DPSCPA INVESTIGATION - WordPress.com INVESTIGATION 1 May 1, 2015 Introduction The following pages...

DPSCPA INVESTIGATION

1

May 1, 2015

Introduction

The following pages represent the results of a six-week-long investigation of the Collegiate

Preparatory Academy grade changing policies and practices. Kutinsky and Associates was

contracted to review the claims that have been made in this situation and to determine if any

actions were improper. Additionally, this investigator was asked for recommendations

regarding any changes in policies or practices that may need to be made to address similar

situations in the future. The following pages represent the findings of this investigation, the

artifacts collected and recommendations for future policies or practices.

This investigation serves to report the results of the investigation only. It makes

recommendations and does not make policy. It is in no way to be used as an evaluation of

any of the staff or administrators involved, or to serve as praise or criticism of any of the

individuals or the system as a whole. It is simply an investigation with recommendations and

should be used as such. Kutinsky and Associates is a private for-profit Limited Liability

Corporation. Data collected in this investigation will be turned over to Denver Public Schools to

become the sole property of DPS. There is confidential information contained in the full

report. All confidential information is removed in the executive summary.

Methodology

This investigation set out to answer six key questions:

1. Were student grades assigned appropriately by this teacher?

2. Did the principal or someone else change these grades, and if so, why and what

process was used?

3. What does policy say about the way grades are assigned?

4. What does policy say about the way grades are changed?

5. Is there a difference between actions in this case and policy and if so, what?

6. Are there recommendations for the future?


2

In order to answer these questions, a series of documents were reviewed, not limited to but

including:

Email correspondences between various members of the system leading up to, during

and following this potential grade changing incident,

The Denver School Board Policies around the assigning of grades and classes and

changing grades,

The 2014–2015 High School Procedures Book,

DPS Transcript Operations Manual from 2013–2014 (currently under revision),

The Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook 2014–2015,

The Collegiate Preparatory Faculty Handbook (still in the process of revision) 2014–

2015,

School Board Policies in two like school districts, one a traditional system and one a

standards-based system,

Policies used by a local university,

High School Procedures guides in both of these like school districts,

Student grade reports and progress reports,

Teacher, administration and school evaluations.

In addition, a series of over 38 interviews was conducted, including:

Two interviews with the teacher in question,

Two interviews with the current assistant principal,

Two interviews with the principal in question,

Nineteen former students of the teacher in question,

Eight teachers who were colleagues of this teacher,

One assistant principal no longer employed at this school,

The Director of the DSSN Network,

Four other additional Central Office personnel,

Two clerical personnel at the school.

Question 1. Were these grades assigned appropriately by the teacher of record?


3

Based on documentation and interviews with students and co-workers there is ample

information indicating that it is unlikely that these grades were assigned appropriately by the

teacher of record. This statement is made as a result of the following information.

A. Attendance

There was an issue with attendance on the part of the teacher and many of the students.

Human resources and email documentation indicated that the teacher in question was

employed for 92 days. During that time there were at least 14 contact days missed during

which teacher coverage was necessary (meaning a teacher was assigned to the class during

his/her planning period). Instruction during those times appeared to be “makeshift” based on

interviews with 18 of the 19 students interviewed and a review of lesson plans left for the

building secretary. There were emails sent to the building secretary obtained with lesson plans

on August 22, September 23, and September 29. In some lessons there was a video for the

entire lesson along with a low-level worksheet. Others appear to be appropriate lessons,

however they could only be taught well by a highly qualified science teacher. Still others are

confusing at best and require students to come to class prepared with previous work.

An example of the teacher’s attendance issues is an email sent from the teacher on a Monday

morning at 7:13 am. This is very late for the building to find a suitable substitute. In it he

apologizes for the “short notice.” Attached was a low-level worksheet that would not take a

typical high school physics student an entire class period to complete. No other instructions

were attached.

On October 8, a peer evaluator evaluated the teacher’s class. She later asked to meet the

following Monday at 9:50 during the teacher’s planning period for a coaching session. At 6:13

am Monday morning an email was sent to the building secretary by the teacher stating that the

teacher was unable to attend the peer coaching session. The lesson plans indicate students

should work on a previous worksheet and read for the entire hour. On October 21, an email

was sent at 7:34 am and the “plans” attached had very little content in them.

According to the principal, the teacher first reported to work on July 6, 2014 and resigned

employment on January 13, 2015. There were 92 contact days during his employment.

According to the principal, he was absent 14 of those, but verification could not be obtained.

Of the 19 students interviewed, all 19 reported that the teacher was absent a lot and then


4

resigned. To quote one student in a letter she addressed to Fox News “(the teacher) was often

physically absent from school and when he was at school he was occasionally mentally absent.

Every time he was gone for a long period of time he would come back and blame his absence

on stress or migraines. As a person who experiences migraines on almost a daily basis, I can

relate to (teacher). The stress from school, migraines, and maintaining good grades can be

overwhelming at times, but I attend school every day. I do not know the severity of his

migraines, but I do know his students were often to blame for them and his anxiety spikes.”

B. Ineffective and inconsistent instruction

In several documents, particularly at the beginning of the year, expectations are clearly

explained as to what good classroom instruction should include at CPA. In one of those

documents, staff was given the list the principal had from the Director of the DSSN delineating

classroom expectations that would be observed in an upcoming visit by the Principal Evaluator

to classrooms. There is a complete series of emails that was then sent on September 2, 2014

from the teacher to the principal and teacher leaders in the building. In those emails the

teacher states: a) he had just been given the lesson plan requirements and didn’t understand

them; b) he’d be giving a summative assessment that day and he didn’t know what the

observer might be able to see; c) he was having a “a bit of a panic attack.”

