GRADING ADVISORY TEAM UPDATE FOR THE COMMUNITY JUNE 18, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS The team discussed how the pandemic-forced closure of school buildings and virtual instruction I. Background exacerbated the inequities of traditional grading practices. Initial conversations focused on II. Overview: What has been accomplished so far significant disproportionality in student outcomes III. Role and Charge of the Grading Advisory Team between student groups and inconsistencies within IV. Changes to Grading 2020-21 content areas, between classrooms, and across V. Current Status buildings. It was clear that traditional grading practices were not serving students and have a VI. Draft Rationale, Purpose, and Philosophy Statements significant impact on post-graduation. The team VII. Initial Feedback was motivated by State Superintendent Chris VIII. Preliminary Recommendations Reykdal’s challenge contained in the OSPI IX. Next Steps Guidance: X. Appendices “The pandemic is a call to action for our I. BACKGROUND education system to reassess our grading practices. Now is the time for school leaders At the end of the school year in June 2020, a group of and educators to make grades meaningfully educators formed a summer book study group based on aligned to fewer specific standards, combined Joe Feldman’s Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It with feedback that gives students multiple Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools (2018). Schools opportunities to demonstrate learning and put had been closed since mid-March and many educators homework and extra credit in its proper place. were examining their grading practices in the context of Now is the time to decouple behavior and remote learning. The formation of this group captured the compliance activities from assessing student attention of Bellevue School District (BSD) educators and learning.” over 100 participated in the study group to explore equitable grading practices. This organic movement created tremendous momentum for changes to traditional grading practices, many of which result in student grades that are not an accurate reflection of learning, are subject to teachers’ personal biases, and fail to motivate students. This momentum coincided with the June 12, 2020 publication of OSPI’s Reopening Washington Schools 2020: District Planning Guide. Districts were required to “examine how their decisions A team of educators was convened about grading polices will affect each student group and during July 2020 to determine 2020-21 create an equitable system of instruction, assessment and grading.” A team of educators was convened during July grading policies for the BSD. 2020, to determine 2020-21 grading policies for the BSD. GRADING ADVISORY TEAM UPDATE FOR THE COMMUNITY 2 JUNE 18, 2021 The team met regularly over the summer months and Through the Meet and Confer Process, it was agreed developed a comprehensive Grading Plan Proposal, that the Grading Advisory Team (GAT) have which was reviewed by the district’s Fall Reopening representation that is reflective of the diversity of the Steering Committee and the Bellevue Education district and that members represent different school Association/Bellevue School District team that levels, schools, content areas and programs. The GAT negotiated the August MoU. The MoU included the began meeting in early October 2020, and included following guidelines for best practices in grading for representation from both middle and high school the 2020-21 school year: teachers, administrators, and parents. It was also decided that due to the far more significant role that Classroom assessment is aligned to standards. grades play at the secondary level, there would be a Students are provided with multiple opportunities to separate process for considering changes to demonstrate learning. elementary school grading and reporting. Students can re-take and/or re-do summative Furthermore, it was determined that rather than assessments. have student representatives on the team, it would Late work used to assess student learning is fully be more effective and authentic to include a variety recognized to demonstrate proficiency. of options for student participation once the team was at the place in the process where student In accordance with the conclusions of the summer feedback would be most meaningful. grading team, the MoU also called for a team to be formed to examine deeper shifts in district grading practices and stated that the composition and membership of the team would be agreed upon through the Meet and Confer Process. MEMBERS ADVISORS Zack Daniels, Instructional Mentor John Harrison, Chief of Staff Suzanne Reeve, ITCL at Odle Middle School and Sammamish High School Naomi Calvo, Director of Research, Hava Rosenberg, Teacher at Bellevue High School Evaluation and Assessment Amy Stern, Teacher at Highland Middle School Tom Duenwald, Director of Abigail Horsfall, Teacher at Chinook Middle School Educational Technology Susan Thomas, Principal at Highland Middle School James Peterson, Principal at Tillicum Middle School Jocelyn Alexander Shaw, Assistant Principal at Interlake High School INTEREST-BASED STRATEGIES Vic Anderson, Principal at Bellevue High School PROCESS FACILITATORS Melissa Lloyd, Parent Alexa Allman, Director of Human Matt Roberts, Parent Relations Melissa Richardson, Parent Michele Miller, Recruitment and Caroline Titan, Equity Specialist Retention, Leadership Development, Simone Hamilton, Equity Specialist and Facilitation Specialist GRADING ADVISORY TEAM UPDATE FOR THE COMMUNITY 3 JUNE 18, 2021 II. OVERVIEW – WHAT HAS This report explain in more detail the progress of the GAT to date, as well as the plans for the continuation BEEN ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR of this important work into summer and fall 2021. Section III describes the role and charge of the GAT; What follows is a high-level summary of what the GAT Section IV explains the changes to grading that were has achieved this year (2020-21): implemented this school year. Sections V, VI and VII explain the current state of the work, while Section Used the Interest-based Strategies process to engage team members in describing the aspects of VIII outlines the next steps for the work, where broad the grading challenges in BSD and brainstorming stakeholder engagement is planned to ensure the potential options. participation of students, staff and families. Developed a proposal to change middle and high school semester (final) grades for the current school III. ROLE AND CHARGE OF THE year, including: Replace “F” grades with an “NC” for high school GRADING ADVISORY TEAM credit classes and “NE” for non-credit middle school courses. An “NC” grade would not The charge of the team is to work with educators, generate credit and would not impact the GPA. students, and families to develop recommendations Students can request a “P” designation instead for a district-wide grading plan by May 2021. of the grade assigned by the teacher for “B” Although the timing was adjusted as described in and “C” grades. “D” grades are automatically Section V, the team’s mission continues to be to converted to “P.” gather input from relevant stakeholders, collect data on assessment and grading, review research on best Began the process to define “what a high-quality equitable grading system that accurately reflects practices to build shared understanding of what a learning" looks like, including: better system will look like, and make Developed a data-informed understanding of recommendations to the District. It is anticipated the current state of grades in the BSD that these recommendations will be implemented Developed a draft Rationale for Changing over a two to three year period. Grading Practices statement Created a draft Purpose of Grades statement It was determined through the Meet and Confer Defined a draft Philosophy of Grading process that the team would use the Interest Based Gathered feedback from students and staff on the Strategies (IBS) approach. An essential question was implementation of the four grading practices developed to guide the process: “What does a high- outlined in the August MoU. quality equitable grading system that accurately reflects learning look like?” Defined next steps for continuing the work in 2021- 22. The first phase of the IBS process is the “story,” where the team examined the essential question from the perspectives of all team members. All voices were heard and there was no evaluation of input provided. Contradictory statements were allowable The charge of the team is to work with and encouraged to provide for individual educators, students, and families to perspectives. The second phase is “interests,” where participants explored their motivations for answering develop recommendations for a district- the essential question, in an effort to answer the wide grading plan. “why” of doing this work. The third phase is “options,” where the group considered designs for how to solve the problem posed by the essential question. During GRADING ADVISORY TEAM UPDATE FOR THE COMMUNITY 4 JUNE 18, 2021 this free flow of ideas, all suggestions were considered regardless of impracticality or negative Four best grading practices were reaction. All suggestions were taken into implemented for the 2020-21 school year: consideration to allow for greater creativity. The IBS process was concluded in mid-March 2021 with the Classroom assessment is aligned to standards. completion of the options phase. Appendix 1 lists the options developed by the group. At this time, a Students are provided with