Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy Bp121 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees review draft grading policy aiming for mastery learning; lengthy public testimony leads board to table final vote
Summary
After months of committee work, trustees reviewed a proposed update to BP 121 to emphasize essential learning objectives, retake opportunities and a mastery approach; public commenters and teachers raised concerns about implementation and consistency, and the board tabled the item for further work.
Trustees presented a revised approach to Board Policy 121 (Evaluation of Student Achievement) that would shift grading toward mastery learning built around district Essential Learning Objectives (ELOs), give students repeated opportunities to demonstrate mastery and use a 50/50 split between assessments (ELOs) and participation/other course work.
Trustee discussion emphasized that the draft was the product of an ad‑hoc grading committee formed in January; the committee included teachers, principals, parents and students and produced a set of ten priorities heard across meetings: multiple demonstration opportunities, clearer district‑wide learning targets, remediation and retake rules, better family communication, flexibility for departments, and trusting teachers as experts. Trustees described the draft as a compromise that pulls together elements of standards‑based, competency‑based and traditional point scales.
Public comment and staff testimony were extensive and mixed. Several teachers and site leaders said they support proficiency‑style grading and clear ELOs but warned against a single, district‑wide formula that removes teacher discretion. Others said the 4‑point proficiency scale (used in parts of the district during the recent CBEd rollout) works well for them and cautioned against forcing a new method on teachers unfamiliar with it. Students and parents urged clarity and warned against abrupt change that could affect college admissions and scholarships.
Key features presented in the draft included: - Course‑level Essential Learning Objectives (ELOs) to define the must‑know skills for progression. - A 50/50 weighting: 50 percent of a course grade drawn from ELO‑aligned assessments and 50 percent from participation/assignments and professional skills. - A formal incomplete/retake window: students not meeting ELOs at semester end would receive an incomplete and be allowed up to six weeks to make up specified ELOs; failure to complete would result in no‑credit and the student could retake the course. - A district expectation that ELOs for the same course be uniform across sites and developed by departments and teachers through professional learning time.
Trustees and staff discussed pilot timelines, professional development needs, the role of department PLCs and the need for an MOU with the teachers’ association for rollout. Because of the breadth of public comment, complexity of implementation and many remaining questions about uniformity, college recognition and teacher workload, trustees agreed to table the item and continue committee work; staff will return with refined language and implementation steps at a future meeting.
