[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6244394,"mediaKeyId","3230282-620a192bb394034ae287da72d76b7bca","parentId",3230282,"title","FCPS grading committee urges rolling grade book, discusses homework category and reassessment rules","audioSeconds",1690,"startMs",434000,"endMs",2124000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3230282-620a192bb394034ae287da72d76b7bca&start=434&end=2124","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3230282-620a192bb394034ae287da72d76b7bca/thumbnail_434000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6244394/Virginia/FCPS-grading-committee-urges-rolling-grade-book-discusses-homework-category-and-reassessment-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6244394-16890af561b76abb4b542fe89cb1e6ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770615549&Signature=cbRE~UhG7rZv~onp2PbZ37dn0llwgwQtAjWcs6SIdpcWBCnkxL9wDvj-UYJJF3Cq~5SsaxkIDr6d1fd9dHhNAYA1VhV7xZcbc3GHAMgmlWnlSqoz3w1hOdyI9hCxC1p3U3Xa7lIGPRSlAy4rLEsqPUJszp1cQmhyKqFCrj4OHVd3ka4AUVHfd-dFRPJh1Cwxy2B8NjpzPOxwwsmKv5s3dKbJKlasGMOld3GyXW4JpQAmGn4Jmbg2GzhQdqM0E9Vpj9J~xWD0L8bs39q3d4JzpLq5TbAUx~5~fVJhHu0zaCgD0BGaMbe-KNyEd07NJC3HcI-rXWYPGuliMAgMMxyXRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fairfax Co Public School","date","2025-05-06T20:47:42Z","article","Fairfax County School Board members heard a presentation from district staff on recommendations from the secondary grading committee at a May meeting, including a staged move to a rolling grade book, a proposal to keep or modify category weighting, and plans for professional learning and technical-system changes to support implementation.

The grading committee’s work matters because it affects how students’ achievement and work habits are recorded across 26 high schools and middle schools, can change teachers’ workloads, and can influence college admissions and family communications about student progress.

Dr. Presidio, presenting the committee’s findings, described the committee’s charge and evidence base: “Our goal today or the objectives are to share the committee's recommendation, tell you a little bit about the rationale, that supports those recommendations, including the data and the, information that we collected in our interviews and focus groups,” and asked the board for consensus on whether to move forward. The committee met several times during the 2024–25 school year, used a random-sample survey and 17 focus groups, and examined quarter 1 and quarter 2 grade distributions comparing school years 2023–24 and 2024–25.

Key facts and recommendations

- Rolling grade book: The committee recommended adopting a rolling grade book divisionwide but delaying full implementation until school year 2026–27 to allow time for training and supports. Dr. Presidio explained the difference: a rolling grade book keeps assessments open across the year so a student can demonstrate mastery after an earlier low score, rather than locking grades at the end of each quarter.

- Grade weighting: The committee recommended maintaining the current district grade-book weighting of 70% summative and 30% formative. Senior leadership proposed an alternative that would extract homework as its own category at 10% and shift weighting to 60% summative, 30% formative, 10% homework (effectively a 60/40 split if homework remains part of formative). The presenter said both options were under consideration and that the board’s guidance was being sought.

- Homework: Staff reported wide variation in daily homework across grade bands (for example, many 8th graders and two-thirds of 12th graders reported more than an hour a day). Senior leadership recommended a separate homework category at 10% to signal the importance of regular practice; the committee had recommended maintaining the current practice of placing homework in the formative/category that comprises 30% of the grade.

- Reassessment: Policy 24‑18 requires consistent reassessment opportunities. The committee recommended continuing the practice that allows students to reassess and earn up to 100% credit under the current structure — while noting substantial staff concern about workload. Survey results cited by staff showed 74% of students and 64% of parents view reassessment to 100% positively, while 56% of staff viewed it negatively. The committee proposed professional learning to reduce teacher workload (for example, reassessing only the standards a student has not yet mastered and using seminar or in‑class time for reassessment).

- Minimum graded assignments and schedule: The committee recommended keeping the minimum number of graded assignments per quarter at seven (reduced last year from nine). Staff proposed delaying any middle‑school implementation of significant changes to the following school year because middle schools are already implementing multiple other initiatives.

