Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Gradebook Grievance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee denies union grievance over K‑2 electronic grade book and "transfer of data" claim
Summary
A Stamford School District board committee denied a teachers' union grievance that argued elementary teachers were being required to transfer K‑2 assessment data into a district spreadsheet tied to a new electronic grade book; the committee said a written opinion will clarify whether use is mandatory and recommended the administration communicate guidance to buildings.
A committee of the Stamford School District Board of Education on an unspecified date denied a grievance filed by the teachers' union alleging the district had been requiring elementary teachers to enter K‑2 assessment results into a district-created electronic spreadsheet, a practice the union said violated a 2014 memorandum of agreement (MOA) on ‘‘transfer of data.’’
The union representative who presented the grievance argued multiple elementary schools had been told by administrators that teachers must put K‑2 quiz and unit-test results into the district spreadsheet, creating the impression of a mandate. "And that is a clear violation of the MOA of transferring data," the union representative said during the committee meeting.
Why it matters: The dispute hinges on whether recording scores in a single electronic grade book counts as an impermissible transfer of mandated-test data under the 2014 MOA, which the union says forbids placing mandated-test data into separate recording databases without negotiation. If the district is deemed to be requiring an extra transcription step, the union says that would change working conditions and require bargaining.
Administration officials told the committee the situation is different from the 2014 practice that led to the MOA. Dr. Michael Fernandez, speaking for the administration, said the current practice is use of an electronic grade book to record assessments — "This is an electronic grade book," he said — and characterized that work as teachers carrying out their professional responsibility to record student assessments rather than performing a duplicative clerical transfer to a separate state-facing database.
Amy Baldotti, who described the rollout of the new K–2 math curriculum and the district tool, told the committee the grade book was designed "to ensure that our goal of consistency of grading is met" and to give teachers formative data to shape instruction. Baldotti said the district provided step‑by‑step instructions and that using the sheet reduces errors and the time teachers spend on complex hand calculations.
Board members pressed both sides on whether use of the district sheet is optional. Administrators said there has been no district directive ordering teachers to use the spreadsheet, and characterized it as a strongly recommended tool; the union countered that building-level administrators in multiple schools had communicated it as mandatory, prompting the grievance.
During deliberations the committee discussed the tradeoffs between mandating the electronic system — which would create a single, uniform method of recording — and the implications for bargaining and working conditions. The union warned that a formal mandate could constitute a change in working conditions and would need to be negotiated.
Outcome: After private deliberation the committee voted to deny the grievance "as submitted." The motion was made by the committee chair and seconded; members announced their approval on the record. Committee members said a written opinion would follow that will, among other things, clarify whether the administration's current practice requires teachers to enter K‑2 assessment scores into the district spreadsheet and recommend that the administration communicate clear guidance to elementary administrators and teachers.
What was not decided: The committee's denial did not resolve the underlying ambiguity about whether use of the district electronic grade book is mandatory in practice; the committee expressly directed the administration to clarify the requirement in writing, recognizing that a formal directive would trigger negotiation rights under the MOA.
The committee also noted the district's stated goals for the tool — consistency of grading and better formative data for instruction — and invited further administrative clarification of how the grade‑book data will be used and whether alternative recording methods (paper or local grade books) would be accepted provided the final reported grades are calculated to the district's algorithm.
The committee meeting concluded with the promise of a written opinion and administrative communication to elementary buildings to reduce confusion and avoid potential disciplinary actions stemming from inconsistent messages about use of the tool.