There was coaching offered by the Teacher Effectiveness Coach (TEC) that same day along with

reassurance by the TEC regarding the visit of the Director of the DSSN and asking where she

could meet him that very day. This was followed by an email on September 5 by the principal

indicating his wouldn’t be one of the classrooms observed.

There was Professional Development offered at New Teacher Induction, which the teacher in

question would have missed as it occurred prior to his hire. According to the principal, she

personally met with the teacher to review the professional development missed on July 28,

2014. This training was on standards-based grading and DNA standards. She then met with the

teacher on August 6 during teacher work time, August 7 during teacher work time and August 8

before school started at 7 am to review this information. In August he expressed difficulty

getting his schoology login to work. According to interviews, the principal gave him her

schoology login to use until he worked out the difficulty he was having. Schoology is an online

tool teachers can use to help students make up credits by entering ways for students to learn


5

some of the class content online. Despite this private training, his schoology was empty in

November. On September 2, he sent an email to the Assistant Principal asking for information

that he missed in the New Teacher Orientation despite the personal training provided by the

principal on August 6–8.

However, after that there were many opportunities that he either specifically said he wouldn’t

attend, or was absent for. One of the emails on September 2 strongly encouraged him to

attend training on No Nonsense Nurturing to help teachers with classroom management. The

response three hours after the original email was a simple, “I’d love to. To be honest, though,

I’m barely juggling everything at the moment.”

There were Data Discussions with lists of required documents, including schedules, on

September 2, and then scheduled regularly throughout the year. The TEC reported that the

teacher attended about 75% of the time and was not prepared when he did. Likewise, a

Literacy Design Collaborative Science Team PLC was created and led by a colleague. They met

monthly with the first meeting from 7:30–8:30 am one morning in October. The colleague

reported that the teacher was on the phone and distracted during the entire meeting with

minimal participation. During the November meeting he brought a test that included just a few

short answers. They asked students to repeat Newton’s laws of physics by rote. To quote the

colleague, “This was a junior level Physics course and the work looked like it was asking

students to memorize information rather than demonstrate their understanding and

application of concepts. Additionally, this work did not seem to represent authentic writing

that could be purposeful and meaningful in a physics course.”

The TEC outlines nine attempts to work with the teacher that he was unable to take advantage

of. The TEC also indicated three attempts where help was accepted.

In the full observation of the teacher dated October 5 done by both the principal and a peer

observer, it would seem that the teacher in question was able to demonstrate many

requirements during the course of a class time. Based on subsequent evaluations done by

three observers, it appeared instruction was varied at best and by December consisted of

showing Mythbusters videos in their entirety while students were given a worksheet of low

academic level.


6

Of the 19 students interviewed, 13 reported that there were days when the teacher reported to

the class that he was “having a migraine.” Students claimed that on those days he would make

tea in the classroom, show a lot of Mythbusters, and ask them to fill out worksheets. They

reported he would sit behind the desk with earbuds in. Nine students reported hearing a

lecture from the teacher that they were causing him so much stress that he “hadn’t shaved in

weeks.” One student said “I get migraine headaches and I don’t get to drink tea and stop

working. I still have to come to school and learn.” Twelve students reported he gave out notes

to help them learn, but they weren’t helpful and then he’d get mad when questions were

asked. Fifteen students reported that zeros were entered into the gradebook until their work

was redone. As stated by one student, “Other teachers didn’t enter zeros for missing work.

With those zeros, when the coach looked at their posted grades, they weren’t so low and I

could still participate in sports.” Three students compared this teacher to others they had and

stated, “Other teachers won’t let us cheat on tests, don’t lose papers and actually make us

learn.” Finally an email from this teacher to another teacher sent on November 7 stated:

“Well, something peculiar happened earlier today in one of my classes- a student of mine

requested a pass to see you, during a worksheet time, for help on the assignment I had given

her, and I didn't really know how to react. I guess I was just wondering if my students been

coming to you for help. If so, I feel like I have some things to figure out to help them more...I

already have a wikispace and don't really know what else I can do.”

Clearly, even in early November, this teacher is recognizing that students are struggling with his

instruction and looking for help elsewhere.

C. Lost work

Fourteen of the nineteen students interviewed claimed that papers turned in were lost. One

student claimed that the teacher lost his paper, then remembered him handing in the paper

and just “gave him a B.” When questioned if he actually got a B on the worksheet, he indicated

that he must have because the teacher said so. Three other students reported doing

assignments over more than one time. Teacher indicated that, “When the second nine weeks

began, I had trouble posting assignments to this category. Due to this, I allowed for the first

nine weeks category to remain open and adjusted my assignments so that my grade book

would be running as current and still consistent with the syllabus. This allowed for all future

grade reports to reflect the current grades, just under the heading of first nine weeks.” Many


7

teachers and administrators identified issues with Infinite Campus, posting grades, bubble

sheets and more which does call into question the accurate assigning of grades.

D. The final exam

Denver Public Schools created an end-of-semester assessment for many of its disciplines.

Physics was one of those disciplines. The teacher in question acknowledged being part of the

team that designed this assessment. He knew that his students did not have access to all of the

information as a result of his instruction, so he created notes for them to study. The students

reported being unable to follow the notes given or solve the problems presented other than

mathematically. All nineteen reported receiving the notes. Twelve students reported being

unable to get help from the teacher to understand the notes. Four students reported asking a

math teacher for help and this was corroborated by the math teacher. These four students

sent a signed email to the principal dated November 4 stating:

We are writing you this email because we are concerned. We understand that Mr. (the teacher)

has had some personal problems but we do not feel it is fair that his personal life is affecting our

education. Speaking as seniors, most of us are taking this class because our college recommends

it but we feel it is a waste of our time if we are not learning anything. Monday, Nov 3, 2014, he

felt we needed to discuss any problems we had as a class. When (a student) confronted him

about how she felt like she did not learn anything, (teacher) became visually upset. (student)

became upset when (teacher) stated that he was not emotionally in a position to discuss this

with us. We understand he recently went through situations causing him stress and anxiety, as

he often states, but that should not affect how or what we learn. We have problems too but we

are not allowed to stay home or act out in school, neither should he. We are just trying to voice

our concerns, because as a collegiate preparatory school, it should be a first priority to ensure

the students are prepared for college. Sincerely, and signed by the four students.

