Print bookPrint book

Detailed View of Grading Model (Policy level)

Site: Calvary Preparatory Academy
Course: New Curriculum Model Overview
Book: Detailed View of Grading Model (Policy level)
Printed by: Guest user
Date: Friday, July 17, 2026, 4:04 PM

Table of contents

1. CPA Holistic Grading Model

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 1 of 6
Executive Summary & Philosophical Foundation

CPA Holistic Grading Model

Detailed Policy Reference — Administration and Academic Leadership

Document Purpose

This document provides a complete policy-level reference for the CPA Holistic Grading Model. It is intended for academic administrators, department heads, accreditation reviewers, and senior staff. For teacher-facing guidance see the Teacher Guide. For student and parent-facing materials see the respective orientation documents.

Section 1

Rationale and Institutional Context

Why CPA redesigned its grading model and the values that underpin it

The problem the model was designed to solve

The widespread availability of AI tools fundamentally altered the reliability of traditional submission-based grading. A student can now produce polished essays, completed worksheets, and correct quiz answers in seconds using freely available tools. The result is that scores on submitted work no longer reliably distinguish students who have genuinely learned from students who have delegated their learning to a machine.

The conventional institutional response — investing in AI detection tools and stricter plagiarism enforcement — creates an adversarial dynamic between teachers and students, consumes significant administrative resources, and addresses symptoms rather than causes. More fundamentally, it implicitly accepts that the purpose of education is to produce correct outputs rather than to develop capable, honest, thinking human beings.

CPA’s response was to ask a more foundational question: what does it mean to have genuinely learned something, and how should a school measure that? The answer is the holistic grading model.

Alignment with CPA's founding identity

CPA’s Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs) describe students who are faith-filled Christ followers, motivated self-directed learners, critical and creative thinkers, proficient technology users, effective communicators, and academic achievers. The previous grading model measured only the last ESLR and ignored the other five entirely. The holistic model is designed to formally recognize all six.

“Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.”

Colossians 3:23 — the scriptural anchor for CPA's approach to learning as a form of worship

Accreditation and compliance context

CPA is WASC accredited for grades 7–12, UC a-g approved, and NCAA approved. The holistic grading model has been discussed with the WASC corporate office and is aligned with WASC’s accreditation criteria, which emphasize student-centered learning, alignment between stated values and institutional practice, and evidence-based assessment. The model was piloted for 10 weeks with 25 volunteer students and all teaching staff prior to broader deployment.

Accreditation note

The school's position is that a grade earned under this model is more defensible to accreditors, college admissions offices, and NCAA eligibility reviewers — not less — because it reflects demonstrated learning verified by a credentialed teacher in a live setting, rather than scores on assessments of uncertain authenticity.

Section 2

Model Architecture

The two-tier structure and how categories interact

Structural overview

The holistic model organizes all grade components into two tiers. The distinction between tiers is philosophically important: the holistic tier measures the student as a person across all their enrolled courses simultaneously, while the class-specific tier measures academic performance within each individual course.

Tier Category Weight Scope Data source
Holistic Meeting Attendance 10% All courses equally Teacher observation — each scheduled meeting
Holistic Regular Engagement 5% All courses equally DDF forum records + digital textbook login data
Holistic Faith-Based Community Values in Action (Faith-in-Action) 5% All courses equally Weekly student reflection (teacher assessed)
Class Curriculum Grade 40% Per course independently Digital textbook (Edmentum/Apex curriculum) grade as displayed
Class Assigned Work Completion 10% Per course independently Teacher assessment at scheduled meeting
Class Meeting Content — Learning Verification 30% Per course independently Teacher scoring during scheduled meeting
Total   100%    

How the tiers interact mathematically

For a student enrolled in multiple courses, the holistic tier scores are entered once in the CourseGrades spreadsheet tab and automatically applied to all enrolled courses. The class-specific tier is calculated independently for each course in its own spreadsheet tab. The overall grade for each course is the weighted sum of all six categories, with the holistic scores feeding identically into each course calculation.

Practical implication for multi-course students

Example: A student enrolled in 4 courses earns 88% on Meeting Attendance. That 88% contributes 8.8% (88% × 10% weight) to every one of the student's four course grades simultaneously. The teacher enters the score once; the spreadsheet propagates it automatically.

