Board committee weighs counting End‑of‑Course exams in grades; agrees to pilot 5% weighting

Board President Natalia Lutz led a curricular review of End‑of‑Course (EOC) assessments and proposed changes to how the district records and weights those results. Staff presented Missouri EOC blueprints and district alignment, teacher survey findings and student input, and the academic services team outlined three action steps including a student recognition system and a plan to include EOC results on transcripts.

"We always put students first," Lutz said as she opened the discussion, framing the proposed steps as an effort to "keep student learning growth and equity at the center of decisions." Staff described teacher survey results from 26 respondents showing mixed views of how seriously students take EOCs; the report said 46.2% of the responding teachers called student seriousness "not very seriously" and another 46.2% called it "somewhat seriously," and 65.4% favored showing EOC results on transcripts and tying results to course grades in some way.

The academic services team proposed three concrete actions: (1) create a student recognition system for EOC achievement (tiered awards such as silver, gold, platinum); (2) set a consistent grade‑book policy so EOC results count as a percentage of a second‑semester course grade (staff initially proposed 10%); and (3) celebrate spring 2026 honorees to reinforce that scholarship is valued. Staff also explained technical timing: teachers receive raw EOC scores shortly after the district testing window (staff said raw scores typically arrive within about 10 business days), but state cut scores that determine the ‘‘advanced/proficient/basic’’ bands are not applied until later in the summer.

Student Alex Penland, who had attended a student conference the district ran, told the committee that students at Benton generally supported attaching weight to the EOC because it created motivation. "None of us really minded it. We thought that it would be, for the most part, a good motivation for the students there to give a little more effort for the EOC testing," Alex said.

Committee members and parents pressed on two main concerns: timing and equity. Several parents warned that adding a 10% weight immediately could unfairly penalize students who are already experiencing academic or emotional stress this year, or who may change schools before the end of the year. One committee member recommended phasing the change in, and another noted common practice in peer districts: staff said 18 of 24 nearby districts include some accountability for EOCs on transcripts or in course grades, and that the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) recommendation cited to the committee ranged from 10% to 25%.

After discussion, the committee signaled consensus for a phased approach: staff and the academic services team will set an initial 5% weighting (a tiered introduction) and return with implementation language and data. "I think that's for sure," Lutz said when the group discussed starting at 5% and studying the results. The academic services team will also prepare communications and a plan to solicit broader student and parent input (staff discussed using surveys and informational materials so families and students understand any change before it takes effect).

Staff emphasized that accommodations required by students' IEPs and EL plans would remain in place during the testing window and that grades should be adjusted only where the student's written plan directs it. The next procedural steps: academic services will draft the grading policy language, plan a phased rollout beginning with a 5% pilot, bring back projected impacts at a later meeting, and the board will honor top‑performing students at the upcoming board meeting as part of the recognition effort.

The committee closed the session asking staff to return with concrete wording for the grade‑book policy, survey results from a broader student/parent sample and projected score impacts under different weighting scenarios.