Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gpa Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects proposed change to weighted GPA formula after public comment and data review
Summary
Following public comments urging changes and a committee presentation, the Montgomery County School Board voted down a motion to adopt a per-year weighted GPA calculation (8/16/24/32). The committee had recommended no change.
The Montgomery County School Board considered revisions to its weighted GPA calculation on Jan. 13 after several public commenters urged changes they said would better recognize advanced coursework when students apply to colleges.
Public speakers, including Dr. Benjamin Janssen, Carl Pauley and Gomer Bach, told the board the current weighting method can obscure academic distinctions between students and urged adjustments such as a per-course bonus for AP/dual-enrollment (DE) or a per-year denominator change. Those speakers cited the committee's 2018 work and expressed concerns that Montgomery County students could be disadvantaged when compared to students from other divisions.
District staff and the GPA committee presented additional data to the board. Committee analysis examined twelfth-grade and junior-year cohorts and found that moving from a single 32-denominator to a per-year denominator (8/16/24/32) would produce a modest positive change in average weighted GPA (the committee noted a +0.05 difference in sample data for seniors under one comparison). Staff and committee members also discussed alternative approaches, such as applying a fixed additive bonus per AP/DE course rather than changing the denominator.
Board members debated the options, with some members urging caution and requesting drafted policy language before making a commit. Others said changes were worth considering given changes in course-taking patterns since the prior committee review. A motion to adopt the proposed per-year weighted calculation (the presentation's "column E" option) was moved and seconded and then failed by roll call, 2 in favor and 5 opposed.
Chair Purcell and the administration said the committee's materials and additional data remain in board packets for reference and the issue could return with drafted policy language and implementation timing (PowerSchool considerations were discussed). No immediate policy change was adopted.