Students in these sections did quite poorly on the assessment, resulting in a larger than

expected number of D’s and F’s. The teacher was asked directly about the results of the district

exam, pointing out to him that he had helped design the exam and knew exactly what was on

it. He acknowledged that his students did very poorly. When asked why, he blamed student

attendance.

E. Inconsistency with CPA school handbook


8

CPA has its own Student Handbook, which gives guidance to CPA teachers on how grades are to

be decided. According to the Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook, page 21:

Grades are assigned to indicate the level of mastery of standards in any given subject area or course of study. As a general guideline, use the following chart: Academic Grading Scale: A Mastery of subject matter knowledge and skills B Near mastery of subject knowledge and skills C Basic understanding of subject knowledge and skills D *Minimal understanding of subject knowledge and skills F *No understanding of subject knowledge and skills *Students will be required to attend tutorials.

Numeric Grade (CPA)

Letter Grade (CPA)

Regular Grade Point

AP/Dual Credit Letter Grade (ACC)

Numeric Grade (ACC)

90 – 100 A 4.0 5.0 A 100

80 – 89 B 3.0 4.0 B 89

75 – 79 C 2.0 3.0 C 79

70 – 74 D 1.0 2.0 D 74

0 – 69 F 0.0 0.0 F 60

Progress Reports/Report Cards Progress reports will be sent home with each student during the fifth week of the nine week grading cycle. Additionally, if a student is failing anytime during the school, progress report will be sent home. Report cards will be mailed/distributed to the parents shortly after the close of each six-weeks grading period. Any student whose progress report reflects less than 69% will be assigned to mandatory tutoring until their grade is 80% or greater. Academic Records: Minimum Grade of 50 (Emphasis investigator.) Grades will be reported on a range of 50– 100. (Emphasis investigator.) When the final cycle average is determined, if that average is less than 50, a 50 will be recorded on the grade sheet as the cycle grade. Academic Records: Rounding All grade averages with a remainder of .5 or above will be rounded off to the next highest number, including 69.5, which rounds off to 70. In order to receive credit for a course, a student must earn an average of 70.0 or better.


9

Progress Reports/Report Cards Progress reports will be sent home with each student during the fifth week of the nine week grading cycle. Additionally, if a student is failing anytime during the school, progress report will be sent home. Report cards will be mailed/distributed to the parents shortly after the close of each six-weeks grading period. Any student whose progress report reflects less than 69% will be assigned to mandatory tutoring until their grade is 80% or greater. Academic Records: Minimum Grade of 50 (Emphasis investigator.)

Again, as a result of high absences, mercurial instruction, lost papers, poor preparation for the

district final exam, and inconsistency to the stated school handbook, it seems likely that grades

were not appropriately assigned.

Question 2. Did the principal change grades of teachers? If so, did the principal

physically do the changing, or did someone else change them? Why?

The principal acknowledged asking an assistant principal to change some grades for this

teacher’s class. Why the principal changed these grades is less apparent. It is the belief of this

investigator, based on the evidence collected, that these grades were changed in order to keep

some students from being punished for grades being inappropriately assigned by the teacher.

In addition, this investigator found grades in other classes that had been changed by at least

three other staff members, some under blanket direction by the principal and others due to

clerical problems.

A. Contrast to what was reported to parents

The changing of these grades and the way they were done is in sharp contradiction to a letter

the principal sent to all parents on February 12, 2015 stating:

“Unfortunately, it has been brought to our attention that a former CPA teacher is making claims

to KDVR that our school leadership has unjustly changed the student grades from an F to a

passing grade. This is absolutely not the case. Any grades that have been changed are done so

via our school credit recovery program.”


10

This contrast was noted in a letter to the same group of parents dated February 24, 2015, sent

by the Chief of Schools indicating that:

“(this principal) changed the grades out of her belief that the grades given to the students by the

teachers did not accurately reflect the students’ proficiency in the course.”

B. Teachers appear to have been neither consulted nor informed

Another teacher took a screen shot of grades before and after submitting them. It appeared in

this case that a Dean of Students had changed a grade in his class from an F to a P and that the

student is continuing in second semester of the same class. Two teachers and a former

assistant principal reported seeing changed grades for students in classes. All of these

discoveries were made in a series of word-of-mouth conversations that led individuals to

investigate their own situations. None of the teachers who issued the grades appear to have

been consulted or informed.

There were at least nine grades for the teacher in question that were changed, some

discovered through the Fox News investigation and others discovered by following progress

reports two weeks prior to the end of quarter and comparing them with end of semester

grades. Grades were changed, but end of the year percentages were not in these cases, so it

was clear that these students identified achievement in these classes would have earned an F.

Instead they received D’s.

The principal, in one conversation on April 13, reported that she had privately tutored these

students and knew their achievement to be of passing quality. This principal is a highly trained

science teacher and likely could have done so. By some students’ report the principal did tutor

some students. There is no evidence that the students who received these passing grades were

tutored, and their final percentages were not changed. It is hard to understand how these

criteria were used to change the grades.