- Technical and reporting changes: Staff said work is underway with Information Technology to standardize grade‑book settings, improve integration between the student information system and Schoology, and provide clearer, more frequent report‑card comments tied to the division’s Portrait of a Graduate work habits (for example, shifting from vague comments such as “needs to be prepared” to developmental phrases and frequency indicators like “consistently demonstrates time management” or “occasionally demonstrates time management”). Staff also noted the district will update transcripts and school profiles to indicate online campus and academies.

What the board discussed and what was unresolved

Board members pressed staff on the implications across content areas (for example, how summative weighting affects arts, performance, and CTE classes differently than mathematics), the tradeoffs between signaling homework importance and teacher grading workload, and precise thresholds for reassessment (some board members advocated limits lower than 100%). Several board members recommended a clearer implementation timeline and stronger technical supports so families see consistent, up‑to‑date grade reporting; staff replied that teachers currently have seven days to enter grades into the grade book and that consistent implementation is an operational issue as well as a policy issue.

Direct quotes in context

- Dr. Presidio (staff presenter): “If we could get it, is consensus on moving forward with the recommendations. If we're not able to do that, that's fine.”

- Noelle Klamenco (assistant superintendent, instructional services, introduced during the presentation as a member of the senior leadership team) and Michael Gillespie (senior manager, curriculum office) were identified as staff who supported committee work and implementation plans.

- Board member Stacy Sizemore Heizer (board member): during discussion she said she could “support the 60 30 10” approach in concept, but asked for clearer protections for students with 504 plans and individualized education programs and called for more data by content area.

Implementation steps staff described

Staff said they would draft regulation language to implement any board direction, develop professional learning to start as early as June, and continue work with IT on standardization and reporting. Staff recommended delaying middle‑school changes for one year and emphasized that any final regulation and implementation timeline would be returned to the board for direction.

Clarifying details (from the presentation and discussion)

- Committee membership and meetings: 35 individuals served on the committee; the committee met six times from January to March; many members served two years.

- Grade-distribution data: A comparison of quarters 1–2 between school years 2023–24 and 2024–25 showed little overall change in As and Fs (As increased by less than 1 percentage point; Fs decreased by less than 1 point).

- Use of rolling grade book today: 66% of high schools reported exclusive use of rolling grade book; in combined middle and high schools 63% use rolling grade book in at least some capacity.

- Reassessment survey results: 74% of students and 64% of parents viewed reassessment to 100% positively; 56% of staff viewed the change negatively; 51% of teachers reported a significant increase in workload associated with reassessment.

- Minimum graded assignments: Committee recommended maintaining seven graded assignments per quarter (reduced from nine last year).

- Teacher grade‑entry expectation: Current practice/regulation expects teachers to enter grades within seven days of assignment.

Authorities referenced

- Code: Code of Virginia, Section 2.2‑3712(d) (referenced at the start of the meeting during the closed‑meeting certification).

- FCPS policy: Policy 24‑18 (grading policy) and the committee work done to develop a regulation accompanying that policy.

Proper names and program references

- Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
- Schoology (learning management system)
- Portrait of a Graduate
- Policy 24‑18 (grading)

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Dr. Presidio — role/title: Staff member (presenter). Affiliation: government (FCPS). First reference evidence: 398.65997–411.885: \"Alright. Well, it's almost good afternoon...\"
- Noelle Klamenco — role/title: Assistant Superintendent (instructional services). Affiliation: government (FCPS).
- Michael Gillespie — role/title: Senior Manager (curriculum office). Affiliation: government (FCPS).
- Stacy Sizemore Heizer — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board). First reference evidence: 2137.75–2149.655 \"Thank you. And and thank you to all your hard work...\"
- Doctor Anderson — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Miss Lady — role/title: Board member (meeting manager/board member). Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Mister Moon — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Doctor Reid — role/title: Superintendent (referenced as giving the charge to the committee). Affiliation: government (FCPS). (Referenced but not a quoted speaker in the transcript excerpt.)

Actions (formal and informal recorded in the transcript)

- Motion/certification of closed meeting compliance (formal vote): motion text: \"Motion to certify that since the Fairfax County School Board convened a closed meeting on 05/06/2025, to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements, and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convened at the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the board during the closed meeting.\" Mover: not specified in transcript. Second: not specified. Vote: recorded in transcript as unanimous among board members at the table (Doctor Anderson; Mister McElveen; Miss Marin; Mister McDaniel; Miss Anderson; Miss Lady; Miss Dixit; Mister Dunn; Mister Moon; and chairman Frisch). Outcome: approved. Notes: standard closed‑meeting certification under Code of Virginia 2.2‑3712(d).

