Changing the grading system requires educators and students to alter their practices.
It also requires a mindset shift from all education constituents, including educators, students, families, higher education and the business community. The traditional A to F and 1 to 100 grading systems are over a century old, with almost everyone in the United States having experienced a similar system in their childhood, leading to the belief that “it was good enough for me.”
As schools and districts seek to shift their grading practices, addressing both mindsets and practices is crucial. It is also important to recognize that not all elements can or should be tackled simultaneously. Considering the needs and readiness of the local community and implementing thoughtful sequencing are essential for long-term success.
Shifting mindsets and practices begin with helping the community understand key principles for student-centered grading and the difference between traditional and competency-based grading practices.
KEY PRINCIPLE 1: Grading practices reflect the progression of learning, not the average
Grading practices should reflect where a student is in their learning journey, not an average that masks growth. By honoring progress over time, there are more equitable opportunities for every student to demonstrate mastery.
In a traditional system
Averaging often penalizes students for needing more time to learn. Assessments are frequently administered to all students on the same day, regardless of whether a student has mastered the content or if the content was mastered days or weeks earlier. Students are often penalized with a failing grade in this time-bound system, even when both the student and educator are aware that the student has not yet mastered the content.
Early low scores heavily influence the final grade, as recovering from a poor grade can be mathematically challenging. For example, a student who scores a 50% on an early assessment and later scores a 100% after mastering the content will have an average grade of 75%, which inaccurately reflects their mastery.
Averaging can de-incentivize ongoing learning. The grade often signals that learning has ended, with little opportunity to improve by demonstrating additional growth.
In a personalized, comeptency-based system
Grades reflect recent learning and demonstrate mastery of specific skills or concepts. Grades are not averaged; rather, they evolve as students grow in their mastery of the content. For example, a student may earn a “grade” of emerging on an early assessment that is later replaced with “proficient” once the student has demonstrated their learning. This practice encourages revision, reassessment and continued learning.
Ongoing attempts at learning are encouraged and incentivized. Students have multiple opportunities to demonstrate growth and are not penalized for previous attempts. Educators and students cultivate a growth mindset, viewing failure as a first attempt in learning and recognizing it as not yet reaching mastery.
KEY PRINCIPLE 2: Grades are based on transparent learning expectations
Grades are based on clear, transparent learning expectations, ensuring that students and educators understand what success looks like and how to achieve it. When grades are tied to well-defined outcomes, the risk of bias is reduced and students experience more equitable and empowering learning opportunities.
In a traditional system
Learning expectations are often opaque. The knowledge and skills students need to acquire are typically controlled by the educator and not readily shared. Course content and grading criteria are often not transparent, leaving students unaware of what they will be accountable for. Students are often unaware of what learning their grade represents. This system can lead to a lack of student ownership over their learning, with students relying heavily on educators to set expectations and pace.
Grades reflect a variety of elements rather than being a true reflection of learning. Grades often include factors such as behavior, participation or extra credit activities (e.g., bringing in supplies, participating in canned food drives). As a result, it can be unclear whether a student has demonstrated mastery of essential knowledge and skills.
In a personalized, comeptency-based system
Learning expectations are transparent. They are clearly defined, measurable and shared with students through rubrics or learning progressions. A rubric is a transparency tool that clarifies and measures the progression of learning toward mastery of standards or competencies. Using rubrics early and often in the learning process fosters reflective mindsets and feedback practices, helping learners monitor their progress and become self-directed. Rubrics help educators, students and families share a common understanding of the learning journey, enabling all stakeholders to articulate the “what and why” of learning.
Grades reflect progress toward mastery of standards or competencies. Each demonstration of learning (assessment) is designed to measure progress toward clearly defined learning goals, ensuring grades reflect what students know and can do relative to standards and competencies. Other assignments are considered formative, providing crucial information for students’ next steps in learning. Elements like behavior and extra credit are not included in the academic grade.
KEY PRINCIPLE 3: Grading and assessing practices should be consistent across the system
Grading practices should be fair, just and consistent, no matter the teacher or school. Alignment and calibration between educators ensure all students are held to the same high standards, regardless of the learning environment. This promotes fairness, trust and a shared understanding of what success looks like for all learners.
In a traditional system
Grading practices are often inconsistent. Educators frequently operate independently, developing their own assessment criteria. This leads to inconsistent grading standards and unintentional bias. For example, one educator might average homework, classwork, participation and tests, while another might rely solely on tests and quizzes. Even with common inputs, different weighting methods can skew grades, causing inconsistencies even among educators of the same course.
In a personalized, comeptency-based system
Grading practices are consistent. Only assessments of competencies or standards are graded. Educators collaborate and calibrate to ensure consistent definitions of mastery across classrooms, buildings, disciplines and grade levels. This collaboration empowers educators to design supportive learning experiences.