In addition, a social worker was interviewed who had a conversation with a young woman. This

social worker claimed that the young woman approached her and said “I can’t figure out how I

passed this class.” The social worker looked up the grade for this student and saw the same

low percentage and said “I can’t either.” The student report is included in the artifacts. This


11

same student was interviewed by this investigator and specifically asked why she thought her

percentage in that class was so low, and she said “I don’t do much.”

Another teacher followed up on one student in particular that had come late in the year from

another country. The teacher didn’t want to pass this student as he wasn’t able to absorb most

of the instruction as a result of his recent arrival. He later found the student given a P and was

able to determine that the grade was overridden by a Dean of Students. A screen shot of this

transcript is included in the artifacts section of this investigation.

C. Supervisors were not consulted, nor was consent given

A memo followed what appeared to have been a conversation between the supervisor of the

principal and the principal that was dated January 27, 2015. The memo was authored by the

supervisor. In that memo there were two teachers listed with reasons why the grades had

been changed. This investigator found a third teacher who had at least one grade changed

without his knowledge. Again, it did not indicate who actually changed them all, but the

principal takes the responsibility in that memo for two teachers’ grades being changed.

In regards to the teacher in question, this memo quotes the principal as stating, “This was one

of the most challenging and egregious example of grading practices that I have every

experienced in my career. We have discussed this situation.” (Grammatical errors and typos

copied exactly from email.)

D. Unclear process used

Overall, at CPA, there were 572 failing grades posted and many I’s and NG’s (incompletes and

no grades). It appears that only these particular grades were changed from F’s to D’s, and only

for this teacher. When asked directly why the grades were changed from F’s to D’s in a follow-

up interview, the principal said that things were happening quickly because they were having

trouble getting all of the grades out, some of these students were seniors and she didn’t want

any senior unable to graduate because of an underperforming teacher. When asked about the

vast difference in the evaluations of this teacher throughout the year, she cited his varied levels

of instruction and was able to identify at least one lesson that she found very well done.

When again pressed as to why assign a D as opposed to an incomplete or NG, she again said

things were chaotic at that moment and she felt she had to do something, so this was what she


12

chose to do. She was unable to produce any true process that was used. She was further

unable to determine who did the actual changing of the grades in all classes. She could explain

some, but not all cases. She just knew about nine of these grades that were changed from F’s

to D’s, specifically for this teacher. She acknowledged in a conversation on April 24 that she

looked specifically at the grades of this teacher because of his classroom demeanor. Both she

and the Assistant Principal acknowledge sharing the Assistant Principal’s password into the

grade book with other staff members and clerical staff in order to get the inputting of grades

done efficiently.

There may have been some grades changed appropriately, but no appropriate documentation

followed. There is a class identified as “Puma Success.” It is a homeroom class, and according

to the principal is supposed to be graded on pass or fail. Some teachers mistakenly gave grades

in that class and those grades were changed to pass or fail. It is unclear if those teachers were

notified that the grades in those classes had been changed, and as stated, no documentation

followed.

E. Inconsistency with stated school policies

The Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook, page 22 states:

Academic Records: Grade Changes An examination or course grade is final and may not be changed unless the grade is arbitrary, erroneous, or not consistent with school district grading policy. Faculty members must initiate all grade changes and the principal must approve any changes. Principals, counselors, or other administrators will not arbitrarily change grades issued by faculty members. Grades may only be changed at the school where they were issued. Grade appeals may be addressed to the faculty member and the principal. If the parent believes that the faculty member has violated DPS or school policies and procedures regarding grading, and the faculty member and/or principal do not settle the appeal, the parent may appeal to the regional superintendent. (Emphasis added by investigator.)

So, to answer question 2. Did the principal change grades of teachers? If so, did the principal

physically do the changing, or did someone else change them? Why? What process was used?

The answer is that this principal did request of at least one other administrator that transcript

grades be changed for this class from F’s to D’s and then miscommunicated the reasons to

parents. The explanation for changing the grades of this teacher appeared to have been to


13

avoid keeping seniors from graduating because of an incompetent teacher. The principal stated

at various times and in various venues that the grades were changed:

1) Because of credit recovery.

2) The new grades reflected the achievement of students she tutored or whose

achievement she knew.

3) She didn’t want seniors to be punished by having graduation delayed because of an

incompetent teacher.

There is no way to determine the exact reasoning behind all of these grade changes, but it

would appear that these were actions done to protect some students in this class.

In answer to the final portion of the question, what process was used, it appeared that some of

these changes were unilateral decisions on the part of the principal and assistant principal,

some were to correct letter grades being assigned to a pass/fail class, and some were a

simple attempt to get grades recorded after a series of failures on the part of software and

staff.

Questions 3 and 4: What does policy say about the way grades are assigned?

And what does policy say about the way grades are changed?

A. Data reviewed

To determine current DPS and School of Innovation policy on this subject, the following

documents were consulted:

1. Denver Public School Board Policies:

Section A I. Guidelines for Innovation School Quality

IKB - Homework

IKE - Promotion, Retention and Acceleration of Students

IKE-R - Procedures for IKE policy

IKF - Graduation Requirements

2. The High School Procedures Guide pgs. 23–26

3. The Transcript Operations Manual

http://www.boarddocs.com/co/dpsk12/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=96ZQKP69AB76

http://www.boarddocs.com/co/dpsk12/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=96ZQLB69C2F5

http://www.boarddocs.com/co/dpsk12/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=96ZQN96A1544

http://www.boarddocs.com/co/dpsk12/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=96ZQNX6A2EF7


14

4. Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook

5. Collegiate Preparatory Academy Teacher Handbook

B. School Board policy

The DPS School Board policies are silent on the issue of grades. Likewise this investigator could

find no process in place to identify a procedure to change grades or transcripts.