Grade gates and No Grade status

The overall grade formula gates on the Curriculum Grade input. If no curriculum grade has been entered for a course, the overall grade displays as “No Grade” rather than calculating from holistic scores alone. This prevents courses with no academic data from showing misleadingly high grades based purely on holistic category scores.

Individual grade categories that have no entries (blank sections) are excluded from the average calculation. A zero entry is treated as a scored zero and is included in the average. This distinction is intentional: blank means the category was not applicable for that section; zero means the student was assessed and earned no credit.

2. Holistic Tier

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 2 of 6
Holistic Tier — Detailed Policy

Holistic Tier

Meeting Attendance • Regular Engagement • Faith-Based Community Values in Action

Section 3

Meeting Attendance — 10%

Scored per section across the semester. Same score applies to all enrolled courses.

Scoring structure

Each scheduled meeting is scored on three components totaling 10 points. The semester grade for this category is the average of all scored sections divided by 10. Blank sections are excluded from the average; zero-scored sections are included.

Component Max points Weight within category Notes
Attendance 4 40% Present=4 • First reschedule this semester=4 • Second+ reschedule=0 • Absent no contact=0
Punctuality 2 20% 0–2 min late=2 • 2–5 min=1.5 • 5–15 min=0.5 • 15+ min=0 • Teacher discretion applies
Preparation 4 40% Fully prepared=4 • Mostly=3 • Partially=2 • Minimally=1 • Unprepared=0
Total 10 100%  

Preparation criteria (required for full credit)

All of the following must be present and verified at the start of the meeting for full preparation credit:

  • All assigned work for the current section is completed
  • All enrolled courses are open to the assigned section in the digital textbook (Edmentum/Apex curriculum)
  • The end-of-section self-reflection is open in a separate browser tab for each enrolled course
  • Assignments are organized and immediately ready to be walked through with the teacher
  • The student can articulate what they learned and what they intend to present

Reschedule and makeup meeting policy

1.Each student receives one free reschedule per semester per course. The first reschedule carries no attendance penalty — full attendance credit (4/4) is awarded.
2.Any reschedule beyond the first is treated as a missed meeting for attendance scoring purposes (0/4 attendance). The punctuality and preparation components may still be earned if a makeup meeting occurs.
3.Makeup meetings may restore points at the teacher's professional discretion. All discretionary point restorations must be documented in the gradebook notes column.
4.Work is always due at the originally scheduled appointment time regardless of whether the meeting was rescheduled or missed. Late work policies apply independently of the meeting attendance score.

End-of-section self-reflection

The end-of-section self-reflection is a student-completed pre-meeting document. It is not graded as a separate assignment. Its purpose is to give the teacher situational awareness before the meeting begins — the student records what they learned, what they plan to present, any areas of difficulty, and any questions. Having it open and ready is a component of the preparation score.

Section 4

Regular Engagement — 5%

Scored 0–5 per section. Primary measure: DDF for summer school, combined for regular semester.

Regular semester scoring

For regular semester (fall/spring), the teacher assesses engagement using both digital textbook login frequency and Daily Discussion Forum (DDF) participation. DDF is a daily requirement for full-time students. Missing DDF posts may reduce the engagement score at teacher discretion even if textbook engagement is strong. Both venues are considered.

Score Indicators Notes
5/5 Strong consistent engagement. Digital textbook logins spread across multiple days. DDF participation on most school days. DDF absences may reduce score even with strong textbook data. Teacher discretion.
3–4/5 Moderate engagement. Present on multiple days. Some inconsistency in either venue. Award 4 for above-average with one weak venue; 3 for partial in both.
1–2/5 Minimal engagement. Work concentrated in one or two sessions. Sparse DDF participation. Award 2 if some mid-week evidence present; 1 if essentially last-minute.
0/5 No engagement recorded in either venue for the section. Distinguish from 1/5: 0 means genuinely no recorded presence.

Summer school scoring and DDF policy

In summer school, DDF participation is the primary engagement measure. The DDF is 100% required every school day. A student with perfect DDF but minimal digital textbook activity may receive a reduced engagement score at teacher discretion.

Summer School DDF Attendance Policy — Administrative Deduction (Separate from Rubric)

The first two DDF absences are handled exclusively through the Regular Engagement rubric score. There is no separate penalty for absences 1 and 2. Beginning with the third absence, the following direct grade deductions are applied administratively to the overall course grade. These deductions are separate from and additive to any reduction in the Regular Engagement rubric score.

