Read an article on OnCampus, dated 2008. In the comments, some were wondering about the percentage. One pointed the way to the Fast Facts for year 2005-2006.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/02/26/extra-year-of-high-school-where’s-the-victory-in-that-‘victory-lap’/

What is really interesting, after the year 2005-2006, the data no longer shows the break down of grade 12 students.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/educationFacts.html

What I don’t know and I could not fine it, is what the initials mean for years 2005-2006 and previous years.

Grade 12 – no U or M
courses 40 724 14 250 54 974
Grade 12 – fewer than
6 U or M courses 45 081 17 666 62 747
Grade 12 – 6 or more
U or M courses 57 744 26 912 84 656
Students 21 or over

So I made an assumption, based on a pattern that I found when looking at the number of students at each grade.  The number of students for grade 12 jumps dramatically, compared to all the lower grades.

Not exact, but percentages come to anywhere between 21 percent to 23 percent in any year. But I think it is a lot higher than that, if one looks at the breakdown of grade 12 students, from 2005 to 2006 and previous years after that.In the year 2006 to 2007, they stopped the practice of breaking down the grade 12 students.

Can anyone determine what M and U courses mean?

Nancy,

U = University Level course -> required for acceptance at a University.  Those that remember the old system (pre-Harris) - these were known as ‘Academic’.

M = Mixed Level course -> could be counted at university or college.  These type of courses did not exist previously.

C = College Level course -> required for entrance into CAAT.  These used to be called ‘General’ level courses.

E = Workplace Level course -> required to complete an OSSD for students not planning to go to university or college; but directly to the workplace.  These used to be called ‘Basic’ courses.

I haven’t read the report that you refer to yet; but C and E courses need to be included as well.  With the removal of Grade 13; all students are supposed to graduate in four years - regardless if they are going to university or elsewhere.

Caveat:  don’t forget what I wrote on a previous thread:  high schools only get funding based on Full-Time Equivalent status.  If a student is taking an extra year to get four credits (out of the 8 full time), then we only get 50% of the funding.  There are many reasons why students take an extra year - not just to ‘slack off’.  In four years, students have exactly 32 chances to get the 30 credits required for graduation.  Some students find it extremely difficult to meet that goal.  Don’t confuse four years of high school with graduation.  The number of years in school does not determine whether a student graduates - it is the number of credits they have achieved.  we do have a number of grade 12 students who need more than 8 credits to graduate - therefore, they MUST take another year.  The only way to determine if this is costing the tax payer extra money (which is the only reason I can image that this topic was raised in the first place) would be to determine the number of students graduating with MORE than 30 credits.  Otherwise, the ‘victory lap’ is totally necessary.

36 credits minimum in NL.

All full time students, must take a full course load. Most students graduates within 4 years
The ones who don’t, another year and are considered part-time with restrictions being placed on them regarding participation in school activities.

Plus, for the full-time students, there is no free periods for them, unless an unscheduled free period, due to the absent of a teacher.

The Ontario reports do not have C or E courses, but more than likely, it is included with the M numbers.

Reports from other school districts in Canada and United States, have found it is costing schools a great deal of expense, when students do not finish within a 4 year period. Some have gone to the same rules as NL, that all full time students take a full course load, as well as students having teacher mentors to ensure that the students will achieve it within 4 years. For students who fail a course, they have a second chance for summer school, and if they fail summer school, the students repeat the grade level course again. For students who fail a public exam, they second chance comes in a form of a rewrite, and if they fail again, they have to repeat the 3rd or 4th level course again. In our school, the students who take an extra year, the main bulk of them are students who have failed a few courses. Otherwise, there is exceptions and special exceptions allowing a student to take 4 or 5 course load. The reasons have to really exceptional, and not to many are handed out. As for adults 19 and up, all go to the colleges or adult education centres, and are not allow to go to a typical high school. As a result, there is only a few of them at anyone high school in NL, doing the victory lap.

Plus, for students who are also working more than a traditional part-time job, often take their courses using long-distance learning. In the local high school, there is a couple of students like this. And they attend school, for tests and exams like everyone else.

