Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hamtramck students urge board to change grading weights and late-arrival policy
Summary
Multiple Hamtramck High students told the board that tests accounting for roughly 70% of course grades and a late-arrival policy that sends students to the auditorium are demotivating and unfair; students asked the board to reduce summative weight and reconsider the tardy procedure.
Several Hamtramck High School students addressed the board in a sustained public-comment segment, urging changes to the grading system and the school’s late-arrival policy.
"Grades should represent more than test performance," student Erna Balia told trustees, saying assignments and daily work do not carry enough weight and a single poor test can damage a student’s grade. Multiple students described a grading structure in which summative assessments — "tests and projects" — account for about 70% of a final grade while formative work counts roughly 20% and the final exam is around 10%.
Senior Maria Shaw said the system "had the opposite" of its intended effect, describing cases in which a high progress score was reduced after a single exam. "A singular test being worth 70% can incur a student's grade from passing all the way to borderline failing," she said. Several students recommended shifting to a model where assignments are 40% and tests 60% or otherwise raising the relative value of daily work.
Students also criticized the late-arrival policy that requires students who arrive after 07:50 a.m. to go to the auditorium. "We lose first-hour instruction and it's a waste of time," said a student who described sitting in the auditorium with limited supervision and little opportunity to work. Another student said the policy had become stricter this year and that some students were required to bring a parent if they arrive after 08:30 a.m.
Trustees thanked students for speaking, encouraged continued communication and asked staff to investigate the auditorium procedure and supervision. The board chair said trustees would follow up and suggested students email the board with details; one trustee offered to observe the auditorium first thing the following day.
Next steps: staff were asked to review grading and attendance practices and return with clarifications or recommendations; students were encouraged to submit written concerns and supporting examples to the board.
