses would only be available for 1.0 credit all across the state with the decision going into effect immediately. This is why the change you saw was made for the 2017-2018 APG and why you (as well as all of your peers) were only able to earn 1.0 credit. Here is the citation to the Texas Education Code that listed the date the change went into effect: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch112d.html My understanding is that the state made these changes after reviewing and interpreting changes made to the AP curriculum by the College Board (makers of AP).”
Again, YOUR school district determines weight. My school district never counted science APs as 1.5 credits. I don’t know of any that did, ever. My district has changed the “bonus” granted for AP, and it’s completely different than the next district. You only compete for class rank within your school. Petition locally to make sure everyone in your class is treated equally.
Ollie113 you’re wrong. The state determines the weighting, I spoke with them on the phone personally Friday and was told my local school board is powerless.
The state determines CREDIT awarded for standard curriculum classes. The WEIGHT applied for GPA is determined by the school. Because our school never counted AP science as 1.5 credits, these rules did not change GPA/rankings at our school.
The rules changed YOUR district’s policy, by not allowing 1.5 credits on the transcripts for AP science classes. It also de facto changed the way your district’s GPA calculates because GPA is credit x weight. The only unfairness that would occur at your school is if some students took AP science courses as freshmen/sophomores and still get 1.5 credits. BUT, your school board can fix the GPA disparity by changing the weight given to science APs to make them equivalent.
I believe there is a difference between credit weight and gpa weighting. I am looking at my kids’ old transcripts and their AP courses were all 1 credit. However, there was a separate legend for each AP and other weighted courses that indicated that 90-100 =5.0, 80-89 =4.0, etc… or in other cases 90-100 =4.5, 80-89=3.5, etc…
If credits were used as the gpa weighting factor, the max weighted gpa would still be a 4.0. This kind of credit weighting would help a kid who made say an A in a 1.5 class and say a B in a 1.0 class (wgpa = 3.6) and would actually hurt a kid that made a B in a 1.5 class and an A in a 1.0 class (wgpa =3.4). In a traditional weighted gpa system (all classes 1 credit), both kids would have a wgpa of 4.0.
The school district informed me it’s a state issue and the state concurred. The fact that kids had the credits reduced while taking the classes and not informing them till after the fact is a problem the state created. Several students decided to take ap chemistry and ap biology their sophomore year based on the belief those courses counted more. Kids who were under the assumption the ap environmental science and physics classes counted more their senior year were misled as well. Those changes altered class rankings and still do. You maybe right about your particular school district not offering the maximum amount of credits available for said classes but there are many school districts that are powerless to make things right unless the state corrects this problem.
Currently ap physics c is listed as a 2 credit course in our school district. Every kid that is a candidate to be valedictorian must take take that class to have a shot at a free year of tuition. The state of Texas board of education could change the credit weighting to 1 and the kids who weren’t strong in physics are at a disadvantage to the kids who took art history instead. Maybe a local school board issue but the state can wreak havoc and nothing can be done in time to stop it if changes aren’t made to only impact incoming freshmen classes.
You are correct about the unfairness of the credits awarded, I was responding to your concerns about class rank. That can be fixed by your district by multiplying the 1.0 credit classes by 1.5 for GPA.
It can’t be fixed by that alone because people took ap chemistry without chemistry classes before, suffered grade wise compared to kids who took ap classes that didn’t need as much prior knowledge like an ap art history class. People sacrificed unweighted gpa for class rankings.
Curious how your school district calculates weighted GPA for rank/valedictorian purposes. Is it:
Weighted by credit only, e.g. A in a 2.0 credit course, B in a 1.0 course = (8+3)/3 = 3.67 vs
B in a 2.0 course, A in a 1.0 course = (6+4)/3 = 3.33
In this system, a kid who took all unweighted classes but who got straight A’s would have a 4.0 wgpa no different than a kid who took all weighted classes and still got straight A’s. Is that the case?
Weighted by both credit and grade (5.0 scale), A in a 2.0 course, B in a 1.0 course = (10+3)/3 = 4.33 vs
B in a 2.0 course, A in 1.0 course = (8+4)/3 =4.0
Weighted only by grade with no regard to credit, A in a weighted course, B in unweighted = (5+4)/2 =4.5 vs
B in weighted course, A in unweighted = (4+4)/2 =4.0
If your district does the calculation based on either of the first 2 methods, I agree that it is creating an unfair apples to oranges comparison for kids who completed the course under the old weighting (vs the kids who chose the weighted course before they became unweighted) vs the new, and it really should reweight the calculations consistently for rank purposes. If the calculations are based on the third method, weighted gpa calculations would not change.
It’s on a 6 point scale and it’s also based on percentage, so all A’s are not equal. Highest grade achievable is 6.0. AP classes on 6 point scale, pre-ap classes on a 5 point scale and core classes are weighted on a 4 point scale. So you could have 5.5 grade in ap biology and the best grade you can earn in pre-ap is a 5. Most valedictorians end up with a gpa hovering north of 5.0.
So by taking AP chemistry over pre AP chemistry you make the calculation of achieving at least an 85 in the course and every point above that is a bonus. You have made your grade comparable to a high A in the pre-ap class and it will boost your weighted gpa higher because of the additional credit. The difference in the weighted gpa by being not grandfathered into the classes has changed the weighted gpa from a 4.777 to a 4.72. May not seem like a lot but at the top every hundredth of a point matters.
The history of counting AP Science as 1.5 credits stems from having to spend extra time at school to complete the labs, or actually having a lab period assigned. If a school district still wanted to award 1.5 credits, they would merely split the class into AP Science (1.0 credit) and Science lab (.5 credit). For example, AP Bio and Chem count as 2.0 credits in Lewisville, they are just smart about how it’s catogorized:
Credits aren’t actually weighted, Texas is fairly strict about credits needed for auto admit, and also what counts as “class time” for attendance. Counting AP Physics C as a 2.0 credits is generally accepted because most schools split it into two courses: Mechanics and Electricity and Magnetism, but many also just count it as one credit.
What is local credit? The description of the science courses states a local credit given to boost the credit in the ap science section. Did this local credit always exist or is it a function of the state changes?
In that course guide: “Some courses are offered for local credit only and do not count toward state credits needed for graduation.”
The local credit could be a result of the changes, as a way of keeping the status quo for GPA/ranking, or it could just be the schools wanting to boost AP scores by additional teaching. I suspect the former. We aren’t in Lewisville, that ISD pulled up first when I googled.
“It can’t be fixed by that alone because people took ap chemistry without chemistry classes before, suffered grade wise compared to kids who took ap classes that didn’t need as much prior knowledge like an ap art history class. People sacrificed unweighted gpa for class rankings.”
Sorry, I meant just adjusting the science classes. So a student who took AP Bio as a soph gets an A it would be 1.5 credits x 6.0, the student taking it as a junior would get 1.0 credits x 6.0 x 1.5 to adjust GPA. Then everything would be as equal as it could be, except that the very few students who took 2 APs previous to the change would not need 4 science courses to fulfill graduation/college requirements, because they have 4 credits from 3 classes, and I suppose would have room in their schedule for 1 more AP course.
I understand your frustration, my school has changed GPA three times in 5 years, and although I feel it is fair now, it certainly did not help my kids. I would certainly be complaining to make it as right as it could be. I just think it should be your local school board/administration, the TEA was merely leveling the playing field for graduation requirements.