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

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.