Is the System Placing Consistency Ahead of Good Policy?
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Earlier this Fall, a directive about grading went out to the staffs of Easton and St. Michael's High Schools. The directive was issued by principals, Lisa Devaric (EHS) and Todd Stoker(SMMHS). Both were transferred to their respective schools this summer. Here is what the directive stated:
We received a copy of this document from staff.
If you read this document, several things will stand out to you. First, teachers are directed to give no grades below 50% even if a student did not do any work. Next, work with due dates MUST BE ACCEPTED until the end of the marking period WITH NO PENALTY. The rest of the memo details grading for special populations, etc.
This is all part of a grading philosophy called "grading for equity." A philosophy most likely designed with good intent, it is a philosophy that may work theoretically with theoretical students. Unfortunately, schools don't teach theoretical students. Schools teach real, live, human students. We published three articles about this topic:
The Next Big Education Con: "Equity Grading" - The Easton Gazette
Grading For Equity; Destroying Student Resilience? - The Easton Gazette
Creating Lazy, Unaccountable Adults Through Bad Grading Policy - The Easton Gazette
The philosophy was started by former teacher Joe Feldman. Here is a brief description of acceptable equitable grading practices from his book GRADING FOR EQUITY:
...use a 4-point grading scale, weight more recent performances, promote productive group work and high-quality work without a group grade, exclude behaviours from the grade (e.g., lateness, effort, participation), provide non-grade consequences for cheating, use alternatives for late work, reframe homework, allow retakes and opportunities to improve grades, use rubrics to calibrate learning intentions, promote students’ self-regulation and agency through student trackers and goal setting, and more.
Zero-grades, averaging, and extra credit, by contrast, are practices Feldman argues should be dropped.
Joe also has his own consulting company that goes around the country and teaches systems about the concept. He has not done a workshop in Talbot County.
It's interesting that many of his ideas are not included with the Easton High School/St. Michaels Middle High School "grading guidance." The two most destructive, 50% minimum and no penalty for late work, were.
As with most educational fads, this one is quickly being adopted by desperate school systems who have large groups of students who are failing. Rather than focusing on actually fixing the problem of poor student achievement, they run to adopt policies that make it look like students are achieving even when they aren't. The Talbot County Public Schools, according to recent test data, may be stuck in place with little or no improvement in student achievement on state tests. Is this an attempt to hide that?
After we got the information from a school staff member, The Easton Gazette discovered that the grading process being promoted by the two principals in Talbot County was not officially endorsed by the school system. In fact, when we asked county administration about a county-wide grading policy, we were told there wasn't one.
Parents heard about these practices from their children who either told them what was going on OR who, when pressed by their parents about due dates for assignments, explained that it didn't matter if they didn't turn them in on time, or at all.
Parents were shocked.
After the third article listed above was published, we researched and discovered that the school system really did not have a grading policy. There was policy 9.25 " Progress Reports to Parents" and an accompanying Administrative Regulation with the same number called " Student Progress Reports to Parents." These were revised in 2016/2019 respectively. Here are the links to those policies:
Neither of these policies mention a 50% floor or no penalty for late work.
It's not unusual for school principals to try new ideas out in their schools. Sometimes these are good ideas. However, we have never known a principal to do this without running it past administration, the Superintendent, and/or the Board of Education. Until now.
The principals who adopted the "policy" released a statement about their actions, stating that they were interested in consistency between the two schools and a "student centered approach." It sounds nice, but most people, especially parents, will tell you that allowing a young person to avoid consequences when they make mistakes or willfully don't do something doesn't build strong adults.
In defense of the policy, they also stated that, "The aim was to prevent a single missing or very low score from creating an overwhelming barrier to demonstrating learning and to keep grades focused on standards."
A good intent, no doubt, but there are no guardrails to keep students from "gaming the system" and developing very bad habits.
As soon as word started getting out and the system realized there might be a problem, we discovered that the county had formed two committees to study the topic of grading: one for elementary and one for secondary. After we asked for a list of the participants on those committees, the district published the list on their website. Here is a link to a page with ALL committees listed:
TCPS Committees | Talbot County Public Schools
Of the twenty-nine members listed as of Tuesday, November 18, only two were parents who did not work or have direct association, such as being a board member, with the school system. There were no business or community leaders on the committees, which is strange considering that the effects of grading policies could influence student work habits when they are employed or active in the community.
At the Board of Education meeting Wednesday, November 19, the topic came up during Board Member reports when Ann O'Connor, District 2, brought up the subject. O'Connor is participating on the grading committees. O'Connor started off by detailing the purposes of the committees and then discussed her concerns with some of the ideas of "grading for equity."
It was then pointed out that the grading practices listed in the memo above were not issued by Superintendent Pepukayi and had not, in fact, been presented to her or the Board for approval. The Board questioned why these practices were adopted and were concerned with communication across the system.
Board President Emily Jackson then said that the Board has the legal authority to direct the Superintendent to "issue guidance" on the practices implemented in schools. She also stated that the adoption of these processes was a "misstep by the principals" in question. She asked for discussion on the topic.
