Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Outcomes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates interim goals and a voluntary "grading for equity" pilot as staff seek numeric targets
Summary
District staff presented updated interim goals for 2025-26, explained why middle-grade math benchmarks focus on sixth through eighth grade, and defended a voluntary "grading for equity" pilot that emphasizes mastery and retakes; several commissioners voiced concern about equity impacts and called for clearer targets and data.
District staff presented updated interim goals for the 2025-26 school year and fielded extended questions from board members about data timelines, the predictive value of STAR Math for SBAC, and a voluntary grading-for-equity pilot planned for some high-school classrooms.
Presenters told the board they had not yet set numerical targets because end-of-year district assessments and teacher surveys were still being processed; staff said they expected to provide initial targets within a few weeks and offered to share the variance criteria and decision logic used to set those targets.
On academic measures, staff said STA R Math (STAR Math) is broadly predictive of SBAC math performance and therefore useful as an interim indicator tied to college- and career-readiness metrics. The presenters also explained that the district chose to concentrate a middle-grade math initiative on sixth, seventh and eighth grades because performance often drops at the transition to middle school; staff said they will continue to monitor earlier grades and site-level data.
A lengthy exchange focused on a voluntary "grading for equity" effort that staff described as a form of mastery- or standards-based grading. Commissioners raised multiple concerns: that a policy framing 100% of a course grade on summative assessments could reduce daily practice and skill-building, that students or families could be confused if grading practices vary by teacher, and that the approach might unintentionally disadvantage already-marginalized students.
District staff answered by stressing teacher choice and site-level rollout: participation is voluntary, and "assessments" could include quizzes, classroom discussions or performance tasks (not only a single high-stakes test). Staff emphasized multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery, retake provisions, office hours and the use of clear rubrics; they said the district plans to pilot practices with interested teachers and to communicate grading approaches in each teachers syllabus and at back-to-school events.
Commissioners pressed for more public transparency (for example, adding interim-goal data to the district's Tableau dashboards) and asked staff to surface the evidence behind choices such as grade-level selection and targeted groups. Staff agreed to provide additional documentation and to present their logic and thresholds to the board prior to finalizing numerical targets.
Several board members voiced deep concern about low proficiency rates reported for some student groups (one commissioner said the 6th-grade STAR proficiency rate for African American students was cited at 5.8% in the materials and described the data as "wildly unacceptable"). The board emphasized that any policy changes should be accompanied by site-level supports, tutoring and professional development for teachers so changes do not widen existing inequities.
