Imagine you're a parent staring at your eighth-grader's Language Arts grade: 72%. What does that tell you? Did your child struggle to cite evidence from texts, or did they lose points for forgetting to put their name on a paper? Did the teacher weight homework at 40%, or was this mostly test performance? A single percentage can't answer any of those questions, and that ambiguity compounds every semester until graduation.
That is the central problem standards-based grading (SBG) was designed to solve. Instead of compressing a semester's worth of learning into a single number, SBG reports student performance against specific, defined learning standards. Every stakeholder in the room, whether student, parent, or teacher, can see exactly what has been mastered and exactly where work remains.
What Is Standards- Based Grading?
Standards-based grading is an assessment framework that evaluates student proficiency against predetermined learning standards rather than averaging scores across a mix of assignments, tests, homework, and participation. The core question shifts from "How many points did you earn?" to "Can you demonstrate this skill?"
Most SBG systems use a 1–4 proficiency scale:
- 4 — Exceeds Standard: The student demonstrates skills beyond grade-level expectations, often by applying knowledge in novel contexts.
- 3 — Meets Standard: The student demonstrates grade-level proficiency on the target skill.
- 2 — Approaching Standard: The student shows partial understanding but has identifiable gaps.
- 1 — Beginning: The student shows limited or no evidence of the skill.
Each score is anchored to observable, specific behaviors described in a rubric. Scores are not impressions of effort or running tallies of points collected — they are readings of current skill level.
One of SBG's defining features is the separation of academic achievement from non-academic factors like effort and behavior. When attendance, participation, and work habits are folded into a traditional grade, the resulting number obscures more than it reveals.
Traditional vs. Standards-Based Grading: Key Differences
The differences between the two systems run deeper than the report card format. Here's how they compare across the dimensions that matter most to educators:
| Dimension | Traditional Grading | Standards-Based Grading |
|---|---|---|
| What gets graded | Assignments, tests, participation, homework completion | Demonstrated proficiency on specific learning standards |
| Scale | 0–100% or A–F | 1–4 proficiency levels |
| How scores combine | Points accumulated and averaged over a marking period | Most recent and consistent evidence of mastery |
| Behavior and effort | Often built into the academic grade | Reported separately or not at all |
| Reassessment | Rare; hi | storical grades are permanent |
| Feedback specificity | "You got a 68%" | "You're at a 2 on citing textual evidence" |
| Parent transparency | Low — one number reflects many factors | High — each standard is individually visible |
One well-documented concern with traditional grading is the inconsistency baked into the system: a B in one teacher's class may require very different work than a B in the classroom next door, and neither grade tells students or parents what specific skills need development.
Critics of SBG sometimes argue it opens the door to grade inflation by removing point deductions for missing assignments. But traditional grades are already distorted by extra credit, participation bonuses, and attendance rewards that have nothing to do with academic mastery. The A student who can't perform independently on a new task is a product of the old system. SBG at least surfaces that gap rather than hiding it.
The Core Pillars: Mastery, Rubrics, and Formative Assessment
Three elements hold any SBG system together. All three must work in concert. Weaken one and the system's value collapses.
Learning Targets
Every unit must begin with clearly stated learning targets written in student-facing language. "Students will understand the Civil War" is an instructional goal. "I can explain three economic causes of the Civil War using primary source evidence" is a learning target. The distinction matters because students can only self-direct their learning if they understand precisely what success requires.
Thomas Guskey, professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky and one of the most cited researchers in grading reform, has argued in his analysis of SBG's effectiveness that mastery learning works when students receive specific feedback tied to defined targets and have structured opportunities to demonstrate growth over time. The learning target is what makes that feedback legible.
Rubrics Over Percentages
In SBG, rubrics are not supplemental tools — they are the grading instrument. Each level of the proficiency scale must describe observable, concrete student behavior. "Partially demonstrates understanding" is not a rubric descriptor. "Cites evidence from the text but does not explain how it supports the argument" is.
