Understanding the Challenges in Standards-Based Grading
My last post opened with a brief look at the word, “system”, its use relative to grades and grading, and a discussion of the ways in which traditional grading systems are, in fact, not systematized. In this post, I explore the inconsistencies found within a standards-based grading system.
The Intersection of Assessment and Grading
We sometimes conflate definitions and parameters of grading with those of assessment and practice. In teaching and learning we are not always as precise with these terms as we should be. This absence of precision leads to inconsistencies.
Assessment is the practice by which we gather data to determine the degree to which students have learned the intended skills and content, and grading is the practice we employ to communicate what was learned. The sometimes conflation of these two things allows us to assume that everyone using standards-based grading is necessarily and uniformly using the same assessment practices. This is not true.
The Role of Retakes and Redos
One such assessment example is the practice of using retakes to determine grades. Most practitioners of standards-based grading agree that grades should represent current or most recent learning. In many cases, this belief paves the way to offering retakes and redos, a choice for assessment rather than grading.
The motivations behind why teachers choose to re-assess are several.
- Townsley & Wilcox (2024) found that some teachers choose to use formative assessments as an indication of when students are ready for summative assessments, thereby building the reteaching and reassessing into the learning cycle prior to administration of the summative assessment.
- Other teachers use the summative assessment as the indicator of the necessity for reteaching and reassessing, providing opportunities for both after administration of the summative assessment.
- According to Link & Guskey (2022) while some teachers utilize retakes as a means to build relationships, others contend retakes are a better step toward preparation for real life, and still others believe they allow for communication of what actually has been learned.
The authors go on to note that inconsistencies in the approach to and administration of re-doing and reteaching “not only adds confusion to what [standards-based grading] SBG actually means, it also can bring about unreliable outcomes.” (Link & Guskey, p. 409)
The Impact of Unpacking Standards
Like the sometimes conflation of assessment with grading, we frequently conflate teaching practice with assessment and grading when we are talking about standards-based grading. This melding allows for further confusion, and undermines reliability within standards-based practice in general.
One clear example is the practice of unpacking standards. Rather than being endemic to standards-based grading, unpacking standards is actually part of the larger practice. Link and Guskey (2022) note that the inconsistencies in the process of unpacking, and the results it bears, can lead to inconsistencies in practice more generally.
These resulting inconsistencies might be seen in the grading aspect of standards-based practice as well.
Rubric Challenges: Holistic vs. Analytic
We see a further provocation to the reliability of standards-based practice in the potential limitation of teachers’ knowledge of holistic and analytic rubrics.
Townsley and Wilcox (2024) speak to the challenge teachers face in choosing between holistic and analytic rubrics as they assess student work to determine grades.
In October 2025, I wrote a post to help readers understand the terms holistic and analytic. I followed that post in December 2025 with a discussion of when a teacher might choose to use each one.
Townsley and Wilcox (2024) speak to the need for teachers to understand how to read and apply thinking taxonomies such as Bloom’s or Marzano. Deft use of these taxonomies is central to naming the gradations on an analytic rubric, and in particular, determining the criteria for the category which describes anything beyond meeting expectations.
This challenge is one Jumprope embraces. In fact, my August 2024 posts, which are updates of posts originally published in 2017, speak to what mastery means in a mastery-based system and how to define “exceeds” in a mastery-based system.
Townsley and Wilcox (2024) are right to point out the gray area that emerges with insufficient understanding of thinking taxonomies and their proper use. Jumprope is proud to help teachers rise to that challenge as we support them in implementing transparent, equitable, and rigorous practice in their classrooms.
The Debate Over Final Grade Determination
The criticism of standards-based grading that has the greatest merit is akin to one of the stickiest wickets in a traditional grading system: How to actually determine a final grade on a standard.
While there seem to be as many options for divining a final grade as there are teachers in the world of traditional grading, in the standards-based grading world, it appears there are three common options for arriving at a final standard grade.
- Using some sort of trending calculation that gives more weight to more recent grades
- The examination of a body of evidence to make a determination about proficiency
- Deriving the grade for a given standard on the most recent assessment score for that standard
(Townsley and Wilcox, 2024)
The Path Forward: Transparency and Consistency
Once again, at Jumprope we see this inconsistency and the potential for affiliated inequities. At a minimum, a team of teachers, organized by grade level or some other configuration, should agree on the method for arriving at the final grade for their students. This would be another step toward transparency and equity.
One of the early conversations Jumprope engages in with our clients focuses on this important step in implementing standards-based grading. Schools and districts using Jumprope must make the choice for how they will arrive at final grades. The method they choose is the method applied to all students in that school or district.
The active pursuit of transparency and equity through the grading systems we use should be central to our work. Since grades are the currency of communication for assessment and assessment is the determination of what has been learned, each and every student and their families should understand their grades.
Helping people reach that understanding is not an easy task. I would argue that agreeing on a system and making a commitment to continual refinement of that system are important steps in the right direction.
If you’d like to learn more about how JumpRope can assist you in implementing a standards-based grading system, reach out today for a discussion.
Works Cited
Link, L., & Guskey, T. R. (2022). Is standards-based grading effective? Theory Into Practice, 61(4), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338
Townsley, M., & Wilcox, J. (2024). Standards-based grading: Core principles and current implementation debates. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 97(3), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2024.2357615
