Grading Policy IKA 2 nd Reader Presentation to the Baltimore City - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 Grading Policy IKA 2 nd Reader Presentation to the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners May 14, 2019 Sean Conley Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises Chief Executive Officer, Baltimore City Public Schools Chief Academic Officer

Updates from First Reader 2 Addition of Incomplete, Late, and Pass grades for various • student transfer scenarios. Differentiation of Pre-K Grading Practices • Baltimore Movement of Rank-and-File Educators • (BMORE) emphasized concerns regarding the impact of weekly grade entry on available planning time. We do not propose making changes to this regulation language. There are no proposed changes to the minimum quarter • grade of 50 percent.

Stakeholder Engagement 3 In addition to our survey, we have completed the following engagements: Associated Student Congress of Baltimore City • Parent Community Advisory Board • Senior District Leadership • Baltimore Movement of Rank-and-File Educators (BMORE) • SECAC • Eight stakeholder events (Seven public sessions — one Spanish language and • Facebook Live) Student Panel • We invited to engage and delivered documents to: Baltimore Teachers Union • Baltimore City Public School Administrators and Supervisors Association • Charter and Operator-led Schools Advisory Board • The Maryland Alliance of Public Charter Schools •

Background 4 Baltimore City Public Schools instituted its first • grading policy in 2011. City Schools currently allows schools to create their • own grading policies pursuant to district guidelines.

Summary of Direct Stakeholder Feedback 5 Audience specific survey. We received responses from: 1,267 Students • 552 Teachers • 474 Parents/Community Members • 140 Counselors/Administrators •

City Schools Grading Committee Process 6 Research Best Practices/Other Districts Comparative Analysis from Current district office Standards Based Grading Other Peer and MD Districts limitations Survey Our Stakeholders Panels with students, parents. Panels planned Districtwide Survey with teachers as proposal becomes more clarified. Apply Policy Revisions Policy revisions triangulate research based best practices, stakeholder feedback, and district capacity.

Challenges 7 Challenge Summary of Public Feedback Current Proposal Equity while Administrators believe policy Places some bounds on category maintaining should be centralized. Parents weights. Subject specific guidance school level and teachers want more school on what is included as an flexibility and and teacher level innovation. assessment. innovation Advancing Grading should reflect mastery Increase in assessment weight is towards research- but include other non-mastery a small step in a research-based based grading components. direction. practices given district capacity B’More Rank and File Educators encouraged us to not try to fit standards based grading in a non-standards based framework.

Challenges (Cont.) 8 Challenge Summary of Public Current Proposal Feedback Frequency of More frequent feedback is Once per week for core communicating grades while necessary. subjects. Subject specific honoring non-core subjects guidance for non-core subjects and Pre-K. Reassessment — Best practice Encouragement to allow and Encouragement for schools but hard to systematize for support reassessment for to reassess, but without 180 schools students specific guidance at this time.

Proposed Regulation Change: Category Weight 9 Minimum of 70 percent of grade on assessments (exams, projects, presentations, papers). Maximum of 30 percent grade on classwork, participation, and homework. Homework can be no more than one third of this portion of the grade.

Proposed Change: Increase Communication of Grades 10 Proposed Programmatic Justification Change Consideration • Moves statement of • Plurality of • Technology to frequency to surveyed teachers proactively inform regulation and majority of students and other stakeholders families of grade • Teachers will support change. related issues. record grades using the online grade • Parents need more book program used regular data to stay throughout City connected with Schools and will student update grades at a performance. minimum of once per week for core subjects

Affirmation: Belief in Multiple Opportunities To Show Mastery 11 Proposal Justification Division • Keep the minimum • Key to student • Major divide in quarterly grade of reengagement Maryland around 50 percent. strategy. practice. • Add an • Research supports • Teachers and encouragement for multiple attempts parents oppose 50 schools to provide towards mastery. percent minimum reassessment grade. • Overwhelming opportunities majority of during the grade students and slight term on mastery majority of components of the administrators grade. support.

Other Policy Revisions 12 Removal of requirement to post school-based grading • policies on school-based website. District will create a communication plan of school based grading policies. Statement articulating district grade change guidelines. • Statement articulating AP/IB grades to be aligned with their • authorizing organization. Language shifts to apply to multiple student information • systems. Update to the GPA calculation to match the previously • Board-approved revision.

Comments or Questions? Danny Heller Manager, College and Career Readiness deheller@bcps.k12.md.us 13

What is the Primary Purpose of Grading Policy? 14 74.6% 73.0% 66.5% 46.2% 28.7% 15.7% 14.3% 14.6% 14.3% 11.0% 10.6% 7.4% 7.1% 6.8% 5.3% 5.0% Teachers Parents Students Counselors/Administrators Reflect Achievement Reflect Effort/Behavior Motivation to Learn Other

On a Scale from 0 to 3, how much should the following count towards a grade? 15 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 Teachers Parents Students Counselors/Administrators Assessments (Exams, Projects, Presentations, Papers) Attedance Behavior Groupwork HW Classwork--Practice Participation Formative Assessments

At What Level of the City Schools’ Organization Should Grading Policy Be Set? 16 46.7% 35.9% 28.8% 19.7% 19.4% 17.3% 17.5% 17.2% 15.3% 15.3% 12.4% 12.2% 11.0% 9.5% 9.5% 8.0% 4.0% Teachers Parents Counselors/Administrators Classroom Grade Subject/Department School District Other

On a scale from 0-3, how well do you understand standards based grading? 17 46.4% 40.3% 29.1% 26.3% 19.3% 17.9% 11.9% 7.8% 0.8% 0.2% Did Not Answer 0 1 2 3 Teachers Administrators

Parent/Student Understanding of Grades 18 Students: Do you understand Parents: On a scale from 1-4, how you are graded? how well do you understand your student’s grade? 72.0% 36.7% 32.4% 28.0% 19.0% 11.9% Yes No 1 2 3 4

How Frequently Should Grades be Entered Into the Gradebook? 19 60.7% 59.4% 43.0% 34.2% 24.3% 21.5% 17.8% 16.4% 14.8% 5.1% 2.7% Teachers Parents Students Daily Weekly Every Other Week Monthly Less than Monthly

Do you feel our current policy of a 50 as a minimum grade is appropriate or inappropriate? 20 69.1% 69.0% 56.0% 51.5% 48.6% 44.0% 30.7% 30.6% Teachers Parents Students Counselors/Administrators Appropriate Inappropriate

21 Board of School Commissioners Senior Management Team Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises, Chief Executive Officer Cheryl A. Casciani, Chair Alison Perkins-Cohen, Chief of Staff Linda Chinnia, Vice-Chair Shashi Buddula, Interim Chief Technology Officer Dr. Muriel Berkeley Sean L. Conley, Chief Academic Officer Dr. Michelle Harris Bondima John L. Davis, Jr., Chief of Schools Andrew “Andy” Frank Jeremy Grant-Skinner, Chief Human Capital Officer Tina Hike-Hubbard, Chief Communications and Dr. Martha James-Hassan Community Engagement Officer Ronald S. McFadden Theresa Jones, Chief Achievement and Vernon A. Reid Accountability Officer Johnette A. Richardson Tammy L. Turner, Esq., Chief Legal Officer Joshua Lynn, Student Commissioner John Walker, Interim Chief Financial Officer Dr. Lynette Washington, Interim Chief Operating Christian Gant, Esq., Board Executive Officer Officer