Building rubrics with this level of specificity is front-loaded, time-intensive work. A practical approach is to start with one subject or grade level rather than attempting a school-wide rollout simultaneously — the rubric-building workload alone can overwhelm even enthusiastic teachers when taken on at scale.
Formative Assessment and Reassessment Policy
SBG depends structurally on formative assessment. If the goal is demonstrated mastery and students receive only one high-stakes opportunity to show it, the system functions no differently than a traditional test-and-average setup. Multiple low-stakes checkpoints throughout a unit give students feedback early enough to change their approach.
Allowing reassessment connects to growth mindset: grades are not permanent judgments but current readings of proficiency, and students who understand this tend to treat setbacks as actionable information rather than fixed verdicts. Most SBG practitioners recommend replacing the prior score with the most recent assessment score rather than averaging them — averaging reinstates the exact logic SBG was designed to escape.
Implementing SBG in the Classroom: A Step-by- Step Guide
Rolling out standards-based grading without a deliberate plan leads to one of two outcomes: a half-implemented system that confuses every stakeholder, or a full retreat to traditional grading after one difficult semester. The following sequence reflects what successful implementations share in common.
Step 1: Identify Your Power Standards
Start with your state or district curriculum and identify 6–10 power standards per course — the skills students most need to have in order to succeed at the next level. Not every standard warrants equal weight or separate reporting. Power standards anchor your system; supporting standards get addressed in instruction without requiring individual score tracking.
Step 2: Write Student-Facing Learning Targets
Convert each power standard into an "I can" statement written at the students' reading level. Post these at the beginning of each unit in your physical classroom and in your LMS. Students should be able to look at the target and understand exactly what demonstrating mastery requires.
Step 3: Build Rubrics Before the Unit Begins
For each learning target, describe what performance at each proficiency level looks like in concrete, observable terms. Share rubrics with students before any summative assessment — not as a hint, but as the definition of the goal. Students who see the rubric only after getting graded are being evaluated against criteria they couldn't have prepared for.
Step 4: Sequence Formative and Summative Assessments
Design at least two formal opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency: formative checks at the midpoint of each unit and a summative assessment atthe end. Define your reassessment policy in writing before the semester starts, covering how many retakes, in what format, and within what timeframe, and share it with students and parents on day one.
Step 5: Calibrate Across Your Department
Inconsistent implementation is widely recognized as one of the most common reasons SBG fails in schools where it had genuine support. When two teachers score the same student work differently, both the scores and the system lose credibility. Calibration sessions, where teachers score identical student work samples together and discuss discrepancies, are the mechanism through which department-wide consistency gets built. Schedule them monthly during the first year.
The most predictable failure point in SBG implementation is rubric overload. Tracking 40 individual standards per student per semester in a district-wide rollout creates an administrative burden that burns out even committed teachers. Start with your power standards only. Build strong rubrics for those, run one semester, then expand. Sustainable implementation beats comprehensive implementation every time.
High School Challenges: Remediation vs. Grade- Level Standards
Standards-based grading works most cleanly in elementary school, where a single teacher manages most subjects and standards are relatively contained. High school presents a harder set of problems.
A tenth-grade student reading at a sixth-grade level is not "approaching standard" for a tenth-grade reading benchmark — they have a genuine multi-year skill gap. Marking them as a 1 against the tenth-grade standard is accurate, but it tells counselors and families nothing about whether the student is making progress from their actual starting point.
Some high schools address this with dual reporting: a grade-level standards score that maintains standard integrity, paired with a growth score that tracks movement from each student's baseline. The two scores serve different audiences. The grade-level score answers, "Is the student ready for the next course?" The growth score answers, "Is the student actually learning and moving forward?"
The second high school challenge is the college transcript. Most universities still receive and interpret traditional letter grades and GPA. Research published through EdWorkingPapers at Brown University's Annenberg Institute documents ongoing administrator concern about how standards-based transcripts translate for college admissions offices. A growing number of selective colleges have indicated willingness to evaluate non-traditional transcripts, but until standards-based reporting becomes widespread at the secondary level, most high schools using SBG maintain a parallel GPA conversion for the college transcript. This is not a contradiction — it is a practical accommodation.
