This article appeared as "Making the Grade" in the Winter 2025 issue of Independent School.
Teachers at Winchester Thurston School (PA) had been using a conventional grading system for years, incorporating various nonacademic factors such as behavior, attendance, and homework completion—an approach generally familiar to families and students and effective as a classroom management tool. But during the pandemic, student wellness and equitable practices came to the forefront of teachers’ thinking and priorities. They collectively recognized the need to improve how they measured student learning and communicated progress to students and parents. And they were thinking about previous conversations they’d had at the school about the importance of establishing competencies and standards for each department, grade level, division, and for the school as a whole.
Just a few months earlier, in 2020, Amanda Welsh, director of the Winchester Thurston (WT) middle school at the time, had attended the NAIS Annual Conference, where Joe Feldman, author of Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms, presented a workshop about his research and his model for creating a grading system that is accurate, bias-resistant, and intrinsically motivating, in which the grade is based solely on a student’s proficiency or course outcomes. This method draws on standards-based grading, which advocates for eliminating factors such as lateness or effort and aims to dismantle institutional biases (environmental factors outside a student’s control) and the implicit biases embedded in traditional grading systems.
Leadership at WT, including the head of school and other administrators, identified this approach as a match for its goals for grading and competencies and its focus on equity. The school team began working with Feldman’s Crescendo Education Group to offer a series of workshops and individualized coaching to introduce Grading for Equity concepts to faculty members. Allowing this work to begin as voluntary put the school on a path to expedited adoption.
The Approach and Process
In 2021, WT introduced the new approach to Grading for Equity to faculty. At first, participation was voluntary. A group of 10 enthusiastic teachers—half from the middle school, two elementary teachers, and three upper school teachers—formed Cohort 1, eager to explore new grading methods. Through a series of action research cycles—a process that educators can use to identify problems, develop plans, and improve their practices—each teacher chose a new grading practice that they learned from the workshops to implement and collect qualitative and quantitative data. Improved practices included not offering extra credit; allowing test retakes; recording homework performance but not using it in grading calculations; using an alternate scale to 0%–100%; and not including participation or effort in the grade.
Teachers started to share their experiences with colleagues, building a professional learning community of common understandings, mutual support, and an evidence base that showed the benefits of these new grading practices. In the 2022–2023 academic year, Cohort 2—a second group of five teachers—formed, and by the following school year, the initiative expanded to include all remaining middle school faculty and some high school teachers who were intrigued by the results and excited to implement new grading practices in their classrooms. The final cohort included two high school teachers and the remaining six middle school teachers, some of whom were new to the school and a few who were most skeptical of the new approach because of personal beliefs, prior experience, or other factors.
Throughout the process, the school maintained a collaborative and iterative approach, with teachers continually sharing and refining their methods based on colleagues’ input and student feedback. Because of the voluntary nature of the initial work, which demonstrated some success and momentum to continue, the approach began to take hold more quickly than at other institutions.
In 2023–2024, Feldman connected WT leaders with Sarah Morris, a grading reform researcher at the University of Arkansas, to help them learn more about the school’s traditional grading practices and how teachers felt about them. Ten qualitative interviews with middle school teachers revealed that traditional practices didn’t show the full picture of student mastery; the teachers explained that the system often incorporated their own subjective—and frequently misinterpreted—measures of “effort” as well as extraneous factors unrelated to learning outcomes that could reflect students’ resources. Despite their best intentions, the teachers realized, grading could misrepresent students’ true performance, achievement, and readiness, perpetuating disparities for disadvantaged students from marginalized backgrounds. But with the work they’d already started, they were on a path to finding equity in grading.
The Takeaways
It can be difficult to translate theory and aspirations into consistent implementation and daily practices. Rather than trying to create top-down grading policies, which can generate resistance and feelings of disempowerment among teachers, WT viewed the important work of improving grading as an opportunity to build teacher capacity and faculty-wide community agreements and learned some valuable lessons along the way.
Engage faculty and grow organically. Rather than involving all faculty at the outset, WT intentionally created stages for faculty engagement. The voluntary participation of genuinely interested teachers set the stage for more sustainable and meaningful adoption because it avoided a situation where resistant teachers slowed down the innovation of others. Plus, teachers became convinced about the value of equitable grading practices not by administrator persuasion but by their colleagues’ evidence of successful implementation. This bottom-up approach allowed teachers to thoughtfully adapt grading practices to their classroom contexts.
Address homework. Members of Cohort 1 faced difficulties implementing the equitable grading practices because of their inexperience and even some early misunderstandings about the practices. In equitable grading, formative assessments and activities designed for students to practice are not included in the grade calculation because this is the time for students to make mistakes. Early in the process, teachers framed this to mean that homework was optional, rather than clarifying that homework would be recorded in the gradebook but not included in the calculation. This important nuance initially led students to deprioritize homework. As teachers gained a deeper understanding of the equitable grading practices, they could more clearly explain to students the rationale and importance of homework. Then they found that students took their homework assignments more seriously.
Rethink retake policies. Teachers initially allowed unlimited retakes, which became impractical due to the time required for regrading. They adapted by limiting retakes to a specific time or certain test parts, balancing flexibility with practicality.
Gain buy-in from all stakeholders. While many teachers were enthusiastic about the new approach, others were skeptical or resistant to change. To address this, the school organized regular dialogues and workshops where teachers could discuss their concerns, share successes, and collaboratively develop solutions. This inclusive approach helped build a sense of ownership and commitment among the faculty.
Meanwhile, parents’ reactions to the new grading system were varied. Initially, some teachers found it difficult to effectively communicate the changes and reasoning to parents individually. To overcome this, the school administration invested in explaining the rationale behind the new grading practices through targeted discussions and informational sessions after school. These efforts ensured that parents were well-informed and could actively participate in the new grading process.
Adapt grading practices to subjects and grade levels. Teachers collaborated to develop subject-specific rubrics and assessment strategies aligned with the Grading for Equity principles. These collaborative efforts ensured that the new grading practices were practical and effective across various disciplines, yet coherent throughout the middle school. Through these flexible adaptations, collaborative research, and direct and transparent communication, the school gradually integrated equitable grading into its teaching framework, ensuring that teachers within the same departments and grade levels aligned effectively with Grading for Equity principles, leading to a more equitable and effective grading system.
Promote PD and collaboration. A comprehensive professional development program, which included regular workshops and coaching, was central to the successful implementation of equitable grading practices. Structured dialogues and ongoing support allowed teachers to deepen their understanding, improve implementation, share experiences, troubleshoot challenges, and refine practices collaboratively.
As Cohort 1 became more adept and saw positive results, teachers advocated for a schoolwide emphasis on summative assessments over homework and suggested mandatory participation in Grading for Equity professional development for all educators. This coordinated approach, and the administration’s pairing of policy changes with professional development, fostered a unified strategy toward grading reform, underscoring the school’s commitment to a fair and effective educational environment.
Looking Ahead
WT remains committed to equitable grading practices. The middle school has made steady progress in adopting these practices through a multistaged process supported by comprehensive professional development. Meanwhile, the upper school hasn’t yet fully embraced Grading for Equity but is exploring how best to implement the concepts.
Different academic environments might require different approaches to equity and inclusion. But learning about the concepts, asking questions, and trying new approaches already demonstrates a commitment to thoughtful and intentional change in grading—and beyond.