What is missing in the data, is the number of students graduating with 30 credits or more within 4 years, in Ontario. How many students, attend the 4th year to retake courses to increase their average? Or how many students, who have failed courses over the 4 years, and as a result did not earn the credits, and requires the 4th year to earn them?  How many students are retain, to repeat a high school grade? A regular thing in NL, or at least in the local area, when a student fails 3 core subjects or more, and did not go to summer school. Have no idea, and it be a frosty morning, before the ministries of education ever release this kind of data to the public.

Good afternoon, all. Killing a bit of prep time in the P.E. office here.!
In the 2010-11 year at this school, 322 students were enrolled in Gr. 12. This current year there are 40 odd students ( approx. 1 in 8 12’s) returning for their victory lap for various reasons. Here we have stringent requirements for ones’ return to complete diploma requirements.
If for example, if one’s aim is to come back and attempt to bump up a 75 percent average higher for post-secondary criteria, then the likelihood of return will be slim. This person has completed their OSSGD standards quite commendably and thus would be deemed to be taking up space. Concurrently, if one wants to return, take a couple of classes and play their 5th year of football or participate in the band, drama or other extracurriculars, then no-go. The victory lap is a safety measure typically for those who are 1) shy subjects this side of 30 credits or 2) were total flops, academically speaking, the previous year and would not be ideal candidates for community college entry at the very least. Both VP and guidance counsellor of the particular student carefully assess the situation on a case-by-case basis before allowing a victory lap. And that includes extracurriculars as well. At this school ,you cannot carry less than a 60 percent average with more than 1 failure and be allowed to participate in sports without scrutiny.
For those returning due to low marks, you are automatically on academic warning-any Fall term tests will be under total review. The first flunk and you’re history, as some football players this season have discovered!
The victory lap, properly implemented, gives students a second shot with a “year five” to make amends, as well to instill in them a culture of academic responsibility. This is how it should be.

Victory Laps at one time in our high school were taken by over 50% of Gr. 12 students. That was a few years ago.

Reasons?

- subjects not available in a given year. Student needs to return to get them.
- improve marks
- because they’re been invited to take a 5th year when they came to Gr. 9 orientation
- because their friends are staying
- to earn money for post-secondary
- undecided
- their parents want them to

We even had the discussion here about whether the kids who take a 5th year should compete for awards with the kids who take 4 years.

During a recent accommodation review it was sited as a problem because it messed with the actual numbers and because at the time often a student would start wanting to stay for a whole year but decide to only stay for one semester making staffing difficult.

It was also felt that the more kids that stayed for the 5th year filled the school and saved it from possible closure.  That, and bring the Grade 7 & 8 students in from the Elementary schools.

If it were a perfect world, I would have voted, ‘no’; however, kids need every bit of help they can get, and if they want to better themselves, then let them stay on another year.  Of course, I’m biased—several of my nephews, and my son did this.  My son went into engineering and has a great career, and my nephews into excellent skilled trades.  While they were in school, I could see gaps in their education that were in dire need of being filled in.  With all this social promotion; a total lack of accountability; tinkerng with marks (not so perfect a system, eh?) the very least we can do if they have dreams is let them stay as long as they need to in order to realize them
Hey, along with eliminting the five-yr-lap, should we eliminate adult ed too?  How about special needs? 
Conclusion:  eliminating the fifth lap would be like trying to fix a sympton; not the underlying cause.

If it were a perfect world, I would have voted, ‘no’; however our public ed system is rife with problems, and if having students up-grade their marks in order to realize their dreams (staying for a fifth lap) is wrong, then I don’t know what’s right.  Of course, I’m biased—my son went to highschool for six years in order to get accepted into engineering.  (We spent $$ on tutoring for both of our children in order to fill in many gaping holes.)  He has a great job btw
Eliminating today’s fifth-yr-lap is tinkering with the sympton, and not addressing the very serious underlying issues:  thinking this way appears to defy logic.