Communicating with Stakeholders: Parent Scripts and College Admissions
Parent communication is where SBG implementations succeed or fail in public perception. A parent who doesn't understand why their child received a 3 instead of an A, and who feels the grading system is obscuring information rather than clarifying it, will become a vocal critic before the first semester ends.
A Script for Parent Night
"We've moved from averaging points to reporting what your child has actually mastered. Instead of a 78% that could mean anything, you'll see that your child is at a 3 in argumentative writing and a 2 in citing textual evidence. You know exactly where they're strong and exactly where we need to focus together. We track effort and work habits separately, so you get two clear pictures instead of one blurry number. Our goal hasn't changed: we want your child prepared for the next level of school. We're just giving you a more specific map of how they're getting there."
Addressing the College Admissions Question
Be direct. Tell parents your school maintains a GPA conversion for college transcripts and provide a written conversion reference: a 4 corresponds to an A, a 3 to a B, a 2 to a C. Some schools add half-steps (3.5, 2.5) for additional granularity in the conversion. Families should not have to guess, and they should receive this document at the start of the year, not when they begin the college application process.
For Skeptical Parents
Acknowledge the concern rather than dismissing it. Critics raise a legitimate question about accountability for assignment completion. A student who submits nothing and faces no grade consequence is a genuine concern. You can agree that completing work matters while explaining the design choice: completion and effort are tracked and reported separately from proficiency, so the academic grade reflects academic learning, and the work habits record reflects follow-through. That is more information, not less.
At the start of each year, send home a printed or digital reference card: the 1–4 scale with plain-language descriptions of each level, how standards scores appear on the report card, your reassessment policy, and how to read the separate work habits report. Most parent questions during the year can be answered by pointing back to this card.
Technical Integration: Managing SBG in Your Student Information System
Most major student information systems support standards-based grading, but configuration is not automatic and the default setup usually assumes traditional grading.
PowerSchool allows schools to create custom standards sets aligned to state frameworks and configure separate gradebook columns for each standard. Teachers assign proficiency scores independently of traditional percentage grades. The standards-based report card is generated as a separate output from the traditional report card, and both can be maintained simultaneously during a transition period.
Infinite Campus supports SBG through its "Learning Standards" gradebook mode. District administrators must configure the proficiency scale before teachers can access it at the classroom level. As with PowerSchool, the key configuration step is disabling automatic averaging across standards — if the system averages your standard scores into a single composite number, the diagnostic value of individual standard tracking disappears.
If your SIS does not support non-traditional grading scales, dedicated gradebook platforms like JumpRope or Empower can serve as parallel systems. Teachers enter standards-based scores there; converted grades feed into the SIS for official transcript purposes. The workaround adds administrative overhead, which is one reason district-level SIS configuration is worth pursuing even when the default setup makes it difficult.
What the Research Actually Says
Before committing to a full implementation, administrators and curriculum directors deserve an honest account of the evidence. A meta-analysis of SBG research compiled through ERIC finds that while the system requires significant mindset shifts from teachers, students, and parents, the studies examining its direct impact on student achievement show mixed results — some positive correlations with academic performance, others finding no statistically significant difference compared to traditional grading.
The honest reading of that evidence is not that SBG doesn't work. It's that SBG, like any instructional or assessment reform, produces better results under certain conditions: strong professional development, consistent implementation across classrooms, and clear communication with families. When those conditions are absent, the system's benefits remain theoretical.
The case for standards-based grading is not that it will automatically raise test scores. The case is that a 3 on "citing textual evidence" tells a student, a teacher, and a parent something specific and actionable. A 72% doesn't. That specificity, multiplied across every skill and every student in a school, is a meaningful improvement in how schools communicate about learning. Building the system well enough to capture that value is the work.
Flip Education helps teachers design active learning experiences aligned to curriculum standards. Explore lesson planning tools built for the way teachers actually work.