C. High School Procedures Guide

The District has a High School Procedures Guide that contains guidance on administrative

practices in the District regarding credit, grades and course requirements. The High School

Procedures Guide, pages 23–25, says the following regarding the assignment of grades:

Grading Procedures

The primary purposes of student grades in DPS are to: 1. Communicate the achievement status of students to appropriate and interested parties (e.g., students, parents, and school and district administration)

2. Serve as the basis for awarding credit in secondary schools

3. Identify students for program placement (e.g., intervention or acceleration programs)

4. Secondary grading practices should support awarding accurate grades based primarily on the achievement of academic standards. Grading practices should be consistent across the district. Components of a Grade: Grades assigned in secondary schools will be comprised of two components: Product and Process.

The Product component is academic performance that reflects evidence of achievement of the standards/big ideas. Products are summative measures of achievement taken when skill or unit mastery is expected.

The Process component reflects the intentional academic behaviors that support the 21st Century Skills and Readiness Competencies: invention, collaboration, critical thinking and reasoning, self-direction, and information literacy that leads to or supports the product. Process evidence cannot include classroom behavior, attendance, non-academic participation, or extra credit.

Each school will determine the relative weights of Product and Process such that the Product component comprises 75%-90% of the grade and the Process component comprises the remaining 10%-25%.

Scores within Product and Process grades should be combined in a manner that does not distort achievement.


15

Aggregation methods are guided by the highest achievement levels of the standards/big ideas using multiple sources of data over time. Grades include scores that evidence expected mastery of a skill, standard, or big idea; they should not include formative evidence of learning along the way to expected mastery. Grades do not include scores and practices that disproportionally or artificially reward or penalize students (e.g., zeros, extra credit, late work policies). Grading Scale: Traditional DPS secondary schools use an A, B, C, D, F grading system. These grades are defined as follows: A: The student demonstrates thorough knowledge and mastery of skills that allows him/her to function independently above their current educational level. B: The student demonstrates mastery of knowledge and skills that allows him/her to function independently at their current educational level. C: The student demonstrates basic knowledge and skills usage but cannot operate independently on concepts and skills related to his/her educational level. The student requires remediation and assistance to complete tasks without significant errors. D: The student demonstrates significant lack of skills and knowledge and is unable to complete basic skills or knowledge sets without significant remediation. F: Lack of evidence and/or unsatisfactory work performance on assessment and evaluations of student work. *Any deviation from this procedure will require approval from the Instructional Superintendent.

(Emphasis handbook.)

D. The Transcript Operations Manual

The High School Procedures Guide references a Transcript Operations Manual. After some

research by this investigator and a DPS partner, a copy was obtained of the 2013–2014 version

that is currently under revision. It doesn’t appear to be readily accessible to the average high

school principal. The following guidelines were found on page 25:

B. Unique Circumstances: There are circumstances where the traditional data entry processes (detailed previously) does not cover the specific entry requirements for that course. The most common type of unique process revolves around score or “grade” changes (see the following example). Score/Grade Changes Circumstance: Editing a “score/grade change” is particularly important, in that the following criteria are

strictly adhered to: 1. The course was taken at the school where the grade change is being requested 2. There is a written sign-off from an administrator (Principal or Assistant Principal) detailing the change to

take place 3. That written sign-off must be placed in the student’s cumulative folder


16

Policy AI of School Board Policies outlines the guidelines for Innovation School Quality but is silent

on the concept of deviation from the High School Procedures Guide for Schools of Innovation. It

could be reasonably assumed that a school of innovation would have the right to change procedures

in the individual schools to deviate from the High School Procedures Guide, but this investigator was

unable to find any evidence that there was a process in place to make such a request, nor that one

was made by CPA.

Barring that, it could be assumed then that the Procedures outlined in the DPS High School

Procedures Guide would hold for CPA. The Procedures Guide is likewise silent on the process

for changing grades.

E. The Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook

The Collegiate Preparatory Student Handbook, pages 21–22, says the following:

GRADING SYSTEM PHILOSOPHY The academic program at Collegiate Prep Academy is a Process vs. Product based. This means all subjects are taught within the framework of demonstration of mastery and the process by which mastery was attained. These philosophy strikes at the heart of content area and explicitly outline what students should know and be able to do. Teachers have designed units, lessons, and assessments all with the goal of supporting students in their development of flexible thinking with these essential standards. Grades & Assessments: Communicating Mastery of Standards Honors All students will have the opportunity to take advanced placement classes at Collegiate Prep Academy. This falls within the schools policy of acceleration not remediation and requires that all students strive to attain more than they first envisioned. In order to help students achieve this high level of academic success, all students will take advantage of the school’s on site after school tutoring program and Saturday tutorial program. Grading at Collegiate Prep Academy focuses on the progression of students’ understanding and mastery of essential learning as well as the process and product associated with the mastery of each standard. Incorporating our belief that understanding is defined as the ability to manipulate and apply acquired skills and knowledge to new situations, students will constantly be supported in demonstrating 21st century skills as they progress in their learning and prove their mastery of standards. Students will


17

receive progress indicators at the end of each unit and semester course. A corresponding letter grade will be recorded on their transcript. Overall any assignment that does not meet the partially proficient criteria (see grading) is required to be redone. The minimum expectation is that all students achieve at least 80% or better. Grades are assigned to indicate the level of mastery of standards in any given subject area or course of study. As a general guideline, use the following chart: Academic Grading Scale: A Mastery of subject matter knowledge and skills B Near Mastery of subject knowledge and skills C Basic understanding of subject knowledge and skills D *Minimal understanding of subject knowledge and skills F *No understanding of subject knowledge and skills *Students will be required to attend tutorials.