Absence count 1-course deduction 2-course deduction 3-course deduction
Absences 1–2 Rubric only — no direct deduction Rubric only Rubric only
3rd absence −3% per course −2% per course −1% per course
4th absence −6% cumulative −4% cumulative −2% cumulative
5th absence −9% cumulative −6% cumulative −3% cumulative
6th absence −12% cumulative −8% cumulative −4% cumulative

Deductions are applied by administration to the student's overall course grade record. Teachers document absences and notify administration when the threshold is reached. The Regular Engagement rubric score is entered independently by the teacher and reflects the engagement quality assessment, not a penalty calculation.

Section 5

Faith-Based Community Values in Action — 5%

Weekly reflection assessed by teacher. All students eligible.

Assessment mechanism

As part of the pre-meeting weekly reflection, students identify one of ten ESLR standards and provide a specific description of how they put it into practice during the section. The teacher assesses the reflection for genuineness, specificity, and the presence of a concrete growth step for the following section. This is the applied expression of Faith-Based Community Values in Action — abbreviated throughout as Faith-in-Action.

This category is explicitly designed to be accessible to all students regardless of faith background. Non-Christian students may earn full credit by demonstrating genuine character, ethical behavior, and community values in action. The ESLR standards are framed broadly enough to encompass integrity, service, and community engagement outside an explicitly Christian frame.

Credit level Requirements Score
Full credit Reflection submitted. Specific genuine description of Faith-in-Action in practice. One concrete growth step identified for the following section. Qualifying venues include DDF engagement, prayer forum participation, club involvement, service activities, and acts of encouragement. 100%
Partial credit (teacher discretion) Reflection submitted but description is vague, generic, or missing the growth step. Something genuine was attempted but not fully developed. 50%
No credit Reflection not submitted, or the Faith-in-Action section is empty or clearly hollow. 0%

The ten ESLR Faith-in-Action standards: Scripture & obedience • Prayer • Compassionate service • Evangelism & witnessing • Integrity in academics • Building community • Stewardship of time • Critical biblical thinking • Tech & outreach • Holy living & discipleship

Administrative note on pattern behavior

Repeated hollow submissions (3 or more across a semester) should trigger a parent notification and a conversation with the student about the intent of the Faith-in-Action category. This is a pastoral concern as much as an academic one.

3. Class-Specific Tier

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 3 of 6
Class-Specific Tier — Detailed Policy

Class-Specific Tier

Curriculum Grade • Assigned Work Completion • Meeting Content — Learning Verification

Section 6

Curriculum Grade — 40%

Single input per course. Largest weighted category.

Definition and data source

The curriculum grade is the grade displayed in the digital textbook (Edmentum/Apex curriculum). It represents the student's total quiz, test, and graded activity performance within the digital textbook. No adjustments are made to this number at the spreadsheet level.

Missing or late work is enforced by entering zeros directly in the digital textbook. This approach naturally depresses the curriculum grade without requiring a separate penalty mechanism in the grading spreadsheet. The curriculum grade therefore reflects both academic performance and assignment completion behavior within the digital textbook simultaneously.

Administrative context

The curriculum grade is the largest single category at 40%. However, it is no longer the whole story. A student with a high curriculum grade who cannot demonstrate genuine understanding in their scheduled teacher meeting will have that reflected in the Learning Verification score. The two categories are designed to be read together, not in isolation.

Digital textbook platform

CPA uses Edmentum/Apex curriculum delivered through the digital textbook platform. The grade displayed in the digital textbook is the authoritative score for this category. Teachers enter it as a decimal in the course spreadsheet tab (e.g., 0.75 for 75%). The spreadsheet gates the overall grade calculation on this input — if no curriculum grade is entered, the overall grade displays as No Grade.

Section 7

Assigned Work Completion — 10%

Simple 0–10 scale per section. Completion only — quality verified in scheduled meeting.

Scoring philosophy

This category measures one thing only: did the student complete and submit the assigned work for the section by the time of the scheduled meeting. It does not measure quality, correctness, or authenticity. Those dimensions are assessed in the Learning Verification category. This deliberate separation means that a student who submits AI-generated work earns completion credit but earns very few learning verification points because they cannot defend the work in the scheduled meeting.

