Every choice a human being or group of human beings makes comes with the inherent assumption that what is being chosen is better than what is being left behind. Our grading systems in education are no exception, and in some ways come under greater scrutiny than other choices because they come with apparently high stakes. With this assertion, I’ve endeavored to provide readers with research-based information about traditional and standards-based grading systems to help them make good choices. I looked at traditional and standards-based systems alongside one another, and then went further to examine inconsistencies in each on their own: traditional and standards-based. Those three posts serve as a strong foundation for the ideas I explore in this series of posts: myths surrounding standards-based grading (SBG). The trifecta named above addressed SBG and traditional systems in comparison to one another. This series does the same for two reasons. First, there are still many more educators and family members whose experience of grades is and was some version of a traditional system. Most people have some understanding of that system. Second, it’s always easier to see what something is or is not when it’s compared to something else. And so, JumpRope readers, let’s look at some of the most common criticisms of SBG and explore why they are, in fact, myths.
Myth 1: Standards-based grading leads to decreased rigor and lower expectations.
This “dumbing down” is made possible because SBG is less descriptive than traditional grading.
If rigor is defined by accumulation of points as reflected in vast quantities of information memorized, then this is true. But if rigor is defined in terms of increased critical thinking and problem-solving, then SBG is significantly more rigorous (Wilcox & Townsley, 2022). A traditional grading system uses an omnibus grade (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Such a grade can, for example, reflect timeliness of assignment submission, performance on tests, and class participation, all rolled into one. More specifically, an omnibus grade in an English Language Arts class might reflect a student’s ability to comprehend texts, write effectively, and deliver oral presentations, again all rolled into one. In an SBG system, the above-mentioned components are graded independently of one another. No one element of what is being graded is hidden by another, as can be the case with the omnibus grade. The added rigor is therefore a result of transparency and clear communication.
The disaggregation of the components which comprise a grade thus make the grade itself more descriptive than that in a traditional system. One common refrain in a traditional system is that the availability of 100 points in a 0-100 scale is inherently more descriptive than the typical 4-point scale used in SBG. As I say in Standards-Based Grading for New Teachers: 5 Bonus Tips, “Panadero and Jonsson (2020) make a strong case for the use of scales with ranges more limited than the traditional 0–100 scale or letters ABCDF with plusses and minuses. They suggest that using proficiency scales or rubrics is less precise than the use of numerical measures, like 23/25 correct on a quiz, but that it is consistently more precise and reliable than assessments made in the absence of identified criteria. In other words, in situations where there is a clear correct or incorrect answer, a raw number indicating proficiency is most precise, but since complex conceptual or skill-based learning is not easily measured in terms of right/wrong, using well-defined ranges of scores, such as exceeds, meets, partially meets, does not yet meet, or 1–4 allows for more accurate grading than other methods. Such a scale, with a limited range and clearly defined criteria, helps mitigate bias” (Needleman, 2025).
Myth 2: Lack of accountability; behavior, effort, deadlines don’t matter any more
Related to the myth above, in fact, behavior, effort, timeliness – these things are frequently called habits of work and learning (HOWLs) – matter quite a bit, but they are graded separately from academic achievement. This occurs because, for example, late submission of an assignment reflects something very different from a low score on a test. There is sometimes a correlation between the two, but distinguishing between things like assignment submission and low test scores better enables teachers and students to address areas that need to be addressed. Needleman (2025) also mentions “we’ve all been vexed by the student who inconsistently completes homework assignments and still scores high marks on the math quiz.”
That same post goes on to describe that “teachers instinctively sense the correlation between the development of good work habits and academic success in school. Chase et al. (2014) determined that ‘the greatest predictor of GPA…was behavioral school engagement’ (p. 891). Their findings support previous studies and conclude that, ‘Youth who display appropriate behaviors of successful students (such as doing homework and participating in class) earn higher GPAs’ (Chase et al., p. 891).” And so, to be sure, abandoning the practice of assessing things like timeless and work completion is not in the best interest of students. Educators practicing SBG recognize this truth and they also recognize the truth that while there might be a strong correlation between those HOWLs and high academic grades, they are not one and the same and so they must be graded as distinct from one another.
Myth 3: SBG creates a culture of mediocrity; Grades should be a motivator to achieve
Let’s begin with the notion that grades should be a motivator. Maybe “should” is the critical word in that sentence, because historically grades only motivate some students, not all (Wilcox & Townsley, 2022). I would argue that grades actually serve as a deterrent to many students, particularly in a traditional grading system where top marks are issued only to a select few. Such a system is predicated on the bell curve which relies on the majority of students attaining average grades, signified by the letter C in an ABCDF system. The students in a traditional system who strive for good grades, who are motivated by the potential to earn them, are the students who do earn them – the ones at the top. Those very same students are still given the space to strive in an SBG system with the promise of exceeding expectations. And in an SBG system, their peers, those who typically are not motivated by grades, would actually find it more difficult to hide from the demands of learning. In an SBG system, the expectation is to rise at least to the level of the standard. There is less opportunity to settle for “good enough.”