- Informal consensus polling (notes, not formal board action): At the end of the grading discussion the chair polled for informal consensus on several implementation choices (minimum number of assignments; homework weighting; grade book type; reassessment thresholds). The transcript records board members’ hands/voices for some proposals; no formal board motion or recorded roll‑call vote followed on those items. Outcome: consensus notes captured in transcript (see body). Notes: staff recorded to return with regulation language and implementation steps; no formal policy adoption was recorded in the transcript.

Provenance (evidence spans supporting this article)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"434.43\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":192,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"So our goal today or the objectives are to share the committee's recommendation, tell you a little bit about the rationale, that supports those recommendations, including the data and the, information that we collected in our interviews and focus groups that we conducted.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"}

- topicfinish: {\"block_id\":\"2114.3499\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":109,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"It provides the committee recommendation as well as the alternative, staff recommendation. So with that, miss Lady, I'll turn it back over to you for, board discussion.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}

Searchable tags:[\"grading\",\"assessment\",\"reassessment\",\"rolling grade book\",\"homework\",\"FCPS\",\"policy 24-18\",\"report card\"]

Ending note: Staff will return with draft regulation language, detailed implementation timelines and professional learning plans for any board direction before final regulatory or policy action is taken.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/6/2025 - FCPS School Board Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Fairfax County School Board members heard a presentation from district staff on recommendations from the secondary grading committee at a May meeting, including a staged move to a rolling grade book, a proposal to keep or modify category weighting, and plans for professional learning and technical‑system changes to support implementation.","taxTitle","FAIRFAX CO PBLC SCHS, School Districts, Virginia","taxId",14506,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6244390,"FCPS staff urges more procurement tools — design‑build, CMAR, swing spaces and P3s — to speed school construction",2959,8254000,11213000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3230282-620a192bb394034ae287da72d76b7bca&start=8254&end=11213","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3230282-620a192bb394034ae287da72d76b7bca/thumbnail_8254000.jpg","/articles/6244390/Virginia/FCPS-staff-urges-more-procurement-tools-designbuild-CMAR-swing-spaces-and-P3s-to-speed-school-construction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6244390-d301311b563b3edcad89391bedabec9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770615549&Signature=QlyGvG5xfrfGEp0v~WRxdBGIr~gyiAJHZn1jSbpzWBVtc-a-RqUhUSNHt855PIW3L93CqxVlCu15L2ejMUkc1plliHEWh-5XkQIMD8SvV1I4W0TaXF1tqHAA4nTmJcYBAKCL3pZd6dDqKZeoibI2MJVaoxri-0KvMk6Y97qdqGv27H4Umpqgs9BwDjGhHBodVAjHWm1dFYa~cdpHKWELV2BT90aHxjTl7xlSiCI616TxttKzD4ZjtnZMwJtBpywonnxo-PgTQ2tA~8uch8hksM5eoedsXpnQbDMbOj1BCaU1Ve0s1D-Tp9KmM9eYO86rwBixyLv80NaRDUvwXBalsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fairfax County School Board members received a facilities briefing on alternative delivery and financing options for capital projects — including construction manager at risk (CMAR), design‑build procurement, multiple swing‑space approaches for renovations, and public‑private partnership (P3) models — and staff asked for board guidance on next steps.

The issue matters because FCPS oversees a large facilities portfolio with a renovation cycle substantially longer than recommended and capital funding per square foot that staff said lags peer districts; faster or different delivery approaches could reduce timelines, allow more schools to be renovated sooner, and change how projects are financed and operated.

Janice Symansky, chief of facility services and capital programs, introduced the presentation and framed the problem: FCPS’s capital funding per square foot was shown in the CIP slide deck as roughly $8.54 per square foot compared with an average of about $21.80 among a set of comparable districts, and staff said closing that gap would require an additional roughly $97.5 million in annual bonding or alternative funding. Symansky asked the board to consider expanding delivery methods and financing tools to improve speed and value.

What staff presented

- Alternative delivery methods: Staff explained three delivery approaches: (1) design‑bid‑build (the traditional low‑bid, two‑contract approach FCPS typically uses), (2) construction manager at risk (CMAR), which brings a construction manager into design early and uses a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), and (3) design‑build (DB), where a single design‑builder handles both design and construction under a GMP. Staff noted CMAR and DB are widely used in the region and can reduce change orders and allow earlier procurement of long‑lead items.

