Millard committee recommends switching districtwide from 7-point to 10-point grading scale and A–F marks

After a year of study and stakeholder surveys, the Millard Public Schools grading scale committee recommended that the district change from a 7-point grading scale to a 10-point scale and move from 1–5 marks to A–F markings beginning in the fall semester of 25–26, the committee chair told the board.

Dr. Phipps, who led the committee presentation, said the recommendation follows feedback from students, parents, counselors and staff and consultations with postsecondary admissions offices. “Beginning in the fall semester of 25, 26, Millard Public Schools will change from a 7 point scale to a 10 scale and begin using A through F markings instead of 1 through 5,” Dr. Phipps said during the committee update. The presentation said the committee would bring a full report and a draft policy to the board in March and start an information campaign for staff, students and parents if the board approves the recommendation.

Why it matters: Committee members said the district’s current 7-point system can produce different transcript outcomes for the same classroom percentage when students also have college or dual-enrollment grades recorded on a 10-point scale. Presenters told the board that the mismatch can confuse students and families and can affect college admissions and scholarships when dual-enrollment college transcripts show grades that translate to higher letter grades than the district’s 1–5 marking system.

What the committee did and heard: The committee included representatives from all 10 secondary schools, counselors, an elementary representative and district staff. The presentation reported outreach to students, recent graduates, parents and postsecondary admissions offices and cited staff survey responses; the committee said roughly 1,966 teachers responded to an early-year staff survey that favored moving to a 10-point scale. Postsecondary contacts told district staff they convert incoming GPAs to the institution’s own scale when reviewing applications but also noted that dual-enrollment transcripts can create confusion for students and families.

Board questions and concerns focused on implementation and maintaining standards. Several board members pressed the committee on how the change would affect objective assessments and the “bottom” of the grade distribution — the minimum level that counts as competency — and asked how teachers would revise assessments, syllabi and district common assessments. One board member said the board should adopt policy language clarifying that a D (or equivalent) represents minimum competency to avoid perceptions of lowering the bar.

Implementation and timeline: The committee recommended that, if the board approves in March, the district begin communications and a staged implementation that includes: providing guidance to teachers on assessing mastery, adjusting district common assessments where needed, and preparing grade-translation guidance for transcripts. The presentation said the policy as written would apply to grades 2 through 12; elementary teachers and parents reported little active concern, while secondary counselors and principals drove the committee’s work. The presentation also proposed that district staff track implementation metrics — including enrollment in highest-level courses and grade distributions — to evaluate the change.

No formal board vote on the recommendation was recorded in the transcript. Presenters told the board a full report and proposed policy language would return to the board in March for consideration.