Score Status Description
10 Complete All assigned work submitted and ready to present at the start of the meeting
7–9 Mostly complete Most work submitted; one or two items outstanding; student is substantially prepared
4–6 Mostly incomplete Meaningful portion of work not submitted; meeting productivity is limited
0–3 Missing Little to no work submitted; teacher has nothing to review or verify

Assignment types included

Journals, worksheets, essays and papers, projects, oral reports, and any additional work assigned by the teacher for the section. The teacher determines which assignments are included and their relative significance within the 0–10 scale. Point values are not itemized — the teacher exercises professional judgment in awarding the section completion score.

Due date policy: All assigned work is due at the start of the scheduled teacher meeting, regardless of whether the meeting was rescheduled or missed. Late work policies apply independently. Students self-report completion in the pre-meeting reflection; teachers cross-reference against the gradebook.

Section 8

Meeting Content — Learning Verification — 30%

The signature assessment of the CPA model. Four components scored out of 20 per section.

Purpose and philosophy

This is the most important category in the class-specific tier and the primary mechanism by which CPA verifies genuine learning. It is explicitly designed to be AI-proof: no tool can sit in a one-on-one session with a credentialed teacher and defend a student's learning on their behalf. The scheduled meeting is the thesis defense — the student presents their work and the teacher examines it through live dialogue.

The category is scored across four components that together produce a score out of 20 per section. The semester grade is the average of all scored sections divided by 20. Blank sections are excluded from the average; zero-scored sections are included.

Four-component rubric

Component Points Weight Description Key teacher question
Depth of Understanding 0–10 50% Can the student explain concepts accurately in their own words, connect ideas across the material, and go beyond surface recall? "Explain this to me as if I've never heard of it. What does it connect to in the real world?"
Responsiveness to Questioning 0–4 20% How does the student handle questions they did not prepare for? Can they reason in real time? "Here is a problem you haven't seen — walk me through how you'd approach it."
Growth Awareness & Ownership 0–4 20% Does the student accurately identify their own gaps and have a specific improvement plan? "What was hardest this section and what are you going to do about it?"
Teacher Conviction — Discontinuity Flag 0–2 10% Does the overall meeting picture cohere with the curriculum grade? Is the teacher convinced the learning is genuine? "Does this student's meeting performance match what their digital textbook scores suggest they know?"
Total 20 100%    

Score reference scale

Raw score Percentage Letter equivalent
20/20 100% A+
18/20 90% A−
17/20 85% B
16/20 80% B−
14/20 70% C
12/20 60% D
Below 12 Below 60% F

Discontinuity flag protocol

When a teacher awards a Teacher Conviction score of 0, this constitutes a formal discontinuity flag. The teacher must:

  1. Document the specific nature of the discrepancy in the gradebook notes column for that section
  2. Note factually what the student could and could not demonstrate during the meeting
  3. Follow up through normal professional and administrative channels
  4. A second discontinuity flag in the same course within the same semester should trigger an administrative review

Administrative note

The discontinuity flag is a professional assessment tool, not a punishment. It is the teacher's formal record that the meeting evidence and the submitted work evidence do not cohere. It creates an auditable record that the concern was identified, documented, and acted upon through proper channels.

Portfolio approach

Students may present work from any prior section during any scheduled meeting — including older sections — to demonstrate cumulative learning and growth over time. Students who are behind in their coursework can still earn Learning Verification points by defending whatever completed work they bring to the meeting. This portfolio model rewards genuine engagement with material over time and gives students a mechanism to demonstrate growth even after a weak section.

4. Implementation Policy

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 4 of 6
Implementation — Teacher Autonomy & Gradebook

Implementation Policy

Teacher autonomy, gradebook structure, and data management

Section 9

Teacher Professional Autonomy

The model's formal recognition of teacher judgment as a grade component

Philosophy of teacher discretion

A core design principle of the holistic model is that teacher professional judgment is not merely permitted — it is formally built into the grade structure. The Teacher Conviction component of the Learning Verification category exists precisely because no algorithm can replace the judgment of a credentialed educator who has met with a student in scheduled sessions across an entire semester. That accumulated professional knowledge is a legitimate form of assessment evidence.

Throughout the model, teachers are granted discretion in multiple areas: punctuality scoring, preparation scoring, makeup meeting point restoration, Regular Engagement scoring when DDF and digital textbook data conflict, and the Faith-in-Action partial credit determination. This discretion is an explicit design choice that recognizes teaching as a professional relationship, not a mechanical process.

