Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees create ad hoc panel to revisit grading policy after heated debate over competency‑based grading
Summary
Board members agreed to convene a two‑trustee ad hoc committee to review Board Policy 5121 and draft focused survey questions and engagement steps after months of district discussion about competency‑based grading, retake policies and inconsistent site practices.
Trustees agreed on Feb. 18 to establish an ad hoc committee of two board members to recommend next steps on grading policy after extended testimony from staff, trustees and students about classroom grading systems.
Board President Claire Spade said the committee should "start with the policy" (BP 5121) and help develop a structured process for stakeholder input before the board considers policy changes. Trustees Joseph Duncan and Michael Jeffries volunteered to serve as the two board members on the ad hoc committee and were tasked with working with staff to draft survey questions and a plan to gather teacher, parent and student feedback.
The debate revisited the district’s fall experiment with competency‑based elements — tiered proficiency levels, retake policies and other practices that several teachers, principals and students said have produced mixed results across departments and campuses. Some trustees and teachers praised elements aimed at improving outcomes for students who struggle, while others said the roll‑out created substantial confusion for instructors and families and placed disproportionate workload burdens on classroom teachers.
Trustees directed the ad hoc committee and staff to: - Review BP 5121 and the related administrative regulation; - Draft a small set of focused survey questions about grading’s purpose, fairness and classroom practices; - Propose a stakeholder engagement plan (site focus groups, surveys and report‑back); and - Return recommendations to the full board for an eventual policy decision and implementation timeline.
The board emphasized the committee’s role as an advisory, information‑gathering group. Any policy change would be considered and adopted by the full board at a future public meeting.
