SFUSD board adopts spring 2020 alternative grading system, opts for credit/no-credit for grades 6–12

The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education on April 27 adopted an emergency grading policy for the spring 2020 semester that aims to "hold students harmless" amid the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The resolution directs teachers to use comments-only report forms for TK–5 and to assign credit/no-credit for grades 6–12, with limited opportunities to convert a no-credit to credit by set deadlines.

District staff framed the decision as a response to incomplete information and widening inequities caused by remote instruction. "In the first week of launching the Family Resource Link, 251 tickets were created," Superintendent Dr. Matthews told the board in his opening report, citing the district—s efforts to support families during distance learning. Staff researchers and assessment leaders told commissioners that learning gaps are likely to widen when schools are disrupted and that grades serve multiple purposes — for instruction, feedback and placement — complicating a one-size-fits-all response.

The resolution, as approved, includes several implementation points: students with individualized education programs (IEPs) will be graded according to those plans; TK–5 teachers will provide feedback using comments-only report forms rather than numeric or letter grades; and students in grades 6–12 will receive credit or no credit for each course. A student who receives no credit may make up required work and earn credit by July 31, 2020 (for graduating seniors) or by the start of the fall 2020 term for other students. The board also directed staff to report by May 27 on distance-learning progress, meal and device distribution, and student wellness, and to develop a plan by June 30 for fall 2020 to assess and intervene on learning loss.

The board debated several alternatives before the vote. Student delegates and many callers urged an "optional A–F or pass" hybrid so that students who continued to work could preserve grades for college and GPA purposes. Staff and several commissioners warned that mixed grading systems in the same classroom would be difficult for teachers to administer and hard for postsecondary institutions to interpret. The district said it had consulted CSU and UC admissions representatives; staff reported that many universities favored credit/no-credit or similar approaches to avoid misleading feedback that could hurt placement or admissions.

Commissioner Collins introduced edits and "whereas" language added by general consent to emphasize that there is no existing data validating letter grades as an accurate measure of learning in this unprecedented emergency, and to require the district to ensure credit-recovery options and provide teacher guidance for equitable grading during the pandemic. The board also accepted language directing partnerships with community-based organizations to support students facing hardship.

During public comment, parents, counselors, union representatives and students voiced divergent views, with some asking for universal A's for the semester and others urging pass/no-pass or optional choices. United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) urged policies that preserve teachers— authority to grade while recommending safeguards to hold students harmless; UESF President Susan Solomon told the board the MOUs and guidance would expire June 30 unless extended by mutual agreement.

The resolution passed on roll call after amendments and public debate. The board—s vote followed a failed student motion to adopt a hybrid optional A–F/pass policy. The board required staff to return with detailed implementation steps and supports focused on equity, credit recovery, and students with special needs.

What happens next: Staff will report to the board by May 27 on distance-learning metrics and will present a summer/fall plan by June 30 to assess learning loss and provide interventions. The resolution explicitly directs district lobbying for additional local, state and federal resources to address increased needs stemming from pandemic-related learning loss.

Provenance: The grading proposal was introduced and discussed across the meeting beginning with the suspension-of-rules motion and staff presentation (SEG 1990) through the public comment period (SEG 2580'1—) and the board—s final roll-call vote (SEG 5110'1—).