Three students — three very different stories

The holistic model rewards real learning, genuine effort, and strong character — and it catches students who let AI do their work for them. Here are three real-number examples that show exactly how the model works.

Marcus R. — Grade 10, full-time, 3 courses

79%

The student who struggles with tests but shows up and truly learns

Curriculum grade (40%)

62%

Learning verification (30%)

88%

Assigned work completion (10%)

90%

Meeting attendance (10%)

95%

Daily Discussion Forum (5%)

90%

Community values (5%)

90%

Calculation: (62 x 0.40) + (88 x 0.30) + (90 x 0.10) + (95 x 0.10) + (90 x 0.05) + (90 x 0.05) = 24.8 + 26.4 + 9.0 + 9.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 78.7% — rounds to 79%

Marcus's story: Marcus has always found multiple-choice tests hard. His digital textbook grade of 62% looks concerning on the surface. But every week he shows up on time, fully prepared, with his reflection open and his work organized. In his weekly meetings, he can explain what he learned clearly, solve problems in front of his teacher, and talk about how the material connects to the real world. His teacher is convinced — every single week — that Marcus genuinely knows the material. Under the old model, Marcus would have been in danger of failing. Under the new model, his 79% reflects the truth: he is a real learner who works hard and shows up.

Jordan T. — Grade 11, full-time, 5 courses

61%

The student whose high textbook scores hide a serious problem

Curriculum grade (40%)

91%

Learning verification (30%)

32%

Assigned work completion (10%)

88%

Meeting attendance (10%)

45%

Daily Discussion Forum (5%)

40%

Community values (5%)

Calculation: (91 x 0.40) + (32 x 0.30) + (88 x 0.10) + (45 x 0.10) + (40 x 0.05) + (0 x 0.05) = 36.4 + 9.6 + 8.8 + 4.5 + 2.0 + 0 = 61.3% — rounds to 61%

Jordan's story: Jordan's digital textbook shows a 91% — impressive at first glance. But Jordan rarely shows up to weekly meetings on time, posts in the Daily Discussion Forum only about twice a week, never submitted a faith-in-action reflection, and when the teacher asks questions in their meeting, Jordan cannot explain the material at all. The textbook score and the meeting performance do not match — a clear discontinuity flag. Jordan's teacher documented the concern and involved the administration. The 61% overall grade tells the real story: high scores on submitted work, but no demonstrated learning and no engagement with the school community. Under the old model, Jordan might have passed with an A. Under the new model, the grade reflects the truth.

Sofia L. — Grade 9, full-time, 4 courses

76%

The middle-ground student — solid habits but room to grow

Curriculum grade (40%)

75%

Learning verification (30%)

72%

Assigned work completion (10%)

80%

Meeting attendance (10%)

80%

Daily Discussion Forum (5%)

75%

Community values (5%)

80%

Calculation: (75 x 0.40) + (72 x 0.30) + (80 x 0.10) + (80 x 0.10) + (75 x 0.05) + (80 x 0.05) = 30.0 + 21.6 + 8.0 + 8.0 + 3.75 + 4.0 = 75.35% — rounds to 76%

Sofia's story: Sofia is a solid, consistent student. She shows up to most meetings on time and comes reasonably prepared — though she occasionally forgets to have her reflection open. Her digital textbook scores are in the mid-70s and her meeting conversations show real understanding with some gaps. She posts in the DDF most days but occasionally misses one. She submitted her faith-in-action reflection most weeks with genuine descriptions. Her 76% is an honest grade — consistent effort, real learning, some room to grow. The model is encouraging her to push further: if she improves her meeting preparation and her DDF consistency, she could easily be in the mid-80s.