CLEARFIELD – A parent committee member raised concerns over the grading system at the Clearfield Area Elementary School during the public comment period of Monday night’s regular school board meeting.
The CAES grading system uses a 1-2-3 scale, said Parent Bryan Shobert. Teachers award a 1 to a student not meeting content material standards, a 2 to a student regularly meeting content material standards and a 3 to a student exceeding content material standards.
“It’s so broad and parents struggle with understanding their child’s progress,” said Shobert. “A 2 may range anywhere from barely passing to an ‘A’ or an ‘A-.’ And, some grades aren’t even tested above grade level, or at a 3, until the second half of the year.”
Shobert said he’s engaged teachers and parents at the committee meetings, and he hasn’t found anyone who likes this grading system. He said they would like to see the district implement a simpler and more parent-friendly elementary grading system.
“Parents are trying to understand it as ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ ‘D,’ ‘F,’ but this grading system isn’t set up that way,” he said. “As the year goes on, it seems to be a floating scale with kids expected to know more. The whole concept seems to throw parents off.”
Shobert asked the board if it planned to review the grading system, which is expected to expand to include the sixth grade next year. Board President Mary Anne Jackson asked Shobert if he had discussed the parent committee’s concerns over the grading system with CAES Principal Mary Michael Sayers and Assistant Principal Andrew Brickley.
Shobert said he had not to which Jackson advised that should have been his first step. She said although the board ultimately finalizes school matters, such as the grading system, any new ideas, changes or improvements come from their school administrators.
“It seems to me that you’re skipping a step,” said Jackson. “It’s better to talk to the people who are administering the grading system.” Shobert then asked Sayers and Brickley for their comment on the parent committee’s concerns so far as the CAES grading system.
Bruce Nicolls, director of curriculum, instruction and federal programs, said he chaired a committee in recent years, which developed the current elementary grading system. Sayers added that it was “standards-based” rather than “percentage-based.”
According to Sayers, they have incorporated parent conferences at the elementary level. She said it allows teachers and staff to sit down with parents for discussion on their children’s progress in regards to end-of-the-year expectations.
“‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C’ doesn’t matter,” she said. “We want students to reach certain expectations by the end of the school year.” Nicolls added that, “Parents get ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C’ and 80, 90 percent. But with students being held accountable to attaining an understanding of standards, ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C’ and 80, 90 percent are only a representation of an accumulation of points.”
Nicolls pointed out that students can accumulate points by completing a lot of work and turning in extra credit. This, he said, doesn’t always mean students have an understanding of the material. Nicolls said the grading system has a broad design and does float, noting a 2 doesn’t represent the same body in November as it does in May.
He explained that grading systems are a “balancing act.” He said the elementary school is trying to create a historical record of students’ grades and teachers are trying to represent students’ progress and to communicate something meaningful to parents.
According to Nicolls, his committee explored numerous grading system options for report cards. He said once narrowed to two or three drafts, he and another school district official presented them to parents in the parking lot for feedback.
Shobert said it was his understanding that teachers must explain the grading system to just about every parent during conferences. Nicolls said that dialogue between the teacher and parent was a positive.
“My kid has an 89 [percent] tells me almost nothing,” said Nicolls. “It tells me they managed to accumulate that many points. A parent/teacher conversation about both their strong areas and struggles is much more beneficial.”
When asked by board member Tim Morgan, Nicolls said the committee didn’t look into grading systems used by other local schools. Instead, he said it reviewed report cards used by schools across the country, which were easily accessed online.
Additionally, Nicolls said the committee anticipated the implementation of common core standards. For that reason, he said they selected a report card that not only listed broad subject areas, but also divided them further into related categories.
Board member Gail Ralston asked if there was a percentage available so far as the number of elementary parents participating in the conferences with teachers. She realized parent/teacher conferences were scheduled; however, she pointed out some parents might not be able to attend.
Sayers said she couldn’t provide a percentage at the meeting. She said it was the first year for the elementary school to conduct the parent/teacher conferences, and it was still a work in progress. Ralston said it was “critical information” that would help them determine if they were “hitting the target or not.”
Shobert said it was his understanding that it was hard for parents to meet with teachers during the day with their work schedules. He said it was usually more feasible for parents to attend conferences with teachers at the school in the evenings.
Brickley said they could debate the grading system all day. He also said that he regularly fields numerous phone calls from parents and hasn’t received one regarding the elementary grading system, but added it’s something they can look at.