Detailed View of Grading Model (Policy level)
1. CPA Holistic Grading Model
Calvary Preparatory Academy — Administrative Policy Document
Holistic Grading Model — Detailed Policy Reference
Page 1 of 6
Executive Summary & Philosophical Foundation
CPA Holistic Grading Model
Detailed Policy Reference — Administration and Academic Leadership
Document Purpose
This document provides a complete policy-level reference for the CPA Holistic Grading Model. It is intended for academic administrators, department heads, accreditation reviewers, and senior staff. For teacher-facing guidance see the Teacher Guide. For student and parent-facing materials see the respective orientation documents.
Section 1
Rationale and Institutional Context
Why CPA redesigned its grading model and the values that underpin it
The problem the model was designed to solve
The widespread availability of AI tools fundamentally altered the reliability of traditional submission-based grading. A student can now produce polished essays, completed worksheets, and correct quiz answers in seconds using freely available tools. The result is that scores on submitted work no longer reliably distinguish students who have genuinely learned from students who have delegated their learning to a machine.
The conventional institutional response — investing in AI detection tools and stricter plagiarism enforcement — creates an adversarial dynamic between teachers and students, consumes significant administrative resources, and addresses symptoms rather than causes. More fundamentally, it implicitly accepts that the purpose of education is to produce correct outputs rather than to develop capable, honest, thinking human beings.
CPA’s response was to ask a more foundational question: what does it mean to have genuinely learned something, and how should a school measure that? The answer is the holistic grading model.
Alignment with CPA's founding identity
CPA’s Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs) describe students who are faith-filled Christ followers, motivated self-directed learners, critical and creative thinkers, proficient technology users, effective communicators, and academic achievers. The previous grading model measured only the last ESLR and ignored the other five entirely. The holistic model is designed to formally recognize all six.
“Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.”
Colossians 3:23 — the scriptural anchor for CPA's approach to learning as a form of worship
Accreditation and compliance context
CPA is WASC accredited for grades 7–12, UC a-g approved, and NCAA approved. The holistic grading model has been discussed with the WASC corporate office and is aligned with WASC’s accreditation criteria, which emphasize student-centered learning, alignment between stated values and institutional practice, and evidence-based assessment. The model was piloted for 10 weeks with 25 volunteer students and all teaching staff prior to broader deployment.
Accreditation note
The school's position is that a grade earned under this model is more defensible to accreditors, college admissions offices, and NCAA eligibility reviewers — not less — because it reflects demonstrated learning verified by a credentialed teacher in a live setting, rather than scores on assessments of uncertain authenticity.
Section 2
Model Architecture
The two-tier structure and how categories interact
Structural overview
The holistic model organizes all grade components into two tiers. The distinction between tiers is philosophically important: the holistic tier measures the student as a person across all their enrolled courses simultaneously, while the class-specific tier measures academic performance within each individual course.
| Tier | Category | Weight | Scope | Data source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holistic | Meeting Attendance | 10% | All courses equally | Teacher observation — each scheduled meeting |
| Holistic | Regular Engagement | 5% | All courses equally | DDF forum records + digital textbook login data |
| Holistic | Faith-Based Community Values in Action (Faith-in-Action) | 5% | All courses equally | Weekly student reflection (teacher assessed) |
| Class | Curriculum Grade | 40% | Per course independently | Digital textbook (Edmentum/Apex curriculum) grade as displayed |
| Class | Assigned Work Completion | 10% | Per course independently | Teacher assessment at scheduled meeting |
| Class | Meeting Content — Learning Verification | 30% | Per course independently | Teacher scoring during scheduled meeting |
| Total | 100% |
How the tiers interact mathematically
For a student enrolled in multiple courses, the holistic tier scores are entered once in the CourseGrades spreadsheet tab and automatically applied to all enrolled courses. The class-specific tier is calculated independently for each course in its own spreadsheet tab. The overall grade for each course is the weighted sum of all six categories, with the holistic scores feeding identically into each course calculation.
Practical implication for multi-course students
Example: A student enrolled in 4 courses earns 88% on Meeting Attendance. That 88% contributes 8.8% (88% × 10% weight) to every one of the student's four course grades simultaneously. The teacher enters the score once; the spreadsheet propagates it automatically.
Grade gates and No Grade status
The overall grade formula gates on the Curriculum Grade input. If no curriculum grade has been entered for a course, the overall grade displays as “No Grade” rather than calculating from holistic scores alone. This prevents courses with no academic data from showing misleadingly high grades based purely on holistic category scores.
Individual grade categories that have no entries (blank sections) are excluded from the average calculation. A zero entry is treated as a scored zero and is included in the average. This distinction is intentional: blank means the category was not applicable for that section; zero means the student was assessed and earned no credit.