Grades. It seems it’s impossible to discuss education without this topic being referenced. It’s now even showing up in opinion pieces in prominent newspapers discussing grade inflation and calling the meaning of grades into question. There’s a lot of finger-pointing and blame for who is at fault for this degradation of the meaning of grades. The feeling appears to be that whatever changes are made to education must not disrupt the sacred grade.

Progressive educators fall into this trap as well. While it’s true that they will lament the unnecessary harm grades place on students, many will defend the validity of their grades in their next breath. Some even going as far as to muddy the waters by saying that ungrading or gradeless approaches are a distinction without a difference, which is the furthest thing from the truth. I understand that we must work within the systems in which we operate. What are we working towards? Are we working towards a better mouse trap that can rank and sort students more effectively while providing a false sense of equity? Or are we working towards a system that values the needs of individual students and provides the appropriate experiences and supports? 

While doing research for my book, Going Gradeless, Grades 6-12: Shifting the Focus to Student Learning, I surveyed hundreds of students. Students with varying degrees of success in school and vastly different GPAs. Their views on alternate assessment differed—students with higher GPAs tended to prefer traditional grading, where students with lower GPAs preferred alternate approaches to assessment and grading—however, the overwhelming majority agreed that a departure from grades lowered stress and freed them up to learn. These findings aren’t unique, and most educators know this to be true. Yet, they still revert back to traditional grades because “how else are we going to know/communicate how they’re doing?”

This conversation reminds me of a lyric from Sleep Now in the Fire by Rage Against the Machine: “There is no other pill to take, so swallow the one that makes you ill.” I know they’re talking about maintaining political, economic, and social systems that create winners and losers, actively harming many involved. What we are seeing in education is a microcosm of that. We hide behind the illusion of fairness and equity to uphold a system that is neither fair nor equitable. 

The illusion of fairness and equity

Teachers have the best of intentions and want to do what they believe is in the best interest of students. I am not disputing that. Most of what they’re doing is great. The time they are taking to develop cohesive and engaging lessons, the clarity of expectations, and the care for the students in front of them to name a few. All of this good is so easily undermined by the mere presence of a grade. 

Yes, there are some students that thrive in this graded environment, but they would thrive in any environment. Yet, these are the examples that are pulled when arguing for the status quo. Building the system for these students and then trying to modify it to give others the opportunity to “beat the odds” is unsustainable. The fact that there even are odds on a child’s success is mindboggling to me. 

Grades are only communication

I know the arguments for maintaining the system of grades, as I’ve heard them plenty of times. We need to communicate learning to parents and the grade is just a symbol of that learning. It is provided at the end of the process (summative assessment) and reflects how students performed in relation to a clearly communicated expectation. To be fair, everyone is held to the same standard.

That all sounds reasonable. However, when you look at this with a more critical eye, that’s where it falls apart for me. Holding all students to the same arbitrary standards that we created, and which favor certain experiences and abilities, is inherently unfair. Students that haven’t had these experiences or been given the opportunity to develop these abilities are at a distinct disadvantage. It’s not that they can’t be successful. It’s that they are starting with an additional burden. 

As an educational system, we prioritize the things that make our jobs easier. These are the things that get the most points and the highest grades. We reward the students that exhibit these behaviors with further advantages through experiences they receive in courses for which they have met the prerequisite grade. Students that have not achieved that grade often have watered down courses aimed at fulfilling requirements and getting them to graduation. I would beg to differ with anyone referring to this as solely communication and fair. 

“But we let them redo it!”

You allow redos? That’s great! I am in full support of allowing students multiple opportunities to show progress without penalty. However, in many of the policies I’ve seen, especially the ones adopted district-wide, there are maximum grades to qualify for a redo with the new grade capped at a certain percentage of points back. All of this is done in the name of fairness. The idea is that students who get it the first time “deserve” more credit. It’s only fair. What’s missing from this conversation? Where is the conversation about learning? When the purpose of education is to identify winners and losers, the results of the game are more important than the pathway to them.

Furthermore, the hoops students are forced to jump through to qualify for these attempts actively discourages the students they were designed to benefit. This isn’t just my opinion. (My thoughts on the inequities of redos.) This is the design of the redo process. In Rick Wormeli’s Responses to a Parent of a High-Achieving Student with Concerns About Grading Changes he says, “students very quickly realize the heavy demands of re-doing work.”

Don’t get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for Rick and think that his contributions have been crucial in moving progressive education forward, but we need to continue to evolve. 

A pathway forward

It’s my belief that learning is not a competition, ranking and sorting have no place in the process, and students should only be compared to their previous self. Differentiation and individualized learning are keys to achieving this vision. While there are challenges to attaining this ideal, it is not the impossible task that some would have you believe. From personal experience, the benefits from this shift have far outweighed any challenges. 

It’s sometimes difficult for classroom teachers to see how they can make a difference because there are many things that are out of our control. That is why my first piece of advice for any educator is to be conscious of the language we use when discussing students. Avoid labeling them. Once we stop referring to students as “A students,” “D students,” “IEP kids,” and “Honors kids” we remove our preconceived notions of what they’re capable of and the treatment they “deserve.” Language is powerful and something we are in control of regardless of the system in which we operate. 

After we are comfortable discussing students from an asset-based lens, we can start to develop learning progressions. These function as a framework that provides students with language that can be used to communicate understanding, identify individual next steps, self-assess, and provide peer feedback. Progressions are not meant for purposes of comparison between students, as it is understood that they are all entering class with a wide range of experiences and abilities. There is no such thing as a good or bad level. Where students are is exactly that, a statement of where they currently are in their learning with a guide of what to focus on next to progress. There is no judgment and targets can be set for individual students based on their needs.

With the development of platforms such as gotLearning and Mastery Transcript the need for grades as communication is vastly overstated. We can now capture and communicate a more complete picture of what students know and can do better than a letter grade ever could. The transition to this approach would undoubtedly take a focused and sustained community education plan. However, once this transition has occurred, our conversations will shift from “how can they pick up their grade?” to “how can we help them improve this skill?”

There is comfort in the status quo. People know what to expect and think they understand what it means. However, as AI technology advances at a breakneck pace, the future job market remains a mystery, and students are facing different pressures and challenges than they did in the past, one thing is clear. Education needs to evolve. We are not providing our students with the best opportunity to find success in their chosen path if education remains rooted in antiquated norms. 

Change is necessary. I guess it would be appropriate to end this post with another Rage quote from Guerrilla Radio: “It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime. What better place than here, what better time than now?”

David Frangiosa is a high school science teacher from Northern NJ and the co-author of Going Gradeless: Shifting the Focus to Student Learning, Corwin Press. Over the past six years, he has been performing action research on grade reform and the impact of various instructional approaches. He is a contributor to SchoolRubric.com and TeachBetter.com. This piece originally appeared on his website at www.reimaginedschools.com.