Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Indian Prairie CUSD 204 staff propose 80% summative / 20% formative grading model and fall pilot
Summary
District presenters recommended weighting summative assessments at 80% and formative assessments at 20% to center grades on mastery and reduce nonacademic influences; the board heard concerns about accountability, IEP/504 and multilingual students, retake policy, and asked for a fall pilot and further data before any districtwide requirement.
Dr. Louis Lee, a district administrator, and Montreen Johnson, assistant principal for curriculum and instruction at Waubonsee Valley High School, presented the grading steering committee's recommendations to the Indian Prairie CUSD 204 Board of Education on July 7, 2025, proposing that summative assessments represent roughly 80% of a student's course grade and formative assessments 20%.
The proposal, framed by the district's Portrait of a Graduate learning framework and the board's strategic plan, was developed by a cross-district steering committee and seven subcommittees that examined retakes, accommodations (IEP/504), multilingual learner supports, standards-based grading, the role of zeros and late work, formative and summative assessment definitions, and homework/extra credit.
Montreen Johnson described the committee's working definitions and rationale: "a formative assessment is is low stakes. That is practice...used by educators to monitor and support student learning," and the subcommittee "felt like it was really important to have that summative assessment at 80% and then formative assessments representing that 20%." She said the split is intended to "promote equity by looking at the student's mastery of the content and the skills" and to make grades more transparent to students and families.
Dr. Lee urged the board to consider consistency across the district, noting the operational challenges: "There are over 250 grade books in our system," he said, arguing that reducing variability would help families and administrators interpret a student's record from school to school.
Board members asked detailed questions about the plan and its likely effects. Concerns included reduced day-to-day accountability if formative work carries less weight, the impact on students with test anxiety and those who rely on formative practice to demonstrate learning, the handling of retakes, and whether the change could disadvantage students who lack outside supports such as paid tutoring.
Presenters said the recommended approach is intended to separate measures of mastery from measures that can reflect behavior or access inequities (for example, homework completion or extra-credit opportunities). They proposed a fall pilot that would compare classes using the 80/20 framework with others using existing practices, collect stakeholder feedback (students, parents, teachers), and gather quantitative data on grade distributions and learning outcomes. Montreen Johnson and Dr. Lee said professional development and electronic grade-book configuration would be required to reduce the number of distinct grading practices across the district.
Board members stressed the need for a long runway, data and teacher supports before any districtwide requirement. Montreen Johnson described implementation steps under consideration: targeted pilots in middle and high schools, additional standard-setting work at the elementary level, professional development planned for August 2026, and a potential policy or practice decision in 2027 depending on pilot results.
The board did not vote on a policy change at the July 7 meeting. Presenters said they would return with pilot design details, stakeholder feedback plans and proposed metrics for evaluating any change.
