District staff told the Savannah‑Chatham County Academic Excellence Committee on Tuesday that an internal audit uncovered inconsistent assignment weighting, varied approaches to late work, and potential equity impacts that together prompted a districtwide grading policy revision process.

Mister Butler, who led the presentation, said the audit found “inconsistent assignment weighting between schools and classrooms” and noted the district has hired Hanover to support stakeholder engagement as it rewrites the policy. Butler said staff will return with a synthesized report in January to inform a formal policy revision that staff currently plans to present for first and second reads in April and May 2026.

Why it matters: Board members and staff framed grading as the signal the district sends to students, families and higher education about academic expectations. Several trustees said inconsistent grading practices can mask students’ actual achievement and produce misleading report cards that undermine parent confidence and hamper early interventions.

Students, teachers and principals were engaged in the process. Two student senators—Maria Middleton of Savannah Early College and Marley Taylor of Jenkins—told the committee they favor clearer progress reporting, districtwide makeup opportunities and limits on assignment weighting. “If we took those grades they got on the midterm or that number they got on midterm and translated it to a grade, it will show parents that, oh, even though my child has an A in the class, they actually still need help underneath it,” Maria Middleton said.

Trustees pressed staff on specifics, asking whether the district has benchmarked other districts’ policies, how enforcement would work and whether the district’s PowerSchool system can present both achievement measures and other progress indicators. Mister Butler said policy benchmarking is underway and that the policy working group has been reviewing comparable districts in Georgia and nationwide.

Board members debated whether to mandate minimum or floor grades. Miss Campbell argued against a blanket minimum floor (for example converting zeros into 50 or 60), saying it can promote students who lack the underlying skills and obscure urgent instructional needs. She recommended requiring transparent grading practices supplemented by an explicit, districtwide recovery or extra‑credit framework so students have equitable access to remediation.

Staff outlined change‑management and monitoring plans. Doctor Barnes said the district will invest in leader development and create centralized communications and FAQs for parents to reduce variance that could be introduced if individual schools interpret policy differently. He described a monitoring cadence in which principal supervisors will “open your grade books” and review measures such as the DF/failure list and supports for struggling students to ensure the policy is implemented with fidelity.

Next steps: Staff will continue stakeholder engagement with teacher and student senates and parent groups, produce a synthesized report in January, and prepare a policy revision for board review—staff indicated training and communications would primarily occur during summer leadership sessions and pre‑planning if the board approves the policy in spring. Budget and implementation details, including whether seed funding would be needed before July, will be clarified as the district finalizes recommendations.