Sartell‑St. Stephen board discusses proficiency‑based grading, parents press for clear deadlines and retest rules

SARTELL — District staff and board members discussed implementation details of a shift toward proficiency‑based grading and answered parent questions about zeros, retesting and how the system will reflect submitted work.

The discussion focused on how proficiency will be defined and recorded, how teachers will notify families when students fail to turn in work, and how accommodations for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or Section 504 plans will be handled.

Staff member (district staff) said the district is “working on establishing proficiency,” and described a guaranteed, viable curriculum as the backbone for consistent expectations across classrooms. “A guaranteed curriculum is one that is the same from classroom to classroom,” staff member said, adding that a viable curriculum also requires aligned resources and realistic instructional time.

Parents pressed for clarity about whether students who do not reach a specified proficiency threshold will be required to retest or be subject to deadlines. One parent said, “So are these kids, if they're not making, you know, 75%, if they're at 50%, are they being forced to continue to retest or do certain things?” The parent raised practical concerns about students who refuse to complete work and how teachers and families should respond.

Board members and staff described current practices in which teachers contact parents and administration when students fail to submit work, and said they are trying to balance student supports with accountability. “If you do have that student, though, that is failing to even do their work, teacher immediately contacts parents, staff, or administration,” a board member said.

Board members also raised operational questions about how quickly teachers will update scores in the district’s reporting system so that families see current information. A board member asked how the system will flag incomplete work for parents and how rapidly entries will appear after a submission.

Several speakers discussed equity and accommodations. Staff and board members noted that students with documented needs under an IEP or Section 504 plan may demonstrate proficiency through alternative means. One board member asked whether accommodations — for example, oral demonstrations of mastery for a student with dyslexia — will be handled on a case‑by‑case basis and coordinated with families.

Parents and board members suggested procedural options, including formal accountability agreements or “contracts” that detail steps a student must take before being allowed to retake an assessment. One participant described concerns that some students prefer to take standard tests to avoid being singled out for accommodations, and asked how teachers and parents will negotiate those choices.

The discussion did not produce a formal motion or final decision. Staff said they will continue refining the proficiency definitions, expectations for retesting and timelines for score updates, and will return with clearer guidance for families and teachers. Specific deadlines for retesting, the precise proficiency thresholds (for example, “75%”), and an implementation timetable were not specified during the discussion.

The board and staff signaled continued work to ensure consistent classroom expectations and clearer communications to families about what to expect under proficiency‑based grading.