Grading, Assessment & Grade Inflation FAQ
How principals can lead conversations about grading and assessment without alienating teachers.
The Purpose of Grades
What is the purpose of grading?
Grades aren't just about communicating learning levels. They serve an essential accountability function -- motivating students to do the work that produces learning in the first place. When grading reform experts strip grades down to "pure communication," they're removing the engine that keeps students engaged.
Watch the video ->Should grades reflect only mastery, or do effort and work quality matter too?
Grades should reflect both. Nobody actually grades based on mastery alone -- grades have always been a combination of learning, effort, and work quality. High school GPA is one of the strongest predictors of college success and adult income, precisely because it captures compliance, follow-through, and effort -- not just what you know on test day.
Watch the video ->If you want a pure measure of learning, why not just use grades for that?
We already have a tool that measures learning: standardized tests. Grades serve a different purpose -- they keep students on track by rewarding the behaviors that produce learning. If we convert grades into just another learning measure, we lose the accountability mechanism that gets students to actually do the work. Let standardized tests do their job, and let grades do theirs.
Watch the video ->Should grades factor in behavior?
Everything in school involves behavior. Turning in work is a behavior. Participating in discussion is a behavior. Taking a test is a behavior. The standards-based grading crowd has made "behavior" a dirty word, but unless we're doing fMRIs on students, every assessment requires students to do something. The question isn't whether to include behavior -- it's which behaviors to include.
Watch the video ->Completion Grades and Effort
Are completion grades a legitimate grading practice?
Absolutely. Completion grades hold students accountable for doing the work before it's time to assess mastery. If you're still practicing, still learning how to solve a new type of problem, you shouldn't need mastery yet to get credit -- but you should need to do the work. Standards-based grading advocates have never offered a real alternative to this essential tool.
Watch the video ->Should students get points just for doing their work?
Yes. What gets you the learning should get you the points. If doing an assignment produces learning, then grading for completion is grading for learning. This isn't lowering standards -- it's recognizing that effort is the foundation on which mastery is built.
Watch the video ->Are effort and participation grades okay?
They're more than okay -- they're essential feedback tools. When students are still practicing, they need to know whether their efforts are on track, not just whether they've mastered the standard. Taking away effort grades removes a critical tool for communicating the value of hard work to students who are still in the middle of learning something.
Watch the video ->Does grading only for mastery take away an important feedback tool?
It does. Mastery-only grading tells students nothing useful when they're still in the learning process. If a student is working hard and making progress but hasn't mastered the standard yet, a mastery-based grade just says "not good enough." Effort grades say "you're on the right track -- keep going." That's the kind of feedback students actually need.
Watch the video ->The Case for Compliance
Is it wrong to include "compliance" in grades?
The word compliance has gotten a bad reputation, but most of what students learn in school comes through what critics would call compliance -- doing your work, meeting deadlines, following directions, participating in class. Every career requires these skills. The idea that students should be off the hook for doing the work if they "already know the material" doesn't hold up for 99.9% of students.
Watch the video ->Should grades include the behaviors that produce learning?
Yes. Effort, participation, and work completion deserve a place in grades because these are the behaviors that actually produce academic mastery. If a student isn't doing any work, it's not plausible to say they're learning. Traditional grades that incorporate these elements do a much better job than we give them credit for.
Watch the video ->Are kids really always doing their best?
No. The phrase "kids do well if they can" denies the role of effort and choice in student performance. Students can almost always try a little harder, just like you can almost always lift a little more weight. Telling students they're always doing their best actually takes away their power to do better. Holding students accountable for effort is how they grow.
Watch the video ->The Zero Debate and Minimum Grades
Should a student get a 50 or a zero for a missing assignment?
Neither extreme is ideal. Zeros on a 100-point scale carry disproportionate weight, but giving 50 points for nothing rewards non-completion. The better approach is to fix the grading scale itself -- or make students do the work. Don't just give points where no learning occurred.
Watch the video ->Why shouldn't we give 50 as the minimum grade for no work?