Numeric Grade (CPA)

Letter Grade (CPA)

Regular Grade Point

AP/Dual Credit Letter Grade (ACC)

Numeric Grade (ACC)

90 – 100 A 4.0 5.0 A 100

80 – 89 B 3.0 4.0 B 89

75 – 79 C 2.0 3.0 C 79

70 – 74 D 1.0 2.0 D 74

0 – 69 F 0.0 0.0 F 60

Progress Reports/Report Cards Progress reports will be sent home with each student during the fifth week of the nine week grading cycle. Additionally, if a student is failing anytime during the school, progress report will be sent home. Report cards will be mailed/distributed to the parents shortly after the close of each six-weeks grading period. Any student whose progress report reflects less than 69% will be assigned to mandatory tutoring until their grade is 80% or greater. Academic Records: Minimum Grade of 50 Grades will be reported on a range of 50 – 100. When the final cycle average is determined, if that average is less than 50, a 50 will be recorded on the grade sheet as the cycle grade. Academic Records: Rounding All grade averages with a remainder of .5 or above will be rounded off to the next highest number,


18

including 69.5, which rounds off to 70. In order to receive credit for a course, a student must earn an average of 70.0 or better. Academic Records: Grade Changes An examination or course grade is final and may not be changed unless the grade is arbitrary, erroneous, or not consistent with school district grading policy. Faculty members must initiate all grade changes and the principal must approve any changes. Principals, counselors, or other administrators will not arbitrarily change grades issued by faculty members. Grades may only be changed at the school where they were issued. Grade appeals may be addressed to the faculty member and the principal. If the parent believes that the faculty member has violated DPS or school policies and procedures regarding grading, and the faculty member and/or principal do not settle the appeal, the parent may appeal to the regional superintendent.

F. Collegiate Prep Academy Faculty Handbook

There is a CPA Faculty Handbook obtained by this investigator that was undergoing revision as

of April 30, 2015.

Page 24 of the Collegiate Prep Academy Faculty Handbook states the following:

CALCULATIONS OF STUDENT GRADES

Grade book (Infinite Campus)

Every teacher, in every subject area, is required to record all grades (for all graded assignments) within Infinite Campus.

All assignments recorded in the grade book must have the accompanying learning objective(s) listed

Grade books must be kept up to date and assignments should be graded & recorded within seven (7) calendar days.

Grades for every class should be posted to Progress/Eligibility by close of business every

Wednesday.

Students have the right and the responsibility to complete assignments, quizzes, labs or tests

missed due to absences. Assignments must be completed within a reasonable time, usually

within 5 days of the absence(s). Teachers and students may agree to alternative timelines for

completing assignments


19

Grades should be sufficient in number to justify the final grade for a course. For each class

teachers must assess student learning and record at least 1 grade/week on average.

Although DPS grants credit to students for 60-69%, most colleges require at least 80% to pass

Policies & Procedures

Grades are to be based on mastery of content. The following practices are inconsistent with

mastery grading and are not acceptable: curving scores, adding or deducting points for conduct,

grading on or giving bonus points for effort or attendance, etc.

We strongly encourage teachers to provide students with multiple opportunities to redo

assignments to demonstrate mastery (re-take tests, resubmit assignments, etc.). The speed at

which a student learns is not important. The breadth and depth of their learning is what matters

and students will reach the learning targets at different times and through different methods.

Feedback on student work and graded assignments is to be recorded in the grade book and

returned to students within one week (7 calendar days) of collection. Good feedback is much

more than just a score and provides students with specific information about what is good as

well as how to improve their performance. “The most powerful single innovation that enhances achievement is feedback. The

simplest prescription for improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’.” John Hattie,

Measuring the Effects of Schooling.

Detailed Progress Report (DPR) Wednesdays: A detailed progress report from Infinite

Campus must be printed by teachers and given to each student for each course on the

Wednesdays on which progress reports and report cards are distributed. Students will

have a minimum of one week to submit missing assignments.

Students have the right and the responsibility to complete assignments, quizzes, labs or

tests missed due to absences. Assignments must be completed within a reasonable

time, usually within 5 days of the absence(s). Teachers and students may agree to

alternative timelines for completing assignments.

Comments must be given on progress reports for failing grades (below 70) and

Incompletes.

The grading scale ranges from 50 – 100. The lowest grade given for any grading period

is a 50.

The grading scale ranges from 50-100 for final exams. (Emphasis investigator.)


20

Students are encouraged to redo assignments after additional study, tutoring and

practice. Assignments that are resubmitted can be awarded the highest grade available

on the original assignment. Both the original and resubmitted assignment can be

recorded in the grade book. The highest grade will be used in the final grade calculation

for the semester.

Teachers must provide easy access to missed assignments and materials (i.e. make-up

work binder, file box, folders outside door, etc.). Students must know how and where to

get missed assignments easily and quickly.

Students are encouraged to have a separate binder or spiral notebook for each course.

Teachers must provide models and feedback on students’ organization of the binders or

notebooks. Binders or notebooks are to include class notes and returned assignments.

Other course related materials may also be included.

Every teacher is required and expected to ensure that every student brings his or her

course notebook every day.

No student grades will be ‘dropped’ from the grade book. Students are encouraged to

redo assignments to improve their grades after additional practice, study and tutoring.

Cheating is a violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A student who is caught

cheating is to be referred to the appropriate administrator. Cheating is a behavioral

issue and the consequences for cheating must address the behavior. A student who

cheats on an assignment will be expected to redo the assignment or an appropriate

assignment and the grade recorded in the grade book. A student may not receive a zero

or a reduced grade for cheating

The Collegiate Prep Student Handbook does allow for changing grades. It states:

“Principals, counselors, or other administrators will not arbitrarily change grades issued by faculty

members. Grades may only be changed at the school where they were issued.”

