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