The myth of mediocrity and lack of motivation ignores the truth that the game of putting in minimal effort, missing deadlines, and staying silent during class did not spring onto the education scene with the introduction of SBG. We’ve always had students who looked for shortcuts and easy paths, and there have always been students who seemed to be less bothered by their poor or mediocre grades than we wished. The question to ask ourselves is what can we do to better motivate those students: Which components of any learning and grading system inspire investment and the desire to strive?
Through How Standards-Based Assessment Redefines Student Success, (Needleman 2025) I explore this topic in great detail. I cite a longitudinal study conducted with thousands of students and parents that ultimately names behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement as central to student success. I also reference the work of Anderson and Winthrop (2025) who “assert that the level of student engagement is the most significant factor influencing school success… [They] state ‘extensive evidence shows that increased student engagement leads to a myriad of benefits…[including but not limited to] higher attendance rates and grades, higher achievement, higher graduation rates, higher college attendance, and higher rates of staying in college’” (p. xvii). The post goes on to discuss the inextricable connections between multiple aspects of SBG and increased student engagement, which is the variable that research tells us is the key to motivation and increased academic success.
An additional note on motivation: Historically a centerpiece of traditional grading systems is the use of a zero. This single practice is an insidious thief of motivation. The use of zeros shuts students down because there is nearly no way to recover from the damage they inflict. Reeves (2004) explains that in using a 0-100 scale, the mathematical ratio is disproportionately damaging when the increments at the top of the scale are 100-90, 89-80, 79-70, and 69-60 with the next number drawn from the quiver being 0 (zero) rather than 59. Zero is not issued for an assignment submitted where the quality of work is very low, but rather for no work being submitted, despite the reality that no work submitted could reflect any one of many outside barriers having nothing to do with the intended learning outcome, and the mathematical truth that assigning this grade invokes a completely different ratio. As Reeves (2004) says, it communicates a desire to punish.
As always, at JumpRope we emphasize that the foremost goal of grades is to communicate learning, and the foremost job of the teacher is to facilitate that learning. It therefore follows that using grades as a form of punishment is antithetical to our work because it jeopardizes our relationship with the punished student, making our task of helping them learn that much more challenging, and it leads said student into the downward spiral so many of us have seen once their grade feels irretrievable. So rather than taking the easy, vengeful path of adding a zero to the gradebook and wiping our hands clean of our responsibility to teach, I suggest we take an approach that centers learning. Again, as Reeves (2004) shared more than two decades ago, “there are at least a few educators experimenting with the notion that the appropriate consequence for failing to complete an assignment is to require the student to complete the assignment. That is, students lose privileges — free time and unstructured class or study-hall time — and are required to complete the assignment. The price of freedom is proficiency, and students are motivated not by threats of failure but by the opportunity to earn greater freedom and discretion by completing work accurately and on time” (p.325).
That SBG fails to present students with rigorous challenges, that its practice is vague and lacking in description, or that it fails to assess the very dispositions that research tells us are central to successful academic learning are simply myths. These myths, centered on the student experience, are ill-conceived and falsely founded. Stay tuned, readers, for my exploration of the similarly falsely-founded SBG myths centered on teachers and families.
Works Cited:
Anderson, J., & Winthrop, R. (2025). The disengaged teen. Crown.
Chase, P. A., Hilliard, L. J., Geldhof, G. J., Warren, D. J. A., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Academic achievement in the high school years: The changing role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 884–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0085-4
Marzano, R. & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Needleman, S. (2025). Standards-Based Grading for New Teachers: 5 Bonus Tips In JumpRope Blog. Retrieved from https://jumpro.pe/standards-based-grading-for-new-teachers-5-bonus-tips/
Needleman, S. (2025). How standards-based assessment redefines student success In JumpRope Blog. Retrieved from https://jumpro.pe/how-standards-based-assessment-redefines-student-success/
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2020). A critical review of the arguments against the use of rubrics. Educational Research Review, 30, Article 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100329
Reeves, D.B. (2004). The Case Against the Zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4),324-325.
Wilcox, J., & Townsley, M. (2022) Debunking Myths of Standards-Based Grading. The Science Teacher, 90(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368555.2022.12293723
