At the June 26, 2025, meeting of the Savannah-Chatham County Public School Audit Committee, auditors presented the completed grading practices audit and reported substantial variability in how teachers assign and weight student work across schools, grade bands and subjects.

The audit team found that procedures and monitoring focus mainly on compliance with district grade-calculation formulas, not on the quality, quantity or consistency of graded assignments. Jacqueline (Audit staff) said, "We have completed our audit of grading practices, and I'm glad to be here to share the report with you." The team examined 12 schools and a sample of 66 teachers and identified broad differences in the number of graded activities per grading period, how categories (assessments, classwork, homework) are weighted and how extra credit, make-up work and credit recovery are used.

Why it matters: Committee members and district leaders said inconsistent grading can affect scholarships, athletics eligibility, valedictorian selection, promotion and graduation decisions. Dr. Watts (District leader) said, "I will just say that, nothing in this report came as a surprise to me at all," and warned the committee that creating districtwide calibration will be sensitive and will require time and engagement.

Key findings and recommendations

- Variability in assignment counts and weights: Auditors found examples where a single assignment represented 50% or more of a quarter grade and instances where teachers recorded few or no graded items in a category during a quarter. The audit reported that, while grade calculations usually matched Board policy formulas, the underlying distribution of assignments varied widely. The auditors recommended developing written guidance on the quantity of assignments in each grading category and clearer expectations for how weights are applied.

- Extra credit, make-up work, credit recovery: Board policy IHA allows teacher discretion on extra credit and make-up work; auditors reported inconsistent implementation and recommended establishing systems to monitor whether extra-credit and make-up practices align with policy and district standards.

- Use of learning-management system: The audit found the district’s Brightspace learning-management system was used by fewer than half of teachers at all grade bands, most commonly at the high school level. Auditors recommended guidelines for expected Brightspace uses and procedures to monitor supplemental materials so they align with district curriculum and standards.

- Monitoring and compliance: Existing monitoring is concentrated on grade-entry compliance (for example, ensuring PowerSchool calculations follow formulas) rather than on the instructional design or comparability of assignments across classrooms.

Board and staff reaction

Board members expressed concern about systemic consequences. Dr. Hoskins Brown (Board member) told the committee she had "long suspected that there is great variance in, how teachers grade, what they grade, the percent of different assignments and how they are, included in a student's report card," and said the issue could affect long-term student outcomes.

Miss Campbell (Board member) urged concrete district guideposts rather than highly decentralized autonomy: she argued that robust policy guardrails are needed so parents and teachers understand consistent expectations across schools. Roger (Board member) and others emphasized transparency and the value of the internal audit department in surfacing the issue.

Operational context and next steps

District leaders and auditors said the audit does not include a finalized management action plan. Dr. Watts said developing and implementing changes to grading practices "will take us at least a year" and will require focus groups, extensive stakeholder engagement and policy work. The graduation-rate audit was mentioned as related work; the committee was told the graduation-rate audit is being extended to fold in related grading issues and will be brought back for review in September.

The committee did not vote on the grading practices audit at the meeting; auditors presented observations and recommendations for discussion and follow-up. Staff and board members repeatedly cautioned that recalibrating grading will have logistical and budget implications — including potential additional summer programs, professional development and retention/placement consequences — and that any district action must be resourced to succeed.

Ending: Auditors recommended written guidance on assignment quantity and category weights, monitoring of extra-credit and make-up-work practices, and clear expectations for Brightspace use. Committee members asked staff to return with more-detailed proposals and stakeholder engagement plans before any policy changes are finalized.