SFUSD trustees debate spring grading options amid calls for equity and clarity

San Francisco Unified School District trustees spent a lengthy portion of their April 14 virtual meeting debating how the district should record student grades for spring 2020 as schools operate under distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The conversation threaded concerns about equity, college admissions and the mental health of students.

Deputy Superintendent Anikia Forté Martell told the board the district is approaching the question with an explicit equity lens and urged the board to avoid harming students who lack reliable devices, internet or caregiver support. "If students do not have access, we will not hold them accountable to distance learning," she said, summarizing guidance staff had already issued to principals and teachers.

Parents, community organizations and labor representatives urged the board to avoid punitive grading. Julie Roberts Fung and other public commenters described widened equity gaps and asked that community groups be included in planning. Susan Solomon, president of the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), said union members supported measures that prevent students from receiving failing marks because of the pandemic.

Student delegates argued students should be protected from additional stress. Student Delegate Herrera said many pupils have lost access to peers and technology and recommended default passing grades to relieve anxiety.

Trustees discussed several concrete options presented by staff: for younger children (TK–5) to rely on narrative feedback rather than grades; for grades 6–8 and high school to consider either an A or Incomplete approach, a districtwide pass/no-pass system, or preserving letter grades but ensuring no student receives a lower semester mark than they had before shelter-in-place.

Several trustees noted that the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) had told districts that, for admissions comparability, a district should present either A–F letter grades for all students or adopt a pass/no-pass system across the district; mixed systems could undermine applicants. "As a system, we'd have to have one system for them to evaluate students," staff told the board.

Opinions among trustees varied. Some favored default A’s or pass/no-pass to prevent harm and stress; others raised concerns that giving universal A’s could disincentivize engagement and that leaving the choice to students could perpetuate inequity because resource-rich students could better exercise options.

Trustees asked staff to return with a concrete, implementable policy, clear family-facing messaging and an assessment of implications for seniors, credit-recovery students and selective‑admissions processes (such as Lowell High School). Superintendent Vincent Matthews said staff would gather additional information, including guidance from state and higher‑education authorities, and present options at a future meeting.

Next steps: the board directed staff to prepare a district policy proposal incorporating the board’s direction and clarifications about college‑admissions impacts, with an emphasis on centralized messaging so teachers understand that students without access will not be penalized.