Because it's deception, not compassion. Students will quickly figure out they can get half credit for doing nothing. That destroys the incentive for the marginally motivated students who are currently trying. There are better ways to address the zero problem -- drop the lowest assignment, excuse the first few missing grades, or allow makeup work. Don't fabricate points.
Watch the video ->How will students respond if they get 50 points no matter what?
Rationally. A student who has been grinding for a 65 will realize they can get 50 points for doing nothing. The students most at risk are the ones barely passing who are still trying -- they'll stop. Meanwhile, the disengaged students getting those free 50s aren't learning anything from them. You end up with less learning across the board.
Watch the video ->What's the difference between a 50 and a 0 if they're both F's?
On the report card, nothing. In the gradebook, everything. A 50 allows a student to miss half the school year, do only half the work, and still pass with a C or better. A zero actually reflects the reality that no learning occurred. Defenders of the 50-point minimum like to change the subject, but the math is clear: this policy fabricates educational achievement.
Watch the video ->Why should an 80 be an A?
On the current 100-point scale, failing grades occupy 60 points while each passing grade gets only 10. That means a zero isn't really a zero -- as Doug Reeves showed, it's effectively a negative six on a GPA scale. If we compress the scale so 80+ is an A, 60-79 is a B, and so on, then a zero for missing work becomes proportionate. This is a better fix than giving fake 50s.
Watch the video ->Should students get zero credit for zero work?
Yes, but on a fair scale. If a student does no work, they should receive no credit -- that's the most honest and straightforward grading principle. The problem isn't the zero itself; it's that our traditional 100-point scale makes zeros disproportionately punitive. Compress the scale instead of inflating grades.
Watch the video ->Late Work
Should we accept late work without penalty?
Not as a blanket policy. Learning is sequential -- assignments build on each other. If you allow students to do work out of order or at the end of the semester, the learning value degrades significantly. Individual teachers should have flexibility for genuine circumstances, but mandatory unlimited extensions undermine the entire curriculum.
Watch the video ->Why is late work a problem for learning?
Because learning is on a schedule. What we're teaching now is a prerequisite for what comes next. If students can turn in work whenever they feel like it, the entire learning progression falls apart. Point deductions for lateness aren't punitive -- they maintain the incentive to keep up with the sequence that produces the learning.
Watch the video ->Does not accepting late work make students give up?
The opposite is more likely. When you allow unlimited late work, students fall behind, their backlog grows, and they end up overwhelmed -- which is what actually makes them give up. Deadlines keep students on track. A student doing all their work in the last week of the semester gets almost zero learning value from it.
Watch the video ->Is late work a logistical problem for teachers?
It's a nightmare. If 100 students can turn in any of 50 assignments at any time during the semester, that's 10,000 possible pieces of work with no batching efficiency. Teachers have to constantly switch between different assignments, different rubrics, different grading criteria. This isn't just an adult inconvenience -- it directly undermines the timeliness of feedback students need to learn.
Watch the video ->Standards-Based Grading
Why isn't standards-based grading the solution to grade inflation?
It should be, in theory. If grades reflected only mastery, inflation would be impossible. But in practice, SBG makes inflation worse by removing the accountability mechanisms that kept students honest. I don't know of a single district that switched to SBG and saw grades go down. When effort is removed from the equation, there's more wiggle room to fudge.
Watch the video ->What's the biggest practical problem with standards-based grading?
Many courses simply don't have clear, measurable standards to grade against. SBG was designed as if every subject is like math. But what about typing, PE, art, electives? And even in core subjects, what do you report for a student who is years below grade level and won't master any grade-level standards? Traditional grades handle these situations far better.
Watch the video ->Does standards-based grading reduce the number of students who do their work?
That's the pattern educators report. When you remove accountability for turning in work on time, for doing your work at all, students predictably do less. Nobody's even really claiming that SBG improves learning anymore. The question is whether the trade-off in reduced work completion is worth whatever theoretical purity SBG offers. I don't think it is.
Watch the video ->How does SBG work when students are far below grade level?