- Swing‑space approaches for occupied renovations: Staff described three swing‑space options that could shorten renovation timelines: (1) temporary trailers and air‑supported “bubble” structures on the existing site to relocate students while work proceeds; (2) build the new school on the same site (students remain in the old building until the new one is complete, then the old building is demolished); and (3) move students off‑site to an alternative facility (for example, a renovated FCPS‑owned property or leased space) while the home school is rebuilt. Staff said on‑site options are often preferred geographically in Fairfax County but that each site requires a feasibility analysis during concept design.

- Public‑private partnership (P3) options and cost‑benefit analysis: Staff summarized a late‑2024 cost‑benefit analysis (Brailsford & Dunlevy) that evaluated P3 packages for the last six renovation projects in the current CIP queue plus one new construction project in the CIP. Staff explained common P3 models such as design‑build‑finance (DBF) and design‑build‑finance‑operate‑maintain (DBFOM), noted that P3s are highly customizable and not always cheaper but can speed delivery and transfer certain risks to private partners, and suggested that P3s could be used to accelerate a block of projects if the board, the county and staff agreed on scope and funding approaches.

Board discussion and informal decisions recorded in transcript

Board members asked detailed implementation questions (for example: how CMAR would control cost when the contractor must stipulate a GMP before design is complete; whether DB reduces district control over design outcomes; which jurisdictions in the DMV use these methods; and whether choosing a new building on the same site would increase embodied carbon). Staff responded that CMAR and DB bring contractor input earlier to control cost, that FCPS still sets educational specifications and reviews design, and that several neighboring jurisdictions (Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and the District of Columbia) have used CMAR and DB for K‑12 projects.

The chair polled for informal consensus in several areas during the facilities discussion. The transcript records an explicit, unanimous show of hands to incorporate design‑build and CMAR as options in future RFPs where appropriate, and staff will only use those methods with board approval for specific contracts. The transcript also shows the board expressed consensus to incorporate two swing‑space options (on‑site trailers and new on‑site construction) where feasible and asked staff to explore whether existing FCPS assets could serve as off‑site swing spaces. The board asked staff to coordinate next steps with the county and with governance for policy revisions.

Direct quotes in context

- Janice Symansky (chief of facility services and capital programs): “Project delivery methods…lay out who does what, how the owner, design team, and contractors interact. These methods do not exist in a vacuum. They're rooted in procurement strategies.”

- A member of staff summarized the fiscal gap: \"Because we're such a large school system... increasing funding by an additional $3.58 to bring us up to the second lowest ranked school means an annual bond amount or alternative funding would need to increase by $97,500,000 annually.\"

Implementation steps and next steps staff recommended

- Policy revision: Staff redlined Policy 82‑40 to allow CMAR and design‑build as procurement options; the school board would need to approve the updated policy for FCPS to use those delivery methods routinely. Staff said any CMAR or design‑build contract would return to the board for approval, and a GMP exceeding board thresholds would require further board approval.

- Pilot and procurement sequencing: Staff proposed starting CMAR implementation on projects that will enter design in fiscal year 2026 (for example, Cub Run Elementary School and Franklin Middle School in the CIP), by including CMAR as an option in architect RFP scopes and then issuing a separate construction‑manager solicitation if the policy revision is approved.

- Swing‑space feasibility: For each renovation project entering concept design, staff will require feasibility analysis comparing phased‑occupied renovation versus swing‑space options (on‑site trailers, new on‑site building or off‑site moves). For several CIP schools a consultant review found on‑site swing options to be feasible in some cases and not in others; staff recommended a site‑by‑site analysis embedded in the architect’s concept phase.

- P3 visioning and risk discussion: Staff recommended a board‑level visioning and risk‑tolerance session before launching a P3 solicitation. A P3 champion and careful board/county coordination would be required prior to an RFQ. Staff proposed the last six renovation schools in the current CIP queue plus the first new build in the CIP as a logical test package for initial analysis (the same set used in the consultant’s cost‑benefit study).

Clarifying details (from the presentation and discussion)

- Funding per square foot: staff showed FCPS as approximately $8.54 per square foot of capital construction funding, compared with an average among the listed peer divisions of about $21.80; staff said closing that gap would require roughly $97.5 million of additional annual funding.

