Rethinking traditional grading practices in U.S. schools

Course grades: a familiar source of anxiety for some, a source of pride for others, and a near-universal signal of student success in U.S. schools. Few features of our education system are more enduring.

However, a growing body of research and practical experience raises serious questions about the fairness and validity of traditional approaches to grading. Subjectivity and variation can lead to significant discrepancies in how student learning is measured. Practices like extra credit may reward behaviors that are only loosely tied to student learning or, in some cases, not at all. And systems of point allocation often reflect students’ life circumstances far more than what they have learned. The consequences are steep: Low grades close options after high school for otherwise well-prepared students, and their influence has only grown as many colleges drop SAT and ACT requirements for admission. In recognition of these challenges, districts nationwide are joining the growing ranks of school systems pursuing — or at least investigating — changes to longstanding grading practices.

Though well-intended, these efforts often spark controversy. In some cases, concerns from teachers and families reveal flaws in the solutions districts have developed. For example, policies that result in grade inflation could lead to students being underprepared for higher education. In other cases, misgivings reveal confusion about the goals and details of new approaches. The reality is that this controversy can derail improvement efforts if district leaders have not created the conditions for positive change to take hold. This is an issue we’ve been wrestling with at the California Collaborative on District Reform. If efforts to revisit grading are to improve the learning experience for students, insights from education leaders suggest that districts should take several considerations into account:

First, districts seeking to improve current practices would be wise to foster a shared understanding of the problem to be solved. Reviewing research, talking to students and teachers, sharing data about current practices, and opening dialogue with community members can bring people onto the same page about the challenges that require attention.

Once these challenges are clear, districts may be more successful in gaining traction by articulating a shared vision for the path forward. If community members in a variety of roles can articulate why they want to move in a new direction, a district can build a collective movement toward improvement. 

Even with clear goals, solutions may be elusive. Involving members of the district community in the problem-solving process can both spark better ideas and create momentum for change. Teachers are obvious and necessary partners in this effort. After all, they bear the ultimate responsibility for assigning grades to students. Because of this role and the knowledge and skills they bring to the table, their engagement in shaping and embracing new practices is vital. 

Beyond teachers, principals may need to provide guidance and support for any new practices, making their investment in cocreating solutions critical to progress. Students themselves are too often overlooked in improvement processes. Our youth have unique firsthand perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of their grading experiences and are invaluable for both identifying challenges and providing input and feedback about proposed changes. Finally, families are rightly invested in and protective of their children’s education. Families can be instrumental allies for change when they believe in a new direction — and powerful opponents when they do not.

District leaders should also be strategic about timing and sequencing change efforts. Building a multiyear process for piloting and refining innovative ideas can give educators time to try new things and adapt based on what they learn. Nevertheless, district leaders must navigate between patience that honors a learning journey and urgency to maintain momentum and spark shifts in practice.

Too often, improvement efforts in school systems sputter because they reach schools in a cacophony of competing priorities, mixed messages, and fragmented approaches. For grading reforms to succeed, district leaders should design new approaches to grading in a way that fosters coherence. In other words, changes to grading should align with and support other district strategies to improve teaching and learning, not layer on top of them. Furthermore, district leaders’ words and actions should make clear that theirs is a long-term commitment, not a passing trend.

Finally, no improvement effort will be perfect right away. Even well-designed changes will yield unexpected outcomes, including surprising victories and unanticipated consequences. From the beginning, district leaders should collect and share evidence of progress that enables community members in all roles to track and celebrate accomplishments while identifying opportunities for continued improvement.

As part of a broader instructional strategy, improving grading practices can help strengthen student learning experiences and disrupt longstanding patterns of unfairness. Fixing the flaws in traditional practices can also remove obstacles that limit postsecondary opportunities for too many students. Although these reform efforts can spark meaningful change, they can also create battlegrounds that amplify tension and stall progress. Through a thoughtful and strategic approach to revisiting grading, district leaders can chart a path forward that prepares all students for success.

•••

Joel Knudson is a principal researcher at the American Institutes for Research. He chairs the California Collaborative on District Reform, which is dedicated to improving instruction and student learning.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.