Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSAD 60 presents proficiency-based grading; board and parents debate numeric GPA comparisons
Summary
District leaders described a proficiency-based grading model at Noble/Bridal High School, stressing separate academic and work-habits marks and transparency. Board members and parents raised concerns that numeric scale differences and AI-based screening could disadvantage students when compared across schools.
District administrators presented a workshop on proficiency-based grading at Noble/Bridal High School on July 16, telling the MSAD 60 board that the system emphasizes demonstrable academic proficiency and clearer communication about what students know.
"Students must have met these, in order to receive a diploma from the high school," the presenter said, describing a model built around school design, teaming, targeted supports and multiple learning pathways. Administrators said the district issues two marks per course: a semester academic grade for content and a separate grade for work habits.
The administrators framed the approach as a researched best practice and cited a collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and broad uptake by educators. "Nearly 4,000 educators have taken this course from nearly 120 countries around the world," the presenter said as evidence the model has external validation.
Board members and parents focused questions on how numeric grade scales affect GPA comparisons. One board member noted that many local high-performing schools use a 93–100 cut for an A, while others use a 90–100 (10-point) scale. A parent and board member argued that, because some colleges and employers may use automated initial screens, students from a school using a 93–100 A-range could receive lower GPAs in raw numeric comparisons.
"With AI now filtering that first initial round of students, it really concerns me that there's gonna be a couple years where our kids are falling through the cracks because we're being compared not just to other schools in our district, but to all of them in the country," a parent said during the discussion.
Administrators responded that admissions officers commonly review school profiles and percentages as part of application reviews and that school counselors regularly work with admission offices to explain local grading practices. They also said the district can provide specific examples where the system benefits students if board members request them.
Supporters at the meeting said the two-grade approach increases transparency about which skills a student has mastered, and helps teachers pinpoint schoolwide areas that need intervention. Critics worried subjective nonacademic measures — "work habits" such as organization or timeliness — could introduce bias for students with developmental differences, and urged careful calibration and safeguards.
The board did not take formal action on the grading system at the workshop; administrators said they would collect additional comparative data from other schools and return with follow-up information.
