Madison County board debates reinstating S/N/U grading for K–3; asks staff to add numeric correlations and uniform criteria

Madison County Board of Education members spent the longest portion of their June 12 meeting debating proposed changes to elementary grading that would reintroduce satisfactory, needs improvement and unsatisfactory (S/N/U) marks in grades 1–3 for subjects such as science, social studies, handwriting, art, physical education and music and asked staff to add numeric correlations and systemwide criteria before final adoption.

Board members said the change responds to teacher requests after Madison County moved its student information system to PowerSchool and found that the earlier S/N/U formatting had been lost in the migration. Carrie Henshaw, an instruction-department staff member who presented the proposal, said the change grew out of teacher and principal feedback and not from the central office: “This is not a recommendation that my department came up with. This came from grassroots of the teachers talking about the management of the CKLA program, the requirements of both skills and knowledge.”

Board members and staff said science and social studies content is now embedded in the district's CKLA (Core Knowledge Language Arts) reading program because of state literacy and numeracy time requirements, so teachers have been entering the same performance into multiple grade-book categories. Henshaw said restoring S/N/U for K–3 would reduce redundant grade entries while preserving the underlying instruction: “They're using what's already there. That's why they're saying that this would save a lot of time for the teachers as far as that.”

Discussion focused on how S/N/U would map to numeric values and how grades would be used in promotion decisions. Board members and staff discussed a proposed correlation with S (satisfactory) at 70 percent and above, N (needs improvement) in the 60–69 range, and U (unsatisfactory) at 59 and below; Henshaw said she could add a numerical column to the report format to make the relationship clear. One board member asked for a uniform, systemwide method so a satisfactory at one school would represent the same performance at another.

The board and staff also discussed grading weights and grade‑book practices. Henshaw said administrators and teacher advisory committees recommended raising the weight for summative assessments to 60 percent and daily grades to 40 percent; daily grades would include homework, classwork and formative quizzes. Henshaw said principals already have minimum expectations in the district academic guide and that the district will hold administrators accountable beginning with the 2025–26 school year to ensure grade books reflect meaningful work.

Board members asked for clarity about whether the academic guide or board policy should carry the details. Henshaw and Superintendent Byrd told the board the academic guide contains implementation specifics and that embedding lengthy, frequently changing technical details in board policy would require repeated policy reviews. The board asked staff to add the numeric correlations and an “E” (excellent) band (90–100) to the academic guide and to circulate a revised draft to trustees.

The board also directed staff to survey teachers—recognizing summer staffing and contract schedules—to confirm whether teachers support the S/N/U reinstatement and related numeric mappings. Trustees discussed family communication needs and said the district should be prepared to explain the change to parents.

Board comments put the debate in broader context: several trustees cautioned that retention is not the preferred remedy for poor performance, citing a presentation during the meeting that research shows students retained in early grades have higher dropout risk. Henshaw said the goal is improving instruction and using assessments and interventions so students master standards rather than rely on retention.

The board did not take a formal vote on a policy change at the meeting. Instead they instructed staff to revise the academic guide to include the numeric correlation column, add the “E” designation, share the revised guide with trustees, and survey teachers before returning with an updated recommendation.