Teacher discretion — documentation requirements

RequiredAny score awarded at teacher discretion that departs from the rubric anchor must be noted briefly in the gradebook Notes column for that section.
RequiredAll Discontinuity Flag entries (Teacher Conviction = 0) require a factual note describing what the student could and could not demonstrate.
RequiredAny makeup meeting point restoration must be noted with the date of the makeup meeting.
RecommendedAny Faith-in-Action partial credit determination that the teacher believes may be disputed should include a brief note.
PurposeDocumentation protects both the teacher and the student. It creates a professional record that grades were awarded thoughtfully and can be reviewed if questioned.

Section 10

Gradebook Spreadsheet Structure

Technical reference for the grading spreadsheet

File versions

Version Description Use case
v5 — Combined One row per section (18 rows). Single overall meeting content score per section. Recommended for most teachers. Simpler data entry. Best when teacher assigns one meeting defense per section.
v6 — Itemized Five rows per section (90 rows total). Up to 5 individual items per section scored separately. For teachers who assign multiple gradeable items per section (paper + oral report + project). Section average calculated automatically.

CourseGrades tab — holistic tier inputs

The CourseGrades tab is the single entry point for all three holistic tier categories. Scores entered here are automatically referenced by every course tab in the spreadsheet.

Column Category Scale Who enters
B Faith-Based Community Values in Action (Faith-in-Action) 0–5 per section Teacher (per section)
C Meeting Attendance 0–10 per section Teacher (per section)
D Regular Engagement 0–5 per section Teacher (per section)
E Notes Text Teacher (as needed)

Course tabs — class-specific inputs

Cell/Column Field Format Notes
B2 Curriculum Grade Decimal (0.75 = 75%) Gates overall grade — No Grade until entered
Col B Assigned Work Completion 0–10 per section One score per section regardless of spreadsheet version
Col C Depth of Understanding 0–10 per section Data validation enforces maximum
Col D Responsiveness to Questioning 0–4 per section Data validation enforces maximum
Col E Growth & Ownership 0–4 per section Data validation enforces maximum
Col F Teacher Conviction 0–2 per section Data validation enforces maximum
Col G Meeting Content Total Auto-calculated C+D+E+F; formula result
Col H Notes Text Assignment labels, flags, observations
H2/I2 Current Course Grade Auto-calculated Weighted formula; displays No Grade until B2 is entered

Grade formula logic

The overall course grade is calculated as a weighted average of all six categories. Categories that have no scores entered (No Grade) are excluded from the denominator proportionally — the grade is calculated from available data rather than treating missing categories as zero. This allows a meaningful grade to be calculated at any point during the semester.

Critical data entry note

Zero versus blank: A score of 0 in any input cell is treated as a scored zero and is included in all averages. A blank cell is treated as not applicable and is excluded. Teachers must enter 0 explicitly when a student was assessed and earned no credit. Do not leave a cell blank to indicate a zero — that removes the section from the calculation entirely.

Section 11

Summer School Implementation

Specific operational differences for summer sessions

Pacing and section cadence

Summer school students complete approximately 5 sections per week rather than 1. This compresses the 18-section semester into roughly 3.5–4 weeks. All grading categories apply exactly as in a regular semester. The holistic tier scores are still entered once per section in the CourseGrades tab.

DDF attendance enforcement — administrative procedure

  1. Teacher tracks DDF posts daily in the course notes or a separate attendance log
  2. Teacher enters the Regular Engagement score in CourseGrades reflecting the quality of engagement for that section
  3. When a student reaches their 3rd DDF absence, teacher notifies administration
  4. Administration applies the direct grade deduction per the policy table (−3%, −2%, or −1% per subsequent absence depending on course load)
  5. Deduction is documented in the student’s record separately from the gradebook formula
  6. Parent notification is issued at the point the administrative deduction is first applied

Summer school weight variant — pending decision

A summer school weight variant has been discussed that would adjust category weights to reflect the compressed timeline and different meeting cadence. This variant has not been formally adopted. Current practice uses standard weights for summer school.

Pending administrative decision

Pending: Summer school weight variant decision. Proposed adjustment would increase Regular Engagement weight and reduce Learning Verification weight to reflect fewer scheduled teacher meetings. Requires educational team review before implementation.

