The “Wild West” nature of grading is troubling. Standardized test scores don’t always reflect report card grades. Some teachers count homework as 20% of the grade while others don’t count it at all. Redos and retakes are encouraged in some classes but forbidden in others.

Rick Wormeli PHOTO COURTESY OF RICK WORMELI

Teachers in the same department teaching the same content across different classes record sometimes wildly varying grades for the same level of learning. Some credit recovery programs used for sports eligibility do not hold students accountable for learning course content, yet we consider grades from those programs accurate. Faculty use letter grades, percentages, narrative feedback, 4.0 scale, checks/zeroes, and seven-point rubrics on varying assessments then jam them all into a single, aggregate percentage for a transcript.

To bring more coherence to grading practices, establish consistency, and ensure integrity among their teachers, today’s principals facilitate professional development toward accurate, ethical, and equitable grading. As they do, however, an interesting dynamic occurs: They have their own philosophy when it comes to assessment and grading that they would employ if they were in the classroom themselves, but it might be at odds with the philosophies of their teachers.

As effective leaders, we want to protect teachers’ professional autonomy, but where do we draw the line with grading integrity and students’ futures? More and more, we’ll need to decide to what degree we will tolerate differences in grading philosophies among some faculty members and ourselves, particularly if what teachers do is something inconsistent with accurate, ethical, or equitable grading.

Perspectives on Grading

Teachers often do not get a lot of tools or insights into accurate, ethical, and equitable grading in their teacher preparation, and to be honest, it’s hard to teach what is evident of learning and how to report it helpfully until we know the course content. Candidly, it’s up to in-service training to provide those perspectives and practicality.

Additionally, our assessment and grading practices as educators cut very close to who we are; they imbue almost every facet of our instruction, revealing our core educator values. To receive critique about these practices feels like being admonished for our very nature. Rational arguments, particularly in the high-stakes world of grading, can take us only so far. Effective leaders realize they must appeal to the emotional side of reform, respecting the lived experiences of their teachers and larger community.

For an educator to accept feedback or take risks with new ideas, they must admit what they were doing was less effective than they thought, and this can really sting. That’s where great leaders come in. They honor—not dismiss—what educators bring to the discussion table. And in my work with educators at all levels, I’ve found that initial push-back on reforms—and deep discussion—is necessary for many of us to dive into new ideas.

Although it is hard to let go of entrenched dispositions, it’s key to grading reform. When we do let go, we find:

  • We don’t need to grade everything for students to take assignments seriously.
  • Accountability is about mutual ethos more than it is, “Shaping up those kids, so they learn responsibility.”
  • Minimum scores of 50 on the 100-point scale are unambiguous and mathematically legitimate statements of failure to learn. They are not, “students getting something for having done nothing.” Not even close.
  • Relearning and reassessment are far more demanding of students and their learning than is the escapist, unrecoverable “F” that accepts student incompetence as a positive teaching legacy.
  • No research indicates using low and unrecoverable grades as the way to instill self-discipline, respect for deadlines, and caring about one’s work. We know how to instill these qualities quite well, no punitive grading measures required.
  • No, we don’t have to replicate college grading practices in our high school classes to prepare students for college. Real competence in what we’re teaching that comes from developmentally responsive instructional experiences and personal maturity equip students best to handle anything professors throw their way.
  • There is no discernible difference in mastery between an 89 and a 90; it’s within the statistical margin of error. Whole futures can be affected, however, because we thought we could see the difference between a “B” and an “A.”
  • Grades are not transactions. They are communication, not compensation or “what a child deserves.” The more transactional we make grades the less they inform us about student learning.

Four Elements That Help

Before we get to those challenging conversations about grading philosophies, consider incorporating four leadership practices. First, rehearse responses to grading issues with other principals to ensure you have discerned concerns accurately and that your responses are clear and helpful. Second, educators are often shackled by current metaphors. Help everyone turn the corner on grading by replacing restricting metaphors with new and more applicable ones. Third, actions speak louder than words. Use the supportive grading practices you want teachers to use with students in your support and evaluations for teachers. Finally, see yourself as a coach. Ask the questions that help skeptical teachers arrive at effective principles of accurate, ethical grading themselves rather than push them to their back foot, anxious and defensive about new edicts.

