Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High School Schedule And Weighted Grades topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teacher survey persuades Quakertown committee to keep current high‑school bell schedule; weighted GPA clarified
Summary
A teacher survey finding that 96.1% of respondents opposed the proposed bell schedule led administrators to recommend retaining the existing schedule. The committee also reviewed a change that equalizes weight for dual‑enrollment and AP courses and heard that most colleges recalculate local weights, limiting admissions impact.
Dr. V told the Quakertown Community SD committee that a staff survey found 96.1% of responding teachers do not recommend implementing the proposed new high‑school bell schedule and recommended keeping the district's current schedule. "96.1% of teachers do not recommend changing the schedule," Dr. V said, and noted the survey included roughly 78 responses.
The survey showed teachers saw instructional benefits in the proposed model — for example, more lab time and authentic engagement — but overall responses and prior task‑force discussions led Dr. V to advise against adopting the new bell schedule now. During questions, board members asked about question wording and response rates; Dr. V said the instrument used a Likert scale and that the sample targeted schools the district frequently sends students to.
On a related agenda item, administrators reviewed a policy change that equalizes GPA weight for dual‑enrollment courses and AP courses. The presenters said the change reflects classroom practice in which the same course content and teacher serve students who opt for AP testing or for dual‑enrollment credit: "Because that grade the teacher provides to the students for all students in that class is equal," Dr. V said, "that weighing of that GPA should be done in a similar way."
To assess possible effects on college admissions, the district surveyed about 36 colleges and found most either neutralize local weight systems (for example by using unweighted GPA or recalculating) or recalculate GPAs into their own metrics. Presenters identified a small set of colleges among the respondents that accept weighted GPAs as submitted; those institutions, they said, are generally less selective and do not represent the competitive admissions many families worry about. Dr. V summarized: "Bottom line, colleges understand that — the recalculated GPA matters."
Board members and administrators discussed class rank and whether it should be revisited; presenters cautioned that class rank comparisons across districts can be misleading and said colleges often take a holistic view. The committee did not take a formal vote on either the bell‑schedule proposal or changes to weightings during this meeting; Dr. V said his recommendation is to maintain the current bell schedule and continue with the equalized weight approach for AP and dual‑enrollment courses while monitoring college‑admissions effects.
Next steps: administrators will provide the survey instrument and the full list of colleges contacted on request, and board members requested a brief follow‑up at a future meeting if additional data are needed.
