To be eligible for graduation, a student must meet the requirements for credit and any other existing local requirements:

In addition to meeting the credit requirements, the student must demonstrate proficiency by earning at least four points from these categories:
 

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TEST		ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE		TEACHER RECOMMENDATION
Performance meets or exceeds standards	Points  available 1 point per tested area	GPA* >= 3.5 GPA* = 2.0 to 3.49 * GPA based on 4.0 scale and 7 semesters	Points  available 2 1	Documented demonstration of proficiency (through a district-approved project, portfolio, or other performance) in any area of the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards Satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based IEP	Points available 1-4 (limited to 1 per Standards area)         1-4
POINTS EARNED:
TOTAL (4 required):

To be eligible for grade advancement, a student must meet any existing local requirements. In addition to meeting those requirements, the student must demonstrate proficiency by earning at least eight points from any of these categories:
 

WISCONSIN KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPTS EXAMINATION		ACADEMIC  PERFORMANCE		OTHER ACADEMIC  CRITERIA
Performance at or above basic on a subtest	Points  available 1 point per tested area (4 points maximum)	Passing grades in mathematics, science, social studies, English/language arts	Points available 1 point per subject area		Documented demonstration of proficient performance (through a district-approved project, portfolio, or other activity) in any area of the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards Satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based intervention program Satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based IEP	Points available 1-4 (limited to 1 per Standards area) 1-4     1-8
POINTS EARNED:
TOTAL (8 required):

 

For the student who does not demonstrate proficient performance through earning at least 8 points, decisions will be made through committee review:
 

TEACHER RECOMMENDATION

A committee consisting of, at minimum, teachers, including a teacher currently working closely with the student; a principal; and a parent or guardian will make a decision based on, but not limited to, the following considerations:  overall academic performance performance on other tests any previous retentions performance in subject areas beyond mathematics, science, social studies, and English/language arts reports from outside agencies other developmental criteria, such as those in Light's Retention Scale

Boards are also encouraged to refer to WASB Policy Idea 345.6-Exhibit.
 
 

I. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADUATION:

A. CREDIT REQUIREMENTS

Students in __________ School District must satisfy state and district course credit requirements, as outlined below, to be eligible to receive a high school diploma:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B. BOARD APPROVED ACTIVITIES

Students must have been enrolled in a class or participating in a board-approved activity, or an approved alternative program, during each class period of each school day during the high school grades in order to be eligible for a high school diploma.

[Examples include but are not limited to: . . . ]

C. COMMUNITY SERVICE

[If applicable.]
 
 

II. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS IN RESPONSE TO WISCONSIN SECTION 118.33:

Effective September 2003, students in __________ School District wishing to receive a diploma shall also meet the requirements included in section 118.33 of the state statutes, as revised by 1999 Wisconsin Act 9.

In addition to meeting the credit requirements outlined above, any student wishing to receive a diploma shall demonstrate proficiency by earning at least four points from these categories:

A. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TEST

A student may earn one point for each tested area in which his/her performance meets or exceeds standards.

B. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

A student earning a grade point average equal to or greater than 3.5 (based on a 4-point scale and 7 semesters, or the equivalent) shall earn two points.

A student earning a grade point average of 2.0 to 3.49 (based on a 4-point scale and 7 semesters, or the equivalent) shall earn one point.

[Local boards may specify additional indicators of overall academic performance.]

C. TEACHER RECOMMENDATION

1. A student may receive one point by documented demonstration of proficiency (through a district-approved project, portfolio, or other performance) in any area of the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. Documentation will include the teacher’s signature indicating the student has provided evidence of proficiency in meeting the Standards. [Districts may wish to identify a review policy.]

2. A student may earn 1 to 4 points by the satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based IEP.
 
 

III. PROCEDURES

Accommodations to these requirements may be made for students with exceptional educational interests, needs or requirements consistent with state law and established district policies and procedures.

The district administrator (or his/her designee) shall be responsible for the general supervision and management of the graduation of students under this policy.