Ask the questions that help skeptical teachers arrive at effective principles of accurate, ethical grading themselves rather than push them to their back foot, anxious and defensive about new edicts.

Six Conversations

When we understand and accept the purpose of a change in practice, we find the stamina to see our way through the mechanics of implementation. The first and most sustaining element of grading reform is its “why.” To build capacity for changes in grading, then, focus on reform’s purpose, painting it as vividly as possible, and when the path forward becomes contentious, bring teachers back to what you hold in common—your why.

To help with this, establish a coalition of teachers to lead the reform efforts, and begin by conducting six conversations over those first two years of grading reform together, with each conversation taking months at a time. In the first conversation, identify common ground. Discuss and agree on why changes in grading are needed and write it out thoughtfully. This rationale will be used for many audiences, so make it clear and compelling. Doing this builds commitment now and in future months. Professor Tom Guskey has a great frame for this: “Why is change necessary? Why is the current system not working? Why infringe on teachers’ professional freedom and discretion when it comes to [grading]?… Why take on [grading] when other issues seem more pertinent?”

Second, brainstorm your specific goals regarding assessment and grading practices in the school or district. What do you want to achieve by the end of the process?

Third, consider your evaluative criteria for success. What evidence will you expect to see if teachers are successfully implementing accurate, ethical, and equitable grading practices? Be specific: Positive correlation with state test scores? Increase in homework/classwork completion? Tripled assessment repertoire options as teachers seek evidence of learning over simple compliance with tasks? Fewer Fs? Increased school attendance and student commitment to learning because there’s now more hope for success in school?

Fourth, anticipate hurdles and challenges to the new grading ideas. List “sticking points,” pushbacks, “Yeah, but,” and other issues (pedagogical, emotional, financial, logistical, political) that you may encounter during implementation. Reach outside the coalition for concerns and push-back statements from as many people as possible.

Fifth, begin your reasoned responses. With your team, start your list of constructive responses to each of these issues and concerns that you can use to help guide teachers to their own solutions. Turn this into a ceaselessly updated FAQ for all interested parties. This gives everyone a common language to use in constructive conversations about grading and is the first go-to when receiving concerns from faculty or the school community.

Finally, map out the months ahead for year one and two, posting a tentative plan with professional development and cultural shift elements you think need to be included, and the specific person(s) responsible for facilitating each element recorded in each month. At the end of the one- or two-year plan, make the official plan for the next three to five years. It works better to plan and achieve the initial goals in years one or two, then to create a more robust implementation plan for the years beyond that.

Responding to Difficult Conversations About Grading

Being confronted in the wake of new grading policies and practices can be unsettling. When this happens, consider the following 12 insights:

