Dr.
Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent
Montgomery
County Public Schools
Ms
Pat O’Neill, President
Dear
Dr. Weast and President O’Neill:
On behalf of the MCCPTA Grading
and Reporting Committee and the MCCPTA Executive Board, we are writing to
express our grave concern about the inconsistent, and often unfair,
implementation of the grading and reporting policy. Reaction within the parent
community is passionate and intense because the children “pioneering” this new
policy are also the ones who have to live with any long term adverse
implications of our experimentation. At
this time we will limit our focus to inconsistent implementation of
reassessment practices as we understand that MCPS leadership is now working on
the development of a “reassessment protocol”. We are already well into the
second marking period of the year. Unfortunately, students have been subjected
to reassessment guidelines being interpreted in varied and directly conflicting
ways among our schools. Action is needed to correct the haphazard
implementation of reassessment practices. Accordingly, we write to strongly
urge inclusion of certain basic mandates in any protocol being developed.
First, and perhaps most
importantly, it would be our recommendation that any protocol developed must be
immediately applied at every grade level. We include high school because while
we are aware that the Board of Education did not intend for high schools (other
than the two official pilots at Walter Johnson and Seneca Valley) to be
implementing the new grading and reporting policy this year, the reality is
that many high schools have proceeded with some experimentation and
implementation of grading and reporting changes. Implementation has resulted in
enormously inconsistent grading procedures within departments and between
schools especially in the area of reassessment. It should be noted that the
inconsistencies described are occurring not only at the high school level but
in middle schools as well where they have been required to adopt the new
grading and reporting policy. For
example, some of our middle and high schools will only allow students to retake
an assessment if they score a grade of “C” or lower, whereas other middle and
high schools will only allow re-testing if the student scores a grade of “D” or
below and yet others are allowing any student in the class, irrespective of
their initial grade, to take a reassessment if they want to try and improve
their performance and grade. Moreover, some of our schools are imposing a “cap”
on the grade a student may earn after re-assessment. As a result, in some
schools a student may not earn better than a grade of “C” upon a reassessment
whereas at other schools, a student may earn up to a grade of “A” on a
reassessment. Furthermore, parents report that reassessment practices are not
even uniform across departments within the same school building. This drastic
variation within and across schools is patently unfair. Within our county, a
student taking geometry at one school should not have advantages in relearning
and reassessment that are denied to a geometry student at another school by the
accident of neighborhood geography.
For this reason, we urge that upon completion of the
reassessment protocol, it be immediately applied to all schools in order to
correct the discrepancies that have resulted from the inconsistent application
of reassessment procedures. Though high
schools are not yet “required” to be implementing other grading and reporting
changes, we must immediately eliminate the discrepancies that allow for a
geometry student in one high school to take a reassessment in order to go from
a “B” to an “A” whereas a similarly situated student at another county high
school would be barred from the reassessment unless she got a “D”. There needs
to be a single standard that is applied to trigger reassessment in all our
schools at all levels. Whether MCPS
chooses to apply that standard by subject, by department or by grade level, it
must achieve fairness. Such standardization is essential to reaching the
policy’s stated goal of consistency in grading across the county. In addition,
we urge that the protocol categorically eliminate any “caps” on the grade that
a student may earn upon reassessment.
The goal of the new policy is to support all students to achieve to
their fullest potential and demonstrate their academic mastery. If after
additional study and effort a student is able to demonstrate understanding and
mastery at an “A” or “B” level, he should be awarded the grade that accurately
reflects his academic achievement and not arbitrarily capped at a “C”.
Second,
any reassessment protocol must include a requirement for, and guidelines
regarding, communication with parents.
To date, parents have not been advised, orally or in writing, of the
reassessment practices at their local schools.
No information has been shared as to the decisions made within
particular departments or at the school wide level regarding reassessment. The
result is that many parents are not even aware of the option for reassessment
and are therefore not able to support their children in seeking extra help and
reassessment opportunities. There has been inadequate attention paid to
informing parents about the reteaching and reassessment practices that are the
lynchpin to supporting students in attaining mastery. We urge that the protocol
include a standardized communication explaining the guidelines adopted for
reassessment and that every school be required to share this information with
the parent body. For example, if schools are using “weighted” assessments and
if the weight of an assessment is used as a measure of reassessment eligibility,
that must be clearly articulated and communicated to students and parents.
Indeed, we urge that parents receive timely and accurate communications
regarding all aspects of the grading policy—not only reassessment -- as it is
being implemented.
Third, parents express great
concern about the opportunities for additional remediation and reassessment on
unit tests in math or on other county mandated tests where the current
prohibition against allowing students to take the test home interferes with the
student’s ability to study and prepare for reassessment. In these instances,
students are granted only a very limited chance to review their initial
assessment and see the errors they made.
Precisely because students are not allowed to hold on to these specific
tests, their ability to study and practice toward greater learning and deeper
mastery is hampered. We urge that the
reassessment protocol specifically address this obstacle and that, if
necessary, changes be made to practices so that this obstacle can be
eliminated.
Finally, we urge MCPS to articulate the need for multiple assessments and for a greater variety in the types of assessments which are used in grading our students. The spirit of the new grading policy requires that we recognize, and incorporate into our assessment practice, the understanding that due to their unique learning styles, not all students will be able to demonstrate their mastery in a specific format or on any single assessment. In order to program for student success, the protocol must institutionalize these practices and require multiple and varied assessments that will expand the opportunities for students of all different learning aptitudes to demonstrate their mastery in a format suited to their strengths. Our commitment to the success of every student requires that we expand the range of assessments permitted for consideration of mastery so that we have the most accurate gauge of actual student learning. Though we have been told that this is the intent of the policy and the goal of the implementation, development of the assessment protocol is a critical opportunity to revisit and institutionalize MCPS’ commitment to providing many and varied assessments to ensure that every student has an opportunity to demonstrate mastery. It is also an opportunity to ensure that our teachers are given the support in resources and time that they need to fully develop and implement such a multifaceted assessment and reassessment regimen.
We
thank you in advance for your attention to these pressing concerns. MCCPTA
stands ready to assist in the review of any draft reassessment protocol. A
standardized guideline for reassessment across the county is essential for our
students and overdue.
Sincerely,
Shirley Brandman, MCCPTA
Vice President
On
behalf of the
MCCPTA
Committee on Grading and Reporting
MCCPTA
Executive Board
Cc:
Dr. Frieda Lacey
Dale Fulton
Betsy Brown
Dr. Karen Harvey