Educators attempting to implement standards-based grading and reporting encounter a range of challenges. Among the most significant is how to define the highest level of student performance on a grading or proficiency scale.
Some suggest that the top level should represent performance that exceeds the stated learning goals. They believe the highest grade should be reserved for truly exceptional work that goes well beyond mastery of the standards and genuinely impresses or surprises the teacher. For example, a student’s project may be extraordinarily colorful, include more details, or incorporate animation.
Others contend that the highest grade should reflect learning that is more advanced or cognitively complex than the articulated goals. The distinction lies not in exceeding expectations, but in going deeper. For instance, if a standard asks students to apply their learning in new or unfamiliar contexts, a higher level might involve analyzing, synthesizing, or comparing applications across multiple contexts.
Issues arise when this perspective is shared with students and their parents. The parents who feel the strongest about the importance of education and are the most supportive of education often encourage their children to strive for the highest grade possible in each class. That typically means earning a grade of A or achieving at the “exemplary” or “distinguished” level in standards-based systems.
Evidence indicates that parents seldom challenge the rigor of learning expectations set for that highest level of performance. They rarely suggest that educators are asking too much of their children. Parents’ primary concerns center on the clarity and transparency of those expectations.
When educators explain that achieving the highest level requires exceeding the standards, parents want concrete details. They want answers to questions like, “Does that mean my child needs to learn things outside the curriculum?” “How will they know what that is?” and “If these things are important for students to learn, why are they not included in the curriculum?”
Likewise, educators who describe that earning the highest grade involves learning at a deeper and more complex cognitive level must be prepared for questions such as, “Are you teaching students how to think and perform at that level, or are they expected to figure that out themselves?” “How are students to demonstrate that higher level of learning?” and “Will students have opportunities to practice those skills in class and receive feedback from you?”
If answering these questions would be difficult, it’s time to reconsider your approach.
Some educators argue that this issue could be resolved by eliminating letter grades altogether. However, letter grades are only one of many ways to categorize student performance. Whether we represent achievement with letters, numbers, symbols, or descriptors like “exemplary” or “distinguished” makes little practical difference.
Other educators try to change how students and parents view grades by encouraging them to prioritize learning over grades. But these efforts seldom work. Attitudes toward grades are shaped by experience, and most students and parents have learned that grades matter. They are also mindful of the college-application process where, despite recent trends to consider a broader range of student data in granting admission and scholarships, grades still count.
Furthermore, even when parents understand that the highest level is reserved for truly exceptional work that exceeds the standards, they still want their child to attain that level. For these parents, being merely “proficient” is not sufficient. They expect their child to strive for whatever the teacher defines as the highest performance level.
To address these concerns, educators must reconsider how they design grading or proficiency scales, as well as how they construct scoring criteria. In particular, they need to return to the approach Benjamin Bloom proposed in his work on mastery learning. Bloom recognized that regardless of how “mastery” was defined, some groups would inevitably challenge it. Rather than debating the definition itself, he reframed the issue by placing responsibility with teachers.
Teachers already assess student performance and assign grades based on those assessments. When grading is criterion-referenced—focused on what students know and are able to do rather than how they compare with their peers—teachers have, in effect, already defined mastery. It is the level of performance required to earn an A. Instead of asking teachers to invent a new definition of mastery, Bloom posed a simpler question: What do you expect students to demonstrate in order to earn an A? ‘That level of performance then becomes the definition of mastery and the benchmark for all students.
Building on this idea, Bloom argued that grading or proficiency scales should be constructed from the top down. Rather than beginning at the “proficient” level and adjusting upward or downward, teachers should first clearly articulate the highest level of performance and explain how it exceeds the standards, if it does. What does that top level look like in practice? What demonstrates evidence? How will it be recognized if students and parents choose to aim for that highest level and that choice should be supported. If “proficient” falls below that level, the distinction should be made explicit.
Students and parents’ frustrations with grading rarely come from the rigor of educators’ expectations for students’ performance. They come instead from the lack of clarity and transparency regarding those expectations and inadequate support for students to meet them.
Educators who clearly establish grading criteria and communicate them openly to parents see difficult questions about grades not as challenges but as opportunities. These conversations allow teachers to reinforce the importance of rigorous learning goals and to work collaboratively with parents to support every student in meeting them.
