North Kingstown advisory committee advances revised grading policy to school committee after lengthy debate on retakes, passing thresholds

The North Kingstown Policy Advisory Committee voted May 12 to send a revised grading policy that combines IKA and IKA‑1 (middle and high school grading) to the School Committee for a first read, after a session dominated by teachers’ concerns about reassessments, grade composition and changes to the middle‑school passing mark.

The draft policy shifts grading emphasis toward summative assessments and away from formative measures, and sets large summative assessments — unit tests, major projects, performance assessments — to comprise roughly 70–80% of a course grade, with minor summatives and work‑completion making up the remainder. The proposal also formalizes reassessment (retake/revision) language for major summative assessments and would align middle‑school passing from 65 to 70.

The committee heard an extended public comment from North Kingstown High School social studies teacher David Abadijian, who brought signed pages of faculty feedback and told the panel the high‑school faculty “do not support [the policy] as it’s currently written” and urged the committee to send the draft back for larger discussion with high‑school teachers. “The grading policy is focused primarily on content mastery,” Abadijian said, while also saying many teachers are “concerned with some of the elements that we believe are lacking or not prioritized.”

Assistant Superintendent Rob (presenting the draft) described the process used to produce the consolidated policy and the committee membership that drafted it — administrators, teachers (middle and high school), special educators, MLL specialists, parents and students — and emphasized the group’s stated purpose: to have grades “be a reflection of learning, and a demonstration of what the student is able to do with regards to the academic content taught in the class.” He told the committee, “Formative assessment, by definition, is not for the purpose of grading.”

Major changes highlighted by the presenters and discussed at length include: - Grade composition: replacing the previous 75% summative / 25% formative split with categories defined as major summative (70–80%), minor summative (10–20%) and work completion (10–20%). - Reassessment/retake rules: teachers may allow reassessments for major summative assessments that scored below 70; reassessment scores are capped at 70 unless a higher score is permitted by the teacher under predetermined criteria. The draft includes language that students are “permitted to complete reassessments until they demonstrate a minimally proficient level of achievement on the assessed skills.” - Passing threshold alignment: a proposal to change middle‑school passing from 65 to 70 to align with the high school’s longstanding 70 threshold.

Teachers in the meeting raised operational concerns: workload for teachers creating and grading retakes, whether retakes should reuse or revise the original assessment, logistics for scheduling retakes (suggestions included a dedicated testing room and completing reassessments during the school day), and equity impacts for students who rely on homework and classwork grades. A special education teacher cautioned that under the proposed percentages, students who earned effort‑based points previously within the 25% formative category could lose a meaningful portion of their earned credit if that category is reduced to 10%.

Committee members and multiple teachers also questioned whether retake timing in the draft (a two‑week window in earlier language) was practical; several classroom teachers suggested a shorter window (roughly a school week or 5–6 school days). Presenters said teachers would be expected to post grading procedures on syllabi or course pages to increase consistency across classes.

The committee chair said administration had solicited teacher feedback and received “43 teacher responses” to the draft; the presenter confirmed that many of the current draft changes reflect that feedback. Committee members disagreed over whether the policy should mandate consistent reassessment opportunities across high‑school courses or leave more discretion to teachers; the draft currently gives teachers discretion while also recommending guardrails and clear scoring criteria.

After the discussion the committee voted to forward the draft to the School Committee for consideration with the understanding that additional edits and clarifications could be incorporated at the School Committee level and following further teacher conversations. The motion to forward the policy carried on a voice vote.