5. Special Circumstances

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 5 of 6
Asynchronous Verification • Edge Cases • Appeals

Special Circumstances

Asynchronous verification pathway, edge cases, and appeals

Section 12

Asynchronous Verification Pathway

For final sections completed outside the regular meeting schedule

When the asynchronous pathway applies

The standard learning verification pathway requires a live scheduled teacher meeting. However, operational circumstances — particularly students finishing their final 1–3 sections after the last scheduled meeting of the term — may make a live meeting impractical. The asynchronous verification pathway provides a structured alternative that preserves the integrity of the assessment while accommodating genuine scheduling constraints.

This pathway is not a shortcut or a default option. It is available specifically when a student has already established a full meeting history with their teacher during the term. It is not available as a substitute for scheduled meetings during the regular course of the semester.

Asynchronous pathway scoring adjustments

Component Standard (scheduled meeting) Asynchronous adjustment Rationale
Depth of Understanding (50%) Scored from live dialogue Scored from submitted written defense, annotated portfolio, or structured reflection Written evidence can demonstrate depth; teacher assesses specificity and accuracy
Responsiveness (20%) Scored from real-time response Default: score capped at 3/4 unless teacher has strong evidence from prior meetings No live Socratic exchange possible; prior meeting history informs teacher judgment
Growth & Ownership (20%) Scored from meeting self-assessment Scored from reflection quality and self-assessment document Fully assessable from written evidence
Teacher Conviction (10%) Holistic live impression Assessed from consistency between prior meeting performance and submitted evidence Accumulated knowledge from prior meetings is the primary evidence base

Eligibility restriction

The asynchronous pathway is only available for students who have an established meeting record with the teacher in the current term. A student who has never attended a scheduled meeting may not substitute the asynchronous pathway for required live meetings.

Section 13

Part-Time Student Engagement Policy

DDF is not required for part-time students

Regular engagement for part-time students

Part-time students are not required to participate in the Daily Discussion Forum. Their Regular Engagement score is based on digital textbook login frequency only, using the same 0–5 scale with textbook logins as the primary indicator.

If a part-time student voluntarily participates in the DDF and their textbook engagement for a given section was weak, the teacher may use that voluntary participation as a recovery signal — raising the engagement score by up to 1 point at their discretion. This is a recovery mechanism only, not a bonus pathway.

Policy note for teachers

This policy distinction is defined at the school level and is not adjustable by individual teachers. Part-time students should not be scored on DDF participation as a primary measure, even if they post consistently.

Section 14

Edge Cases and Boundary Conditions

Operational guidance for non-standard situations

Documented edge cases and resolutions

Technology failureIf a student cannot attend a scheduled meeting due to a verified technology failure documented by the student and confirmed by the teacher, the meeting may be rescheduled at no penalty regardless of the semester reschedule count. Teacher documents the reason in gradebook notes.
Student illnessExtended illness (3+ school days) should be handled through standard CPA absence policy. Teachers document the period and may award engagement scores based on whatever activity was possible.
Course withdrawal mid-semesterIf a student withdraws from a course after grades have been partially entered, the gradebook reflects the averaged scores from completed sections only. The final grade is whatever the formula produces from entered data.
New enrollment mid-semesterStudents enrolling after the semester start date begin section 1. Holistic tier scores from before their enrollment date are not backdated.
Multiple absences in one weekIf a student misses multiple DDF posts and also misses their scheduled teacher meeting in the same week, the meeting attendance score and the engagement score are both entered independently.
Disputed preparation scoreIf a student disputes their preparation score, the teacher's gradebook notes are the primary record. Teachers are expected to document specific preparation gaps when awarding scores of 2 or below.

Section 15

Grade Appeals Process

Student and parent rights regarding grade disputes

Grounds for appeal

A student or parent may appeal a grade on the following grounds: (1) a mathematical error in the gradebook calculation; (2) a documented score that does not reflect the rubric criteria; (3) a discretionary score that was not documented in the gradebook notes as required. Disagreement with a teacher's professional judgment alone, where that judgment was properly exercised and documented, is not grounds for a grade change.

Appeal procedure

  1. Student or parent contacts the teacher directly within 5 school days of the grade being posted
  2. Teacher reviews the concern and responds within 2 school days with reference to the rubric and gradebook notes
  3. If unresolved, the concern is escalated to the academic director within 5 school days of the teacher response
  4. The academic director reviews the rubric, the gradebook notes, and any relevant meeting records and issues a final determination within 5 school days
  5. The academic director’s determination is final for the current term

Institutional risk note

Teacher documentation is the foundation of the appeals process. A teacher who cannot produce gradebook notes for a discretionary score will be in a significantly weaker position in any appeal.