The District Administrator (or his/her designee) shall develop, review and recommend policies so that the schools of the District can help prepare students to satisfy the criteria in this policy and to otherwise implement this policy.

The District Administrator (or his/her designee) shall develop practices and procedures to inform students and parents/guardians of the policy requirements and to inform students and parents/guardians of the academic progress of students.
 
 

Boards are also encouraged to refer to WASB Policy Idea 345.6-Exhibit.

I. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADE ADVANCEMENT:

[if applicable]

II. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS IN RESPONSE TO WISCONSIN SECTION 118.33:

Effective September 2002, in order to advance from Grade 4 to 5 or from Grade 8 to 9 students in __________ School District shall meet the requirements included in section 118.33 of the state statutes, as revised by 1999 Wisconsin Act 9.

In addition to meeting any local requirements outlined above, in order to advance a student shall demonstrate proficiency by earning at least eight points from these categories:

These are not to be construed as sequential in nature, but carrying equal weight.

A. WISCONSIN KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPTS EXAMINATION

A student may earn one point for each tested area in which his/her performance is at or above basic.

B. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

A student may earn one point for a passing grade in each of the following subjects: mathematics, science, social studies, English/language arts.

C. OTHER ACADEMIC CRITERIA

1. A student may receive one point by documented demonstration of proficiency (through a district-approved project, portfolio, or other performance) in any area of the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. Documentation will include the teacher’s signature indicating the student has provided evidence of proficiency in meeting the Standards. [Districts may wish to identify a review policy.]

2. A student may earn 1 to 4 points by the satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based intervention program.

2. A student may earn 1 to 4 points by the satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based IEP.

TEACHER RECOMMENDATION

For a student who does not demonstrate proficient performance through earning at least 8 points as outlined above, decisions concerning grade advancement will be made through committee review. A committee consisting of, at minimum, teachers, including a teacher currently working closely with the student; a principal; and a parent or guardian will make a recommendation based on, but not limited to, the following considerations:

• overall academic performance
• performance on other tests
• any previous retentions
• performance in subject areas beyond mathematics, science, social studies, and English/language arts
• reports from outside agencies
• other developmental criteria, such as those in Light’s Retention Scale

III. PROCEDURES

Accommodations to these requirements may be made for students with exceptional educational interests, needs or requirements consistent with state law and established district policies and procedures.

The district administrator (or his/her designee) shall be responsible for the general supervision and management of the advancement of students under this policy.

The District Administrator (or his/her designee) shall develop, review and recommend policies so that the schools of the District can help prepare students to satisfy the criteria in this policy and to otherwise implement this policy.

The District Administrator (or his/her designee) shall develop practices and procedures to inform students and parents/guardians of the policy requirements and to inform students and parents/guardians of the academic progress of students.

Why did CESA #10 choose this approach?

The CESA #10 focus group began with two questions that have framed our work:

• meet the intention of the law

• give every student a variety of ways to demonstrate success

• support sound educational practice

• are consistent with the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards

• are clear, straightforward, and easy to apply

• can be adopted or adapted CESA-wide

The CESA #10 grade advancement and graduation decision model has a number of strengths:

• It is relatively simple and easy to implement and requires less management than some of the other models

• It does not over-emphasize any single criterion of the three or four identified in the law. The state tests are put on an even basis with other, local indicators of student success.

• This model assumes success for all students rather than failure for some.

• It places the responsibility for demonstrating that success upon the student, with the teacher as coach, rather than placing the student in an adversarial relationship with the teacher and district.

• This model allows students at all levels to demonstrate achievement in any area of the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards, not just the four that are tested on the state tests.

• The model includes a great deal of flexibility and provides a variety of ways for different students to demonstrate accomplishment.

The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards have articulated the academic expectations for students. Our intention was to create advancement and graduation procedures and practices that are consistent with the Standards.

Wouldn’t a sequential model be easier to administer?