It also states:

“Grade appeals may be addressed to the faculty member and the principal. If the parent believes that

the faculty member has violated DPS or school policies and procedures regarding grading, and the

faculty member and/or principal do not settle the appeal, the parent may appeal to the regional

superintendent.”

Based on all of these documents and all of these data, it is unclear exactly what the process

should be for a principal to change grades when he/she suspects that a teacher has assigned


21

grades inappropriately and needs some sort of intervention. For this new principal, with a

new administrative team, a software system that wasn’t working, teachers that did not get

grades in on time and a deadline looming before Christmas Vacation could begin, there was

little guidance.

Question 5. Is there a difference between actions in this case and policy and if

so, what is that difference?

Because the policy is unclear in this situation, it is difficult to say there was a difference

between the action of changing the grade and policy around changing the grade.

Notwithstanding, there are clear guidelines for what would constitute a D, and the students in

question were not able to demonstrate that level of mastery by their own admission.

Question 6. Are there recommendations for the future?

The Principal is the “keeper of the instructional program” and should be allowed to change

grades. There are ways for building principals to change grades that would make the changes

transparent and explainable to the Central Office, teachers and students. Those will be

delineated in this chapter.

A. Recommendations for district policy

First and foremost, there should be a board policy around grading. An example of such a policy can be found in section 13 of this report, but there are many examples. Typically they are found in the IKA‐R/IKAA‐R/IKAB‐R range of Board Policies. In addition, the Colorado Association of School Boards has examples of wording that can be helpful. More importantly, there needs to be a menu of options beyond a simple letter grade. The example policy included in this report provides the following:

I = incomplete (automatically becomes an F if not completed within the time specified by school building policy)

WF = withdrew — failing (high school only) WP = withdrew — passing (high school only) E = progress and attitude satisfactory; achievement less than basic level credit granted (1 grade point – consultation with principal required)

P = no letter grade given, but credit earned


22

Having greater options to choose from would give a principal a larger array of possibilities. If a principal suspected that a teacher had inappropriately assigned grades, the principal could choose from these options. The array of current procedural manuals should be addressed. There should be a clear alignment between Board Policy, HS procedural manual, Transcript Operations Manual, individual school handbooks for students and individual handbooks for faculty. Should a school decide to create a procedure outside the scope of the district policy or procedure there should be guidelines for how those changes should be made. Most importantly, there needs to be clear agreement about how grades are to be assigned, how they are to be recorded and how they are to be changed. Then make sure all of the policy books say the same thing. The district needs a uniform policy for who changes grades and procedure to identify who is informed or consulted and how that is documented. There need to be checks and balances so that no one leader finds him/herself under pressure with the capability of unilaterally changing and entering grades. At minimum, supervisors should be consulted and teachers and parents informed. Using a form to document the changes would provide transparency. An example of such a form is included in section 13 of this report. Keep in mind that there is a fine line between bureaucracy and checks and balances, so the simpler the better. Once these policies and procedures are created, there should be specific training for principals and evaluators of principals that is conducted yearly and signed off. In that way there will be assurance that all leaders understand expectations. Colleges and universities have an interesting process. Consider the following example from the University of Colorado Denver. First, the institution puts the philosophy front and center in all of the communication, then every class syllabus has the following statement at its beginning:

Academic Dishonesty: Students are required to know, understand, and comply with the CU Denver

Academic Dishonesty Policy as detailed in the Catalog and on the CLAS website. Academic dishonesty

consists of plagiarism, cheating, fabrication and falsification, multiple submission of the same work,

misuse of academic materials, and complicity in academic dishonesty. If you are not familiar with the

definitions of these offenses, go to

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/faculty-

staff/policies/Pages/DefinitionofAcademicDishonesty.aspx. This course assumes your knowledge of

these policies and definitions. Failure to adhere to them can result in possible penalties ranging from

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/faculty-staff/policies/Pages/DefinitionofAcademicDishonesty.aspx

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/faculty-staff/policies/Pages/DefinitionofAcademicDishonesty.aspx


23

lowering a grade on an assignment to dismissal from the University; so, be informed and be careful. If

this is unclear to you, ask me. The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS)

Ethics Bylaws allow the instructor to decide how to respond to an ethics violation, whether by lowering

the assignment grade, lowering the course grade, and/or filing charges against the student with the

Academic Ethics Committee.

Student Code of Conduct: As members of the University community, students are expected to uphold

university standards, which include abiding by state civil and criminal laws and all University policies and

standards of conduct. These standards are outlined in the student code of conduct which can be found

at: http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/studentlife/studentlife/introduction.html

Any grade changes must go through a panel of experts.

Something like this example, referenced or repeated with a similar statement for Faculty Code of Conduct, would add to the culture of integrity throughout Denver Public Schools. In summation, this investigator recommends there be a Board Policy about grading. School policy handbooks should repeat Board policies and offer procedures for grading and changing of grades that align to the Board policy. Those procedures and policies should address when teachers change grades, when principals change grades and when principal supervisors change grades or agree to those changes. Included in those manuals should be a way to create a paper trail and be clear about where those papers are located.

Conclusion

As stated in the introduction, this is a limited investigation. It looks at one aspect of one school at one given moment. The recommendations in this report are to be taken as just that—recommendations. This is a school that has had a succession of principals, assistant principals and teachers and has only been in existence for four years. It is the fervent hope of this investigator that this investigation and these recommendations lead to a positive outcome that results in a system that flows more smoothly and functions effortlessly as this school works to build excellence for all of the students that enter its doors.

http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/studentlife/studentlife/introduction.html


24

Addendum

Kutinsky and Associates was contracted to further question the principal and assistant principal

of CPA regarding the following information.

1) Did the principal ask the Dean of Students to change the grade in the math class?