- CPAR and schedule impacts: Staff estimated that moving away from phased‑occupied renovation to an unoccupied swing approach could reduce construction timelines by an estimated 6–12 months for elementary renovations, depending on site conditions and permitting.

- Implementation sequencing: Staff recommended beginning feasibility work during the concept design phase for projects in FY26 and suggested CMAR may be an easier evolutionary step because it preserves the two‑contract model while adding a construction manager during design.

Authorities and policy references

- Policy 82‑40 (procurement / capital project contracting) — staff presented redlines to allow CMAR and design‑build as options.

- Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA) — referenced as the statutory procurement framework that design‑bid‑build is the default method but provides for alternative delivery with local governing‑body approval.

- Consultant analysis: Brailsford & Dunlevy (BND) cost‑benefit analysis of P3 packages for the last six renovation projects in the CIP plus one new build (late 2024).

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Janice Symansky — role/title: Chief of Facility Services and Capital Programs. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County Public Schools). First reference evidence: 8254.03–8287.149 \"Thank you, doctor Reed, and good afternoon to the board...\"
- Jessica Gillis — role/title: Facilities staff (presenter team). Affiliation: government (FCPS).
- Scott Eschbach — role/title: Facilities staff (presenter team). Affiliation: government (FCPS).
- Dr. Reed — role/title: Superintendent (participating in handoff to staff). Affiliation: government (FCPS).
- Mister Dunn — role/title: Board member (led facilities introduction). Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Chair Frisch — role/title: School Board chairman. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Miss Lady — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).
- Mister Moon — role/title: Board member. Affiliation: government (Fairfax County School Board).

Actions (formal and informal recorded in the transcript)

- Informal consensus (board polling/consensus note): \"Incorporate design‑build and construction management at risk as options in future RFPs where appropriate.\" Transcript records unanimous board consensus (named board members present: Doctor Anderson; Mister McElveen; Mister McDaniel; Miss Anderson; Miss Lady; Miss Marin; Miss Dixit; Mister Frisch; Mister Moon; Miss Saint John Cunningham). Outcome: consensus_note. Notes: staff said any contract would return to board for approval and GMPs would require board review where thresholds are exceeded.

- Informal consensus (board polling/consensus note): \"Incorporate on‑site swing options (temporary trailers and new on‑site construction) as options in future RFPs where appropriate.\" Transcript records majority support; staff will embed swing‑space feasibility into architect concept phases. Outcome: consensus_note.

- Informal direction (staff tasking): Board asked staff to explore using existing FCPS assets as potential off‑site swing spaces and to coordinate a visioning/risk session for P3 options with board governance and with county partners; the transcript records discussion but no formal board vote.

Provenance (evidence spans supporting this article)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"8254.03\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Thank you, doctor Reed, and good afternoon to the board, and thank you for having me here today. As doctor Reed mentioned, my name is Janice Symansky, chief of facility services and capital programs.\",\"global_start\":8254,\"global_end\":8374,\"tc_start\":\"02:17:34\",\"tc_end\":\"02:22:54\",\"text_sha256\":\"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"}

- topicfinish: {\"block_id\":\"11153.545\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":60,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"So with that, I'd like to just confirm that there's consensus to support facilities incorporating design build and construction management at risk as options and future RFPs where appropriate.\",\"global_start\":11153,\"global_end\":11213,\"tc_start\":\"03:05:53\",\"tc_end\":\"03:06:53\",\"text_sha256\":\"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}

Searchable tags:[\"construction procurement\",\"design-build\",\"CMAR\",\"swing space\",\"P3\",\"FCPS\",\"capital projects\"]

Ending note: Staff recommended governance move forward with Policy 82‑40 redlines to authorize alternative delivery and return with a timeline and a visioning session; board members asked for deeper briefing materials and joint discussion with the county before finalizing any P3 solicitation.","Facilities staff briefed the board on alternative project delivery (design‑build and construction manager at risk), on‑site and off‑site swing‑space options to shorten renovation timelines, and public‑private partnership (P3) models and a consultant cost‑benefit analysis used to evaluate packages of schools.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

FCPS grading committee urges rolling grade book, discusses homework category and reassessment rules

FCPS staff urges more procurement tools — design‑build, CMAR, swing spaces and P3s — to speed school construction