6. Rollout and Evaluation

Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document

Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference

Page 6 of 6
Rollout • Evaluation • Formal Policy Statements

Rollout and Evaluation

Pilot history, deployment guidance, and formal policy statements

Section 16

Pilot History and Deployment Status

What has been tested and what is current practice

Pilot summary

Pilot parameter Detail
Duration 10 weeks
Student participants 25 volunteer students
Teacher participants All teaching staff
Term Regular semester (prior to summer deployment)
Outcome Model validated; proceeding to broader deployment
WASC status Corporate office informed; model aligned with accreditation criteria

Deployment approach

CPA is pursuing a phased deployment strategy. The full holistic model is being used for summer school — the smallest and most self-selecting student population, providing a further real-world test under compressed conditions. The integrated hybrid model is being developed in parallel for regular semester deployment.

Section 17

Known Risks and Mitigation Strategies

Honest assessment of implementation challenges

Risk Likelihood Mitigation
Teacher subjectivity and inconsistency across staff Medium Calibration sessions; documentation requirements; rubric anchors with specific behavioral indicators
Student or parent objection to subjective components Medium Clear rubric communication in orientation; appeals process; teacher documentation requirements
Neurodivergent or communication-affected students disadvantaged by oral assessment Medium Accommodation protocol being developed; written defense pathway available for documented needs
Summer school DDF policy confusion Low-Medium Clear separation of rubric score from administrative deduction in all communications; explicit policy language in orientation
Teacher workload fatigue Medium Structured meeting format; pre-meeting reflection reduces discovery time; gradebook designed for efficient entry
AI-coached meeting preparation Low-Medium Socratic questioning requires real-time reasoning; portfolio model rewards cumulative demonstrated learning
Gradebook formula errors or version confusion Low Recalculation verification built in; v5 and v6 clearly labeled; version history maintained

Section 18

Formal Policy Statements

Adopted positions on key policy questions

Formal Policy Positions — Holistic Grading Model

On grades and scheduled meetings

Grades are not awarded for coursework without a scheduled teacher meeting. This is an existing CPA policy predating the holistic model. Under the new model the scheduled meeting is also the primary assessment event, reinforcing this policy.

On teacher professional judgment

Teacher professional judgment is a formal grade component in this model, not an informal override. The Teacher Conviction category specifically recognizes that no algorithm can replace the judgment of a credentialed educator with a full semester of scheduled meeting evidence.

On AI use and academic integrity

Submitting AI-generated work as one's own remains a violation of academic integrity policy. The holistic model does not change this policy; it changes how easily that violation goes undetected. The Learning Verification category is specifically designed to surface discrepancies between submitted work quality and genuine demonstrated understanding.

On non-Christian student eligibility for Faith-in-Action

All students, regardless of faith background, are eligible for full credit in the Faith-Based Community Values in Action category. The category measures genuine character, integrity, and community engagement, which are accessible to all students.

On zero versus blank in the gradebook

A blank cell means the category was not applicable or not yet scored for that section. A zero means the student was assessed and earned no credit. Teachers must enter 0 explicitly for scored zeros.

On the summer DDF administrative deduction

The summer DDF absence deduction is a school policy applied administratively. It is separate from the Regular Engagement rubric score. Absences 1 and 2 are handled exclusively through the rubric. Beginning with absence 3, the administrative deduction applies. There is no double-penalty on absences 1 and 2.

On transcript integrity

CPA grades reported on official transcripts under this model reflect demonstrated learning verified by a credentialed teacher in a live scheduled meeting setting. The school holds that these grades are more defensible to colleges, accreditors, and other external parties than grades based solely on submitted work of uncertain authenticity.

Document information

Field Detail
Document title CPA Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Administrative Policy Reference
Version Current (post-10-week pilot)
Audience Academic administrators, department heads, WASC reviewers, senior staff
Related documents Teacher Guide • Parent Orientation • Student Orientation • Summary Guide • Grading Rubric Spreadsheets (v5 Combined, v6 Itemized)
Review cycle Annual review recommended; immediate review if accreditation requirements change
Questions Contact academic director

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Proverbs 22:6