2) Did the principal change or did she direct anyone else to change any other grades besides the physics

grades?

Additionally, this interviewer was to review the previous recommendations in light of the

answers to these follow-up questions.

This investigation serves to report the results of the investigation only. It makes

recommendations and does not make policy. It is in no way to be used as an evaluation of

any of the staff or administrators involved, or to serve as praise or criticism of any of the

individuals or the system as a whole. It is simply an investigation with recommendations and

should be used as such. Kutinsky and Associates is a private for-profit Limited Liability

Corporation. Data collected in this investigation will be turned over to Denver Public Schools to

become the sole property of DPS. There is confidential information contained in this full

report. All confidential information is removed in the executive summary.

Question 1. Did the principal ask the Dean of Students to change the grade in

the math class?

On June 3 2015, this investigator met with the principal and assistant principal at Collegiate

Preparatory Academy for the purpose of asking the two aforementioned questions. During the

meeting the principal had already been given a copy of the original report and had questions

regarding the same section; specifically section B of the section entitled “Question 2. Did the

principal change grades of teachers? If so, did the principal physically do the changing, or did

someone else change them? Why?”


25

That section said, “Another teacher took a screen shot of grades before and after submitting

them. It appeared in this case that a Dean of Students had changed a grade in his class from an

F to a P and that the student is continuing in second semester of the same class.”

In discussion with the two building leaders the following information was uncovered. This was

actually a chemistry class, not a math class. This student’s grades were not changed. Instead,

the student received a failing grade from the chemistry teacher during the first quarter. On

October 10, 2014, the teacher of record for this student became the Dean of Students who was

asked to provide the chemistry instruction for this student for the second quarter and to be

responsible for the second quarter and first semester grades.

Although the Dean of Students is not a highly qualified chemistry teacher, the Dean was

instructed to download curricula and provide instruction. No follow up was given by the

leaders to ensure an approved curriculum was being taught. At the end of the first semester,

this student received a P or passing grade instead of the F assigned by the chemistry teacher

first quarter.

Question 2. Did the principal change or did she direct anyone else to change any

other grades beside the physics grades?

Based on the statements of the two leaders, no other grades besides the physics grades were

simply changed. There were other grades changed for the following reasons:

Students enrolled in Puma Success were inappropriately given grades instead of

pass/fail. Their grades were changed to pass or fail.

An English class had a succession of teachers and the last substitute needed help in

assigning semester grades. The principal made the final decision on those grades.

The student moved from the chemistry class to the Dean of Students received a P on

second quarter and semester after receiving an F first quarter. According to the leaders,

the chemistry teacher indicated that he was “done with that student” and they felt they

needed to respond.

The Assistant Principal described it this way:

As you requested, I did a little more research into the question you asked regarding how many students were

assigned to the Dean of Students as the Teacher of Record. The following is what I found:


26

There were two students in addition to the one we discussed this morning assigned to the Dean of Students as Teacher of Record for a total of three students assigned to the Dean of Students as Teacher of Record for grading purposes first semester.

Student number one (who we discussed this morning) was dropped from the Chemistry teacher’s class and roster on 10/10/14 after the teacher reported to administration that he was “done” with the student.

Student number two was assigned to the Dean of Students as a Student Assistant and received a “P” on her transcript.

Student number three was assigned to the Dean of Students due to the student’s enrollment at Community College of Aurora (CCA). Student number three was the only student who went to CCA in the fall semester. Those grades were issued by instructors at CCA and entered into Infinite Campus by the Dean of Students. Student number three received at 4.0 from CCA in the fall semester. Please let me know if you want to see the transcript from CCA. (This current semester the students enrolled at CCA are assigned to the corresponding content area teachers as the Teacher of Record).

Lastly, to reiterate, the Study Hall rosters of students we provided to you this morning were assigned to the Dean of Students for attendance purposes only. No grades or credits were assigned to students on Study Hall rosters.

Following this correspondence, the investigator asked the following:

Thank you. Can I have a screen shot of the first quarter grade for student number two? If you’re uncomfortable using electronic mail, feel free to send it in snail mail. Also, could you give me more information either by email or text me what subject student number 2 took from the Dean of Students? I’d like to know the teacher of record for first quarter for this student and a little more information regarding

the criteria used to assign a P to second quarter first semester for this student. If I understand your description of student number 3, this student was enrolled in CCA in the fall semester, the teacher there assigned a 4.0 and then the Dean of Students as the CPA teacher of record assigned an “A” to this student? Do I have that right?

The response was as follows:

1. Student number two dropped the 5.0 credit English class on 9/30/14 before first quarter ended on 10/16/14, so the Dean of Students was already the Teacher of Record for student number two at the end of the first quarter. The Dean of Students did not assign a first quarter progress grade for student number two as it had only been a few weeks since the schedule change occurred and the Student Assistant elective class was Pass/Fail. Therefore there is no screen shot to send to you of a first quarter grade for student number two.

2. Student number two was a Student Assistant in the front office and helped to plan and organize school events, inventory and organize the student store, etc. As a front office Student Assistant, student number two worked with the front office staff, including secretaries, and received 2.5 elective credits of a with a “P” assigned by the Dean of Students at the end of the first semester. This is consistent with practices in other districts, as student number two also received the 2.5 elective credits from Adams 14 for a Student Assistant class in 2012-13 as posted on the transcript.

3. You are correct about student number three.

Therefore, it would appear that only the physics grades were simply changed by the leaders

despite the recommendation of the teacher of record.

DPSCPA INVESTIGATION - WordPress.com INVESTIGATION 1 May 1, 2015 Introduction The following pages...

Documents

Transcript of DPSCPA INVESTIGATION - WordPress.com INVESTIGATION 1 May 1, 2015 Introduction The following pages...