While a sequential model may appear more linear and therefore easier, we believe that it over-emphasizes both the first item in the sequence and the last. If, for example, performance on the state test is the first item on the list, all of the local measures are relegated to make-up status for those students who do not pass the test. As another example, in models that place teacher recommendation last on the list, teachers may easily be placed under undue pressure to provide last-minute recommendations based on questionable evidence of student success. We believe that placing all the criteria on an equal basis is a more appropriate educational model and is more consistent with sound assessment practice.

What about students whose parents opt them out of the state test?

This model allows for parent opt-out, without penalizing either those who opt out or those who do not opt out. There is no unfair advantage either way. The student who is opted out simply must earn the needed points in the other areas.

But isn’t it to the district’s advantage to have as many students take the test as possible?

At the same time this model does not penalize for opt-out, it encourages student participation because the simplest way to earn the needed points is through successfully taking the state test.

What provision is made for students who do not test well?

By making performance on the state test only one way of earning the needed points, this model takes any unnecessary pressure off students who are less successful test-takers.

What about local control?

This model leaves to local districts all the local control allowed by the law. The graduation model emphasizes this by placing achievement of credits through meeting local requirements as the first step in eligibility for graduation. At all levels, individual districts will demonstrate local control through identifying what constitutes "documented demonstration of proficiency" in their instructional programs.

Why require at least 4 points for graduation? And why 8 points for grade advancement?

The focus group believes that 4 points is broad enough to allow for students to have a variety of ways of demonstrating success but not so many as to create a barrier to some.

The grade advancement policy uses 8 points instead of 4 because the additional 4 points give acknowledgement and weight to ongoing course work in the same way credits do for high school graduation.

Why not give points for high scores on the ACT or other tests?

The ACT was developed as a predictor of college success, not as a high school exit test, and we did not want to use a test in a way other than that which its publishers intended. In addition, we were concerned about equity because not all students take the ACT and because it, like the HSGT, tests students in only the core academic areas.

Why not give a point for a student’s score on the writing sample of the WKCE?

We did not give a point for the writing test on the WKCE because the state has not set proficiency levels for that subtest.

What is meant by an "intervention program"?

"Individual intervention program" refers to any supplementary program for students at risk, such as summer school, after-school programs, or any program extension for students who need extra help to be successful.

Isn’t "documented demonstration of proficiency" going to mean a lot more work for teachers and students?

In classroom work that is truly Standards-based, students are continuously demonstrating their progress in meeting the Standards. "Documented demonstration" should be a natural outcome of Standards-based classroom work, not an added burden for the sake of meeting this policy.

How are we going to keep track of all this information?

Clearly, the Model Academic Standards require us to think differently about how we collect evidence that our students are being given the opportunity to learn what those Standards call for as well as evidence that they have met those Standards. Fortunately, new technologies, such as easily managed data base programs and electronic portfolios, simplify collecting district-level data as well as classroom evidence of student success.

How does this model provide for special needs students?

We believe this model to be compatible with federal and state legislation, which requires that all students must have meaningful access to general curriculum and that students with disabilities be included in state and district assessment as appropriate. Of course, decisions for individual students must continue to be made carefully and in accord with other district policy.

What provision is made for remediation?

Satisfactory completion of a district-approved Standards-based intervention program is one option for earning points in the grade advancement model. We believe the nature of such a program should be a local decision.

What about retention at grade?

In its review of the available literature on grade retention, the CESA #10 focus group found very little evidence that grade retention is an effective strategy for improving student performance. Indeed, simply repeating the same academic program may do more harm than good.

Effective remediation includes early identification of areas of weakness as well as design and implementation of individualized instructional programs employing a variety of strategies for intervention and support.

School Superintendents

Jim Dimock Chippewa Falls

Laurie Hittman Eau Claire

Jon Rulien Medford

Teachers

Jane Dietz Cadott

Duane Frerichs Thorp

Jenny Starck Altoona ; formerly CESA #10

CESA #10

Pat Kardin At Risk Programs

Barbara Price Director, Standards and Assessment

Ted Schuder Director, Instructional Services
Back to Top