Pepukayi didn't think it was an overstep. " I think, in the spirit of collaboration, that may have been missed. But I definitely don't want anybody blaming principals because our principals are doing what they feel is best for our schools as leaders do."
"It was for the goal of consistency," Pepukayi said, "Consistent practices across the board."
At this point, the student board members provided a ground level assessment of the 50% floor for grades and no penalties for late work. Student member Tyler Murphy said that he takes cross campus classes and the students and teachers in both schools don't like the new practices. He said they encourage laziness and unfairness since students who work hard don't get reinforcement while lazy students can just "coast along." Student member Elmer Pineda stated that the practices are supposed to give students "hope", but they don't give them a true picture of achievement. The students he talked to said the policy was lowering standards.
At this point, Board President Jackson defered to Ms. Werner, Director of Teaching and Learning, to discuss grading. Werner stated that teachers always have "discretion" in grades, as long as they are "in range." It was not explained what the phrase "in range" meant. She did say that they want students to get at least a 55% every quarter. This assures that students can still possibly pass the class. In her opinion, Werner believes this will keep students in engaged in classes and will keep them working.
Board Member O'Connor joined in the conversation by saying that schools were not transparent with families and that if TCPS is truly interested in College and Career Readiness, these practices were in fact detrimental to students and demeaning to teachers. She then read an email she had received from a teacher who described their school as being "in turmoil" as they were told the grading memo created by the principals "is the policy" and "teachers must follow it."
It is not policy. Policies must be adopted and approved by the Board.
Board member Cynthia Jurrius said that these practices had been designed with the best of intentions but she needs to see data about how they affect student achievement.
Again, O'Connor commented that grading for equity ignores human nature and it appears the system is "striving for mediocrity." President Jackson said students should get accurate grades for the work they do.
Amy Dodson, Board member from District 3, described the actions of the two principals as a "significant overreach."
Then, Debbie Bridges, District 7, read off comments she had received from community members about these new practices during a community outreach session. The grading practices were said to "lead to grade inflation," "take away motivation," "not educating for the real world," "sending the wrong message," and "no reward for excelling." Bridges, who owned her own florist business, said that if she had contracted for a wedding and delivered the product late, she would not get paid and her reputation in the community would be hurt. "Get back to basics," she said. "Sorry if we hurt feelings."
At this point, Superintendent Pepukayi alluded to the fact that the schools have put too much emphasis on grades rather than what kids can do. She said that teachers must assess and give feedback to students on daily work and how it meets standards.
" How can a teacher build on daily work when it's not handed in on time for assessing?" O'Connor asked.
As the discussion continued, student Board Member Elmer Pineda reminded the Board that these late work policies "undermine a kid's responsibility to get things done in time."
"A kid who doesn't (get work done on time) shouldn't get the same grade as a kid who does," Pineda added.
At this point in the discussion, Board member Dysheikia Strawberry (District 1) offered a slightly different viewpoint. She mentioned that the schools should make sure that "boundaries are put in place" but we must not doom students to "death by zero" (meaning a zero could sink their grade permanently.) These students will think, "Why should I try now?" Strawberry claimed. (There are grading allowances for students with disabilities.)
Strawberry also opined that she was not sure that the Board had heard enough variety of opinions on the topic and should be considering fair grading policies for all students, including those who struggle academically. She also alluded to the fact that the student board members giving opinions were high achieving students and that this influenced them.
As the conversation wound down, Board member Amy Dodson asked, "What happened to Board guidance?" an allusion to the fact that there seemed to be a breakdown in protocol and process.
Finally, the Board directed the Superintendent to move forward with her guidance to schools and Board President Jackson stated that since the pandemic parents and students had been looking for clearer grading policies but the actions by these principals were implemented completely in the "wrong way."
The question for the Talbot County Board of Education is, "Is this grading policy going to help or hurt true student achievement? Is it going to give students/parents a false sense of accomplishment when a grade is given?" These are important questions for a county who has not seen significant improvement in state testing results in the past five years.
SPECIAL NOTES/COMMENTS:
- While consistency is important, it is disturbing that the system prefers to implement a potentially bad policy in the interest of consistency. And, since when do counties do this with no oversight by administration?
- The "death by zero" argument is a straw man argument. Most teachers will work with students to assure that a zero doesn't tank their grades permanently. However, when a student consistently doesn't turn in work or study for assessments, they need to see the consequences of those actions. Students who have disabilities and/or 504 plans have practices/policies in place to help them achieve that some board members may not be aware of. The average student has very few excuses to not hand in work or to hand in work late.
- The Superintendent has stated that no guidance will come out until the third and fourth quarters of the school year.
- Below is the link to the system's organizational chart. Please note who the principals answer to directly: Organizational_Structure_25-26SB_FINAL_091125.pdf
Tuesday's meeting is an indication that the Talbot County Board of Education is getting more involved in the decisions of the system as they should. It might also be a precursor to parents in the county becoming more active in commenting on the policies and processes of the schools. This could impact the 2026 School Board elections in Talbot County as four seats, District 1, District 3, District 4 and District 7 are up for election.
The deadline to register to run for School Board is February 24, 2026. Visit the Board of Elections at talbotcountymd.gov
