NEW SCOTLAND — The Voorheesville Central School District is planning a major overhaul of its grading system. 

The policy was presented to the board of education for a first look on Dec. 1.

The change comes as the state’s Board of Regents, which governs education in New York, is changing high school graduation requirements, phasing out by 2028 passage of mandatory Regents exams. Instead, students will show mastery through projects, presentations, portfolios, and internships meant to focus on skills like critical thinking and collaborative work.

The new Voorheesville grading proposal shifts the focus from procedural details — such as how courses with Regents Exams are calculated (they no longer are) — to a broader framework that emphasizes equity, communication, and student growth; defines the purpose of grading; introduces new assessment criteria; and requires a clear, consistent system for reporting student progress.

The proposed draft expands the policy’s intent, taking it from defining grading as a “positive tool to indicate achievement,” to committing to “culturally responsive classrooms” and “bias-resistant” grading, and emphasizing that grades must be free from non-academic factors like discipline or compliance, focusing instead on “valid evidence of student learning.”

The draft policy goes on to outline the district’s new approach to assessment and grade reporting, which includes:

— Clearly communicating student achievement and progress to students, parents and guardians, as well as other stakeholders;

— Providing meaningful feedback to support “student self-reflection, goal setting, and academic growth”;

— Encouraging and motivating students to engage in their learning;

— Identifying academic strengths and areas needing support; and

— Evaluating the efficacy of curriculum and instruction.

Assessment criteria and grading practices

Grading is currently based on “student performance, improvement, and participation in classroom discussions and activities,” while the draft policy introduces a new section on grading practices that emphasizes fairness, clarity, and growth. It requires grades to be:

— Mathematically accurate, based on valid evidence and consistent calculations;

— Bias-resistant, not influenced by non-academic factors like discipline, compliance, or behavior; and

— Motivational, meaning they are designed to encourage “continued effort, resilience, and academic growth.”

The draft policy also mandates that student proficiency be based on “clearly defined learning targets” aligned with state standards and individual program goals, or individualized education plans — known as IEPs, which are developed for special-needs students.

Under the existing policy, grades are an amalgam of test scores, behavior, homework, and effort distilled into a single number. Under the proposed policy, the current general grading is replaced with a formalized framework known as the 3P’s:

— Product: Measures what a student knows and what he or she can do right now. Examples include exams, quizzes, final projects, and essays;

— Process: Measures student engagement in the learning process. Examples include class participation, homework completion, and engagement in daily activities;

— Progress: Measures a student’s improvement over time. Examples include improvement from a draft to a final version, growth between assessments, and skill development over a term. 

Reporting

Current district policy states that parents and guardians “shall be provided a written report card periodically,” and that the “frequency of such report card will be determined by the Board of Education.”

The proposed draft establishes a “comprehensive reporting system” to “engage families as partners,” and specifies the frequency and type of reports for different grade levels:

— For kindergarten through fifth grade, report cards would be issued three times a year; for grades six through 12, it would be four times per year;

— Interim reports would be issued halfway through each marking period for all students; and

— For grades six through 12, three-week updates would be provided through the district’s parent portal.

The draft policy also mandates “supplemental communication” from teachers “when a student is at risk of failing, shows a significant decline in performance, or fails to submit major assignments.”

Testing and teacher autonomy

The current grading policy states that “the professional judgment of the teacher shall be respected” while also laying out a defined process for administrators to change grades, but only after notifying the teacher of the reason and requiring the administrator be prepared to report to the superintendent and, if necessary, the board of education. 

The draft policy preserves the central idea that the “classroom teacher holds primary responsibility for evaluating student performance and determining grades,” but eliminates the reference to “professional judgment” and removes the administrator’s ability to change grades. 

Under the district’s current grading policy, teachers of courses ending in a Regents exam must select one of two distinct grading procedures. 

The first option is for the student’s final course average to be determined solely by the average of the four marking period grades, with no separate final exam considered as a fifth component. 

The second choice permits the inclusion of a fifth grade, derived either from a locally-developed final assessment where the Regents exam may count for no more than 8 percent of the overall course average or from the Regents Exam score itself, which may not exceed 4 percent of the student’s final average. 

The proposed update removes any reference to Regents since the requirement to pass the exams in order to graduate will no longer be required.