Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grading task force: Portland staff say inconsistent grading and schedules hinder dashboards and equity work
Summary
Staff told the Curriculum and Student Success Committee that varying grading scales, different credit cadences and inconsistent schedules across high schools complicate district data systems and may contribute to inequity; task force will start with artifact review and a small stakeholder group before wider engagement.
Haley, a lead for the district’s grading review, told the Curriculum and Student Success Committee on May 11 that an initial data investigation revealed substantial variability in high‑school grading practice and course scheduling that limits the district’s ability to produce reliable dashboards and to monitor equity across schools.
"The deeper we get into this work, the more nuanced our understanding becomes," Haley said, describing how different buildings use different grading scales (A–F versus 1–4), assign credit on different cadences (quarter, semester, year), and operate schedules that provide different instructional minutes and collaboration time. That variability makes it harder for the data team to automate reports and for leaders to compare outcomes across schools.
Staff connected the grading/schedule issues to a 2022 board resolution on high‑school alignment and said the task force’s scope expanded because schedules and grading are tightly linked. The team recommends starting with an artifact review and a small group of close‑in stakeholders (high‑school leaders, data staff and strategic‑plan leads) to develop an initial recommendation for a more aligned schedule and grading structure before seeking broader input.
Committee members asked whether proposed changes would combine academic proficiency with behavior or homework in a single grade, and how a common scale would affect GPA and college admissions. Haley and other staff said the task force intends to define a common language for proficiency while preserving differentiated instruction and supports for students with IEPs and 504 plans, and to include post‑secondary stakeholders when examining transcript and GPA implications.
The grading work remains in early stages; staff said the next steps are artifact collection, targeted stakeholder engagement and drafting initial recommendations for schedule and grading alignment.
After the discussion the committee adjourned; staff said they will return with additional artifacts and recommended next steps from the smaller task‑force group.
