Standards-based grading (SBG) aims to improve grading scoring learning standards instead of using averages and percentages scales. Though SBG’s principles have merit, its inconsistent implementation often results in more complex grading calculations, an overemphasis on “essential standards,” a continued focus on content knowledge over competence (Gobble et al., 2017; Kohn & Blum, 2020), and the gradebook changing without improving instruction and assessment (Kohn, 2013; Clark & Talbert, 2023; Stommel, 2023). Also, SBG has not addressed achievement gaps, knowledge retention, or standardized test scores as intended (McKell & Danowitz, 2020; Veenstra, 2021).
To understand the shortcomings of SBG, we must first examine the traditional grading illusions that it maintains. (Please note: proficiency, competence, and mastery are used interchangeably throughout this blog post).
6 traditional grading illusions to keep in mind
These illusions persist due to fears that changes in grading may cause lower student performance, increased workload, challenges to teacher identity, or shifts in power dynamics (Kerrissey & Kuznetsova, 2022). Grading reforms like SBG often replicate traditional practices under a new name.
Illusion of agreement
We typically assume grades have universal meaning– that an A means the same thing everywhere. However, this agreement is questionable. Grades lack consistent meaning due to variations in grade calculations and contexts (Sadler, 2005; Guskey, 2022; Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein, 2021). An ‘A’ in one classroom may mean something entirely different in another, leading to inequities in what grades truly represent (Betebenner, 2009; Brookhart, 2020; Guskey, 2014; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019).
Illusion of validity
Grades often seem objective due to calculations like averaging, percentage scales, and weighting. However, these methods vary widely and can be inconsistently applied (Bowers, 2011; Guskey, 2014; Stommel, 2023). For instance, one student may score 89%, and another student may score 91%; they receive different letter grades but have similar levels of understanding and ability. This scenario should make us question the validity of grades.
Illusion of rationality
Some teachers believe their grading policies are logical and make perfect sense (Feldman, 2023). For example, a teacher might explain: “It is a B because you missed a lot of homework worth 3 points (10% of the grade), participated a lot (20% of the grade), but scored poorly on last month’s test (60% of the grade).” Similarly, in standards-based grading, a teacher might say: “It’s a B because your average standard score was 2.8, your assessment average was 2.4, and the combined 2.6 converts to a B.” We must use caution when defending our grading policies, as even mathematically calculated grades may not reliably represent learning.
Illusion of mastery
Students can earn high grades with last-minute studying and over-scaffolded instruction, but this is often an illusion of mastery (Brookhart, 1993; Brown et al., 2014). Thus, grades may reflect only short-term knowledge rather than deep understanding or competence. SBG perpetuates this illusion by prioritizing content standards over developing enduring skills and abilities. Grades should represent rooted understanding and abilities, not temporary remembering.
Illusion of precision
Like traditional grading, SBG relies on detailed calculations, such as weighting and averaging, to make grading appear precise. However, this precision is questionable since teachers determine the weights of events (e.g., test 70% of the grade), percentage cutoffs for a grade (e.g., 92% is an A), and how many correct answers “meet” the standard (Guskey & Brookhart, 2019; Pollio & Beck, 2000; Schimmer, 2016). True precision comes from clear standards, reliable assessments, and quality evidence of learning.
Illusion of relevance
Grades are considered as “proof” of understanding and ability. However, variations in calculations, grade books, and interpretations raise doubts about their relevance. Students may prioritize outcomes over the learning process, often “renting” learning to earn marks and grades instead of creating competence. Also, research shows feedback is far more effective than grades in promoting learning and growth (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wiliam, 2018; Guskey & Brookhart, 2019), so why do we continue to need grades?
How can grading illusions compromise SBG?
These illusions negatively affect SBG by further embedding the very challenges it aims to overcome (Clark & Talbert, 2023; Stommel, 2023). Some ways SBG can be negatively affected by these illusions are the following.
It continues traditional grading practices, but in disguise Some schools implement SBG only to discover they are mimicking traditional grading practices. They may determine grades by averaging standard scores (4,3,2,1), using decaying averages, considering power law algorithms, or employing standard scores-to-percentage scores conversion charts (Rowntree, 2015; Reibel et al., 2025). SBG must go beyond simply repackaging old practices in a new format.
Remains focused on content knowledge over competence
While SBG aligns grading with standards, it often prioritizes content standards over skill standards (Colby, 2019). For example, standards like “use evidence to support a claim about the main characters in To Kill a Mockingbird” or “complete the square to rewrite quadratic equations in vertex form” isolate the learning of content knowledge rather than learning content knowledge through skill mastery performances (Bandura 1997, 2023; Brown et al., 2014). Overemphasis on content standards can overwhelm teachers with large quantities of standards, often resulting in teaching only “essential” standards – a practice that narrows the learning experience too much.
Procedural knowledge passes as proficiency
SBG often allows procedural knowledge—learning basic facts or scaffolded processes—to be mistaken for meaningful mastery. Following steps does not necessarily ensure mastery. For example, following a teacher’s prescribed steps or pneumonic devices to repeatedly solve a problem can create the illusion of mastery instead of rooted mastery (Brown et al., 2014).
Overreliance on Depth of Knowledge (DOK) on rubrics and proficiency scales
SBG teachers typically use DOK to create rubrics. Creating scaled standards with DOK involves changing verbs at each level, for instance, progressing from “recall” to “analyze” to “evaluate. This verb change creates a proficiency progression rather than a proficiency scale (Reibel et al., 2025). Proficiency progressions guide instruction and map pathways toward meeting a standard. Proficiency scales are better suited for assessing how well the student met or did not meet the standard since the verb remains consistent across proficiency scales. Many SBG schools mistakenly use progressions to assess student proficiency. Understanding the distinction between progressions and scales is essential.
Instruction and assessment practices do not improve
SBG often changes the grade book, leaving instruction and assessments rooted in traditional methods. This keeps the classroom learning experience fundamentally unchanged. Since grading, assessment, and instruction are interconnected, teachers must consider how SBG affects classroom pedagogy. We want to avoid stakeholders asking, “Why put so much effort into changing just the grade book structure if the way students learn doesn’t change?”
What is the most important key to grading reforms?
Many teachers often feel their grading decisions are under constant scrutiny. However, since SBG often relies on traditional grading practices, it frequently fails to reduce grading concerns, leaving teachers handling similar complaints. A meaningful grading reform should aim to minimize disputes, not perpetuate them (Guskey, 2014, 2023).
Using SBG doesn’t necessarily mean improved grades or test scores (McKell & Danowitz, 2020; Veenstra, 2021). Negligible changes in student performance metrics can lower confidence in SBG and lead to the initiative floundering or failing. Without also changing assessment, feedback, or instructional practices, schools using SBG often do not see student improvement since it tends to focus on grade book or grade calculation changes (Bandura, 1997, 2023; Mandouit & Hattie, 2023; Reibel et al., 2025).
While SBG aims to improve grading, it often replicates traditional flaws, prioritizing content over competence. Meaningful reform must go beyond the grade book to foster genuine learning. The real question isn’t whether SBG is the best solution, but reevaluating which grading system can truly capture student learning without deeper changes to teaching and assessment.
About the educator
Anthony Reibel hails from Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Illinois and is the current assistant principal for teaching and learning. Anthony is also coauthor of several books: Proficiency-Based Assessment, Proficiency-Based Instruction, Proficiency-Based Grading in the Content Areas, and Pathways to Proficiency which explore the relationship between proficiency, pedagogy, and evidence-based grading.