  •  1.  Remember that most teachers are doing the best they can with the information, energy, and resources they have. They may not be aware of the possibilities as you see them. Focus the conversation more on opening doors than corralling contrarians.
  •   2.  Focus on principles of grading, not the recipes and mechanisms of how to fill out the gradebook. This keeps the focus on the “why,” which helps teachers maintain commitment to the goal. Only from here can they see effective solutions to their concerns clearly.
  •   3.  Get an accurate picture. Are there any misconceptions/misunderstandings about grading principles that need to be clarified or corrected?
  •   4.  Consider what is not being said. This can be as enlightening as what is being said. Listen for the omissions, purposefully or not, and the pregnant pauses.
  •   5.  Open yourself to closer scrutiny and humility. If there is resistance, ask yourself, “What am I doing that is creating this resistance?”
  •   6.  Respond to the real issue. Is this individual venting about one thing, but masking or revealing a larger issue about something else? For example, a teacher could be lambasting a policy, but the larger issue is that she feels this was implemented in a way that was dismissive of her experience and expertise, she’s out of her depth and feeling threatened by the reform, or she is over-taxed with so many duties-as-assigned that she can’t spend energy on this transformation right now.
  •   7.  Begin your response with more questions, not declarations. Our goal is not to hand teachers Band-Aids, but to coach them in their constructive resolution to the issue.
  •   8.  Consider the principles here: What are the tenets of assessment, grading, and teaching involved in the challenge presented by the teacher? Are there multiple principles or challenges in play that need to be identified and separated from one another? For example, a teacher might be concerned about teaching responsibility to adolescents, and he rails against relearning and reassessing, declaring that this is just being politically “woke” and a form of coddling. In this moment, we see three parts that need to be addressed: 1) What we know from effective instructional design about reiteration, critical feedback, and student learning; 2) strategies for teaching students executive function skills and self-discipline (and that it’s not done by banning redos); and 3) how a teacher lets strong political opinions influence constructive discussions and instructional design. Instead of being caught in the crosscurrents of emotions and multiple concepts, we can break them down into separate elements and address each one thoughtfully.
  •   9.  Sometimes all we need to do is paraphrase and pitch back to teachers what they have declared and help them decide if it’s what they intended and if it’s aligned with accurate, ethical grading principles: “I hear you saying x. Is that what you intended?”
  • 10.  We can act our way into belief and believe our way into action. As Guskey writes, teachers must experience the positive impact on student achievement and teacher efficacy in the new practices to embrace them fully:

    “[P]eople will accept and retain new and unfamiliar practices when they perceive that those practices increase their competence and effectiveness. And they will likely abandon new practices in the absence of any evidence of their positive effects. This is especially true of teachers, whose primary psychological rewards come from feeling certain about their capacity to affect student growth and development…”

    Suggest to the teacher that they might “pilot” the new practice for a short period of time and express sincere interest in sitting with them as they analyze the effects of its use.
  • 11.  If helpful, compare the new policy or practice to what happens in the larger, working world outside of school. Is the policy more, or is it less, preparatory for what students will find professionally? Accurate, ethical, and equitable grading principles reflect working-world expectations and evaluation procedures far more authentically than do traditional grading practices.
  • 12.  Where possible, embrace the #1 Rule of Improvisational Comedy: “Yes, and.” Go with the teacher’s idea, take the journey they’re offering, and build upon it rather than burn it to the ground. This keeps the dialogue going and thereby increases the chance of understanding and teachers’ willingness to give something a try.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, instruction should make a difference, learning should happen, assessment should be instructional, and grades should be accurate. Some teachers have not done a deeper dive into their grading practices, however, and when asked to do so, there’s doubt and conflict, and they carry both to you, the building leader.

Teachers want to do right by their students and are willing to put in the effort to do so but may not have the tools or capacity to do it. If a teacher’s grading policy knowingly falsifies a student’s grade report, we of course have an obligation to intervene.

Ultimately, we walk the line. While respecting teacher autonomy and experience, we also protect the rights of students to fair and accurate grading. With constructive responses for these conflicts, the unsettling, “Wild West” becomes a compassed path forward.

References
Guskey, T. R. (2020). Get set, go! Creating successful grading and reporting systems. Solution Tree Press.

Knight, J. (2022). The definitive guide to instructional coaching: Seven factors for success. ASCD.

Wormeli, R. (2018, April). The grief of accepting new ideas. AMLE Magazine, 6(2), 34–37. amle.org/the-grief-of-accepting-new-ideas/

Wormeli, R. (2023, November 14). Rethinking the way teachers assign student grades. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/education/2023/11/14/rethinking-way-teachers-assign-student-grades/

Rick Wormeli is a longtime teacher and education leader. He is the author of several books, including Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessment and Grading in the Differentiated Classroom and Summarization in Any Subject: 60 Innovative, Tech-Infused Strategies for Deeper Student Learning, co-authored with Dedra Stafford. Learn more at rickwormeli.com.