A handful of parents voiced their concerns with the school district’s new valedictorian policy during last Monday’s meeting of the Kingfisher Board of Education.

“My biggest issue is with the timing of it all,” said Kenny Lunsford, one of four people who spoke to the board.

The board voted 4-1 during a June 30 meeting to adopt a new formula to determine KHS valedictorians.

It came on the heels of 26 of 127 graduates (20.5 percent) in the Class of 2020 earning that status.

“The current policy has been in place four or five years and it served its purpose, but over time it (being named valedictorian) has become less of an honor,” KHS Principal Todd Overstreet told board members during that June meeting. “We were looking for something to make it more of an honor.”

The new policy combines a non-weighted cumulative GPA (multiplied by 100) plus the student’s highest ACT score.

To be eligible, that total must equal at least 670, meaning if a student has a 4.0 GPA, the student must score at least a 27 on the ACT.

In addition, students must complete two AP courses offered at KHS as well as either English Comp I or College Algebra through concurrent enrollment.

Had the new policy been in place for the Class of 2020, eight students would have earned valedictorian status.

The proposed plan excluded the members of the graduating class of 2021, but would take effect for the Class of 2022, which is this year’s crop of juniors.

Jim Perdue was the lone board member to vote against the new policy.

Each person who spoke during Monday’s meeting has multiple students in the KPS system, but all of them have an incoming junior.

Each said their issue was changing the requirements for their students after they were set on a course at the beginning of their freshman year.

“As freshmen, they are told of requirements to be a valedictorian. Goals are now set,” said Debra Perdue, the first to address the board.

“Now requirements have changed over halfway through their (high school) years.”

Scott States echoed that thought.

“To impose this on juniors when they started their academic careers in high school two years ago, it doesn’t seem fair,” he said.

When asked after the meeting, Overstreet said all students were considered prior recommending the policy.

“I realize the timing of the change is not ideal for some students,” he told the Times & Free Press.

“However, we have implemented some things for the coming year that will help the students achieve this status if they desire to do so.”

The AP course requirement, some parents suggested, might require some students to have to essentially retake some courses.

“Now with the new requirements set forth, the students are expected to change the schedules to add in the AP courses,” said Lori Lukasek.

“Students are required to take biology their 10th grade year, so this (AP biology) would be a duplicate.”

Added Lunsford: “Some of them have already taken biology or history where they could have taken AP. Some have already taken college classes and now that interferes with some of these AP classes.”

Overstreet assured that no student entering his or her junior year has missed out on an opportunity to take an AP course to this point.

“AP courses aren’t available for students to enroll in until the fall of their junior year,” he said.

He added that AP courses are “completely independent” from the ninth and 10th grade courses.

“Students must take Biology I and make a high grade to be enrolled in AP biology,” he said.

AP courses also fill the credits for high school units, Overstreet said.

“If you take AP biology, it counts as your third science,” he used as an example.

States asked if students could miss out on scholarship dollars.

“Yeah, I understand you are wanting to make it more prestigious,” he said. “But what are we gaining out of it?”

When asked by the Times & Free Press after the late June meeting about potential scholarship dollars lost by students not earning valedictorian status, KHS counselor Paula Leffingwell provided information from Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, Southwestern Oklahoma State University and the University of Central Oklahoma.

OU considers students for a $10,000 tuition waiver over four years to students who were ranked either No. 1 or No. 2 in their class and ACT or SAT scores may be used to make final decisions.

The other three schools use some variation of a formula combining GPA and ACT or SAT scores.

While being a valedictorian might be part of additional criteria used in consideration, none of the four schools list being a valedictorian as a requirement.

Also, Leffingwell added, colleges are beginning to offer early acceptance in November, well before valedictorians and salutatorians can be named.

“So the consideration for that isn’t being taken,” Leffingwell said.

Some added they don’t disagree with the policy or its intentions.

“Maybe 26 (valedictorians) is too much. It loses the prestige. It’s just all about timing,” Lunsford said. “You’re affecting schedules, you have COVID - which is nobody’s fault - who knows how the first semester or even the second semester is going to look this year, the ACT limitations they’re talking about with the scheduling.”

“I respect the fact that KPS is trying to raise the bar,” added Lukasek. “I understand change needs to happen. I’m an advocate of change. I understand that 26 valedictorians might be too many and it might be less of an honor for some. What I’m asking is for you to implement this change for the incoming freshmen.”

Debra Perdue said not doing so will negatively impact this year’s group of sophomores and juniors.

“Now these sophomores and juniors are both behind,” she said. “Please be fair and considerate to these that have already set their goals.

Please consider the change requirement to be effective for the class of 2024.”

Since the item wasn’t on the agenda, board members could not respond.

Board President Mike Copeland thanked those who attended and spoke before noting the policy that negated the board from addressing the issue at the meeting.

“We have rules we can’t violate,” he said. “So we can’t have the dialogue back-and-forth about it.”

Copeland then answered a question about the possibility of it being on a future agenda.

“If this is an issue that we want to revisit, then it will be on next month’s agenda,” he said. “If it’s not an item that we want to revisit, then it won’t be.

“We’re not locked into (the policy). We voted on it. If we decide we want to revisit it, we will revisit it. If we decide not to revisit it, it will stay as it sits. It’s not against anybody, it’s just the way our rules work.”