North Kingstown educators and parents press committee to revise proposed 6–12 grading policy

North Kingstown teachers and parents urged the School Committee on June 3 to delay adopting a new unified grading policy for grades 6–12, arguing the draft contains unclear rules on retakes, insufficient protections for teacher workload and too little detail on how middle- and high-school grading would align.

The debate drew several classroom teachers and staff during the Citizen Comment period and again during committee discussion. Lauren Brothers, a high school science teacher, said she had “provided written feedback on this proposal” and described the draft as “in some ways too lenient for high school students,” warning that unlimited retakes could “encourage procrastination, excuse making and excessive demands on teachers’ time.”

Committee members and staff said the policy is intended to create consistency across buildings and to reflect modern grading research, but several teachers said the wording does not translate intent into practice. Jordan Albernaz, a mathematics educator at North Kingstown High School, told the committee the district’s PSAT and SAT math results show North Kingstown students outperform state averages and said attendance — not grading mechanics — is the primary barrier to learning. “Implementing a broad retake policy under these conditions is simply unmanageable,” he said, citing hundreds of absences and tardies on his roster.

The draft raises the passing threshold to 70 in the high school and aligns middle-school and high-school pass/fail definitions; some teachers and members urged reconsideration of that move. Committee members acknowledged a split among faculty about whether 65 or 70 should be designated as a passing grade and asked administration to bring a revised draft back for a third reading with clearer limits on retakes — for example, specifying a single reassessment opportunity and clearer timelines and conditions for scheduling retakes.

Several speakers also asked the committee to clarify the policy’s handling of academic integrity and plagiarism, distinguishing between intentional cheating and citation/formatting errors by students learning research skills.

The committee did not vote on the policy on June 3. Members asked administration to publish a revised draft early enough for teachers and families to review before the committee’s next meeting and signaled they expect another reading before any final vote.

What’s next: The School Committee directed administration to circulate an updated draft in advance of the June 17 meeting and to work with faculty on clarifying language about reassessments, passing thresholds and academic-integrity procedures.