It doesn't, really. If a student is multiple years below grade level and can't demonstrate any grade-level mastery, SBG produces all failing grades with no actionable feedback. Effort and completion grades fill that gap -- they tell the student and the family that the student is trying, making progress, and doing what they're supposed to do, even if they haven't reached the standard yet.
Watch the video ->Grade Inflation and Its Consequences
Should students fail if they don't do most of their work?
Yes. If students can go through school and miss the majority of their learning, something is deeply wrong with our system. Failing grades are informative, not cruel. An F tells the student, the family, and the next teacher that learning didn't happen. Inflated grades hide problems until they're much harder to fix.
Watch the video ->If teachers can't give failing grades, why would students do the work?
They wouldn't, and they don't. When failure isn't possible, the incentive to do the work disappears. Students are rational -- they quickly figure out the minimum effort required under any system. Not every response to failure needs to be punitive, but the possibility of failure has to exist as a baseline incentive.
Watch the video ->Should teachers have the final say on grades?
Absolutely. When counselors or administrators override teachers' grading decisions, it almost always goes in one direction: up. The teacher who actually taught the class and graded the work is the best judge of what grade a student earned. Administrative grade changes are one of the primary weapons of grade inflation.
Watch the video ->What happens when chronically absent students still graduate?
It devalues the diploma for everyone. When employers realize that a high school diploma from certain schools doesn't guarantee the graduate can even read, they start requiring college degrees for basic jobs. We're pushing the cost of our dishonesty onto students -- especially the ones we claim to be helping.
Watch the video ->What if students get a diploma but not an education?
Then we've failed them twice -- once by not teaching them, and again by lying about it. A diploma that doesn't represent knowledge and skills fails both the student and society. We're optimizing for statistics (graduation rates, pass rates) at the expense of the thing those statistics are supposed to represent: actual learning.
Watch the video ->How are chronic absenteeism and graduation rates both going up?
Because schools are passing and graduating students who aren't attending or learning. Students get 50 free points for not showing up, and they've figured out the game. The New York Times has documented this pattern in district after district. Better grades plus worse attendance plus flat test scores adds up to one thing: grade inflation.
Watch the video ->Should credit recovery be easier than the original course?
No. If students can blow off a semester and then earn equivalent credit through a quick online class over the summer, we're incentivizing them to take the path that teaches them the least. Equivalent credit should mean equivalent learning. Credit recovery that requires a fraction of the effort makes the diploma meaningless.
Watch the video ->Grading Reform and Policy
Why do sweeping grading changes often backfire?
Because they pin all of our frustrations and hopes on one big change instead of testing things scientifically. Standards-based grading, equitable grading, no-zero policies -- they all promise the moon and explain people's frustrations with the status quo. But they don't deliver because they're not designed as testable hypotheses. Incremental, evidence-based adjustments produce better results than wholesale overhauls.
Watch the video ->Are guilt-driven grading policies actually better for students?
No. A lot of grading reform is driven by adult discomfort, not student outcomes. We feel guilty that some students struggle, so we lower standards to ease our own guilt. But the question should be: does this policy lead to more learning? If the answer is no, then it's a guilt-driven policy -- it makes us feel better while making things worse for students.
Watch the video ->Is education supposed to be a gauntlet?
In a sense, yes. Education should challenge students and develop them through rigorous work. The value of a credential comes partly from the fact that earning it required effort. When we make diplomas automatic regardless of attendance, effort, or learning, we destroy both the credentialing value and the developmental value of the education itself.
Watch the video ->Assessment and Testing
Do standardized tests reduce or increase disparities in college admissions?
They reduce them. Counter to popular belief, Yale and Dartmouth have reinstated testing requirements after finding that test-optional policies actually increased inequity. Without standardized measures, admissions rely on extracurriculars, essays, and recommendations that wealthy families can game. The SAT is actually one of the hardest things for money to buy its way around.
Watch the video ->Why do so many college students need remedial math?
Because their high school grades lied to them. UC San Diego now offers two levels of remedial math covering elementary and middle school content. Students with A's and B's in high school math are arriving at a flagship university unable to do basic arithmetic. When the UC system stopped using SAT scores and relied on inflated GPAs, this was the predictable result.
Watch the video ->