Menu
,

5 Mistakes to Avoid When Shifting to Standards-Based Grading

by
Sara Needleman
June 2, 2025
what to avoid when transitioning to standards-based grading

Mistakes to Avoid When Shifting to Standards-Based Grading and Reporting

I’ve always been results-oriented. As a middle school teacher, even before I traded in my traditional practice for standards-based practice in 2005, my mantra was, “what’s the goal?”

Returning to that question helps me frame what I have come to see as critical mistakes to avoid in transitioning from a traditional grading system to a standards-based grading system.

This blog post names some of those mistakes and aims to help readers see why they should avoid them. In some cases it’s difficult to tease out one mistake from others but in an effort to offer some useful considerations, I’ve given each mistake its own space.

Central to JumpRope’s Core Values is the idea that grades are meant to clearly communicate what has been learned. As I see it, transparency is vital to that clear communication.

Transparency and clarity are the levers I will consistently lean on as I discuss these interconnected mistakes schools and districts should avoid in transitioning from a traditional to a standards-based grading system.

Of course, simply avoiding mistakes can create a vacuum. Therefore, with each mistake, I offer the bud of an alternative path. My next post will elaborate on those paths.

Starting in the wrong spot: Don’t lead with changing the language of grades

Leading with changing the language of grades is a precipitous non-starter. If the pedagogical goal of grading is to communicate what has been learned, that communication must be clear and easily consumed by your audience. Grades are currency. They are the most talked about, sacred, and trusted aspects of American education (Peters, Kruse, Buckmiller, Townsley, 2017).

When students and their parents perceive a lack of clarity in that currency, they will assail it as ineffective, meaningless, and unwanted. The language of 0-100, A-F is flawed, but it is the language parents understand and can access. The ability to identify and intuitively understand your child’s grades gives families some power, some control. (Peters, Kruse, Buckmiller, Townsley, 2017).

That control is particularly important at the high school level where confusion around converting grades from a standards-based system to a traditional system, especially for the sake of attempting to communicate with college admissions offices, carries additional weight (Denham, 2019).

Rather than leading with a change of this known and accepted language, allow the language to stand as the method of communicating what has been learned and shore up the practices that allow teachers to arrive at that (flawed) method of communication. Changing the language of grades can come later.

Alternative path: Begin with a careful examination of the principles that guide grading practices rather than starting with changes to the policies and procedures associated with them (Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020).

Changes to homework: Don’t underestimate parents’ perceptions

Just as traditional grading systems provide families with a familiar method for communicating vital information, homework too serves as an anchor to perceived understanding of what’s going on at school (Link, et al, 2025).

In examining the general aversion parents express toward standards-based grading, Franklin, Buckmiller & Kruse cite “confidence in the known, dislike for the unknown; poor communication leading to disappointment; confusion from lack of clarity; and frustration due to perceived outcomes” (p.19, 2016).

If we consider each of these points of contention as they relate specifically to changes in the way homework is administered and assessed, it’s easy to see that those changes could become triggers. Furthermore, parents and guardians seem to value grades that they perceive reflect effort and responsibility more than do educators (Guskey et al 2025 and McMillan et al 2002).

They expect their children to have homework and for the homework to “count” at least insofar as it serves as an indication of their child’s effort in school. When those expectations are challenged or upended, especially without warning or explanation, the people at home can feel everything from confused to angry. And those feelings ultimately can lead to resistance.

Alternative path: Before we eliminate or dramatically change policy on something as central to the experience of school as homework, we should, at a minimum, consider all the stakeholder’s views on the topic.

mistakes to avoid when transitioning to standards-based grading

Know your focus: Don’t rush the change or be side-tracked by details

As educators embrace the merits of standards-based practice, and come to see it as an agent for equity, it’s tempting to move quickly to adopt change. In fact, it might be easy and even satisfying to implement some surface-level changes, but doing so could jeopardize your broader aims.

A hasty change in policy or practice such as allowing retakes or including only summative assessments in determining final grades, without a broader discussion and understanding of the ultimate goal, might expose a school to unnecessary risks in their reform efforts (Peters, Kruse, Buckmiller, Townsley, 2017).

Educators need to acknowledge the limitations of time and resources and simultaneously work toward defensible research-based decisions as they try to help stakeholders see the merits of standards-based practice (Peters, Kruse, Buckmiller, Townsley, 2017). As Susan Brookhart reminds us, it’s folly to be sidetracked by details before we more fully explore our beliefs about grades and grading and how we want to reform them (Brookhart 2011).

Alternative path: We should help all stakeholders in the school community see why the changes make sense rather than telling them what the changes will be (Gusky, 2020).

Take the positive from existing traditions: Don’t simply eliminate them

Disrupting or breaking tradition in most circumstances is hard to do. The world of education is no exception.

Some of the academic traditions we hold most dear in our schools include things like ranking students and naming a valedictorian. Maintaining these specific traditions runs counter to the principles of standards-based practice since its focus is on maximizing the learning for each and every student.

Sorting students according to grades and ranking them sequentially does not serve that purpose. In any graduating class it’s easy to see how those whose ranks fall in the lower half are not served by this system.

The stakeholders who typically argue in favor of maintaining class rank are not affiliated with that population of students. It is the families of the highest academic achievers who feel that class rank works in their favor. However, we know that the difference in GPA between number 1 and number 20, for example, can be negligible, but colleges might look less favorably on the student whose rank is number 20 (Bocella, 2016). And further, we increasingly see that college admissions officers express skepticism about the value of class rank (McKibben, 2017).

Alternative path: The solution to this problem is not to eliminate the celebration of high academic achievement, but rather to celebrate it in a different way. Schools should thoughtfully revisit and revise traditions rather than dismantle them in their entirety.

Consider what’s most important: Don’t change the language of grades. Period.

I know this is an idea that feels counter to the whole foundation of standards-based practice, but here goes.

If standards-based practice is about helping students learn through the use of clear expectations and grades are the currency used to communicate that learning, I contend that the system of symbols we use for communication matters much less than everything else endemic to the practice.

If changing the symbols we use – those that are familiar to and known by nearly every person who has attended school for any period of time – might co-opt any conversation about the aspects of the practice that are truly meaningful, then perhaps it’s worth letting go of changing the symbols that communicate grades.

The rising teachers I support at the University of Southern Maine are stepping into districts and schools that use assessment and grading practices rooted in standards-based and traditional models as well as a mix of the two.

I used to spend time helping my students know how to convert from one system to another. I shared with them my analogy that converting is like translating English to Mandarin. The alphabets that anchor the languages and what the languages intend to communicate are different enough from one another that the task of translating is rendered useless. In the end, communication is, quite literally, lost in translation.

Alternative path: Rather than helping my students see how they might translate one grading system to another, I coach them to use whichever language for grading is in place and focus on the other aspects of standards-based practice.

Works Cited

More From The Blog

MTSS Meets Standards-based Practice

Recommended Summer Reading from JumpRope

JumpRope Helps District Move to Competency-Based Grading ― and Still Supports Them 12 Years Later