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 showing exactly how the model works.

Marcus R. — Grade 10, full-time, 6 courses

79%

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

Curriculum grade (40%)

62%

Learning verification (30%)

88%

Assigned work (10%)

90%

Meeting attendance (10%)

95%

Regular engagement (5%)

90%

Community values (5%)

90%

(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. He posts in the Daily Discussion Forum consistently and engages with his coursework across multiple days each week. 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, shows up, and lives out his values.

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 (10%)

88%

Meeting attendance (10%)

45%

Regular engagement (5%)

40%

Community values (5%)

(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, barely engages in the Daily Discussion Forum, 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 that the teacher has documented. 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 (10%)

80%

Meeting attendance (10%)

80%

Regular engagement (5%)

75%

Community values (5%)

80%

(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 weekly meetings show real understanding with some gaps. She engages with her coursework most days of the week and posts in the DDF regularly but misses one occasionally. 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. If she tightens up her meeting preparation and engagement consistency, she could easily move into the mid-80s.