If Not Traditional Grading… Then What?: Making Sense of Fair Grading

What actually makes a grade fair, and what happens when we mix learning, behavior, and completion into one number?

In this episode, we go beyond traditional grading debates and get into the real questions educators and parents are asking right now: Should students be allowed to retest? How do we fairly grade homework when access and home environments vary? And what role does AI play in whether homework even reflects true learning?

We also explore why some schools are shifting grading scales (like the 50 minimum) and moving toward standards-based grading, and why changing numbers alone doesn’t solve the deeper issue.

A major focus of this conversation is clarity: grades should reflect academic mastery, not behavior, effort, or circumstances outside of learning. So what does accountability look like if it’s not tied to grades?

This episode challenges assumptions, invites reflection, and pushes us to ask a bigger question:

Are our grading systems measuring what students know or everything around it?

A must-listen for educators, parents, and anyone rethinking what fairness in education really means.

Connect With Me

To submit a question or join my mailing list, use the information below.

• Facebook Group: TheAdvocate
• Instagram: @TheAdvocateDr.Love
• Email: Dr.Love.TheAdvocate@gmail.com

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:03

After our last episode, the conversation didn't stop. It got deeper. Parents started asking questions, teachers started reflecting, and the biggest question I kept hearing was, okay, but what does fair grading actually look like? And I love that question. Because today we're not just talking about what's wrong, we're working through what makes sense. Welcome back to the Advocate Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Christy N. Love. And this episode is about clarity. We're walking through real questions from teachers and parents and thinking through them together. Because if we're going to change grading, we have to understand what we are really trying to measure. Let's go.

SPEAKER_00 0:57

Dr. Christy N. Love is an experienced educator and advocate dedicated to empowering students and families to ensure children receive a high-quality education. She specializes in culturally responsive teaching, restorative practices, and social-emotional learning, helping schools create supportive and inclusive environments. Through the Advocate Podcast, she amplifies voices, challenges inequitable systems, and keeps children at the center of every conversation.

SPEAKER_01 1:34

So this conversation is happening everywhere, especially on social media. So I want to bring in a few real questions and let's unpack them. One social media post states, I'm trying to find a fair way of grading retests. I teach algebra one and I informed my students that if they receive a grade of 69% or below, they can retest. Looking back, I just don't think it's fair to allow those students to retest and get a higher grade than the other students. But I'm not really into averages either. Advice? This is such a real concern because it feels unfair. One student got it right the first time, another gets another opportunity. So let's pause and ask, what is the grade measuring? The student who got it right the first time already demonstrated mastery. The student who retests and improves demonstrates mastery later. So now the question becomes do we value when learning happens or that it happens at all? I had a parent raise a similar concern. He was struggling with the idea that this doesn't feel fair, and honestly, that's real. Because we've been conditioned to think same work, same timeline, same outcome equals fair. But learning just doesn't work like that. And then the question becomes should everyone be allowed to retest? And my answer is yes, because if mastery is the goal, every student should have the opportunity to reach it. But with structure, not just retake and hope. We're talking test corrections, additional practice, evidence of new learning. So retesting becomes a result of growth, not just a second chance at guessing. Fair isn't everyone doing the same thing. It's everyone being held to the same standard. And no one should be punished for learning more slowly than someone else. When we use the test data to drive instruction and give students another opportunity to demonstrate mastery, then we've prioritized learning, not just assigning grades. That same parent said something else that stuck with me. He said, I just don't feel like this prepares kids for real life. And I understood exactly what he meant. Because in real life, deadlines matter, responsibility matters. But here's where we have to be careful. In the real world, if you're late on something, your boss addresses your behavior. They don't say you no longer know how to do your job. They don't erase your skill. They separate performance from behavior. So when we lower grades for late work, we're not teaching responsibility, we're distorting meaning. Here's another social media post. Grading homework might be one of the least equitable things we do in education. Some kids go home to a quiet desk, two parents, and a snack. Some go home to chaos, noise, and real responsibility. The grade often reflects the home environment, not the learning. That doesn't mean no accountability. It means we should be honest about what we're actually measuring. Wow. This right here is powerful. Because homework doesn't just measure effort, it often measures access. Access to time, access to support, access to stability. So when we grade homework heavily, we may not be grading learning at all. And now let's add another layer to this conversation. AI. Students now have access to tools that can solve mathematical problems for them, write responses, and even complete assignments. So now we have to ask, is homework still an accurate measure of learning? Because if a student can submit perfect work but didn't actually do the thinking, then what are we truly measuring? So between home environments, outside help, and now AI, homework becomes even less reliable as a measure of mastery. That doesn't mean we eliminate it, but it does mean we have to be honest about its purpose. Is it practice or is it proof of learning? If we can't be sure who or what did the work, we can't confidently say what the student knows. And another social media post. What if we remove zeros from the grade book and fifty is the new minimum? You have a student that turns in every assignment but scores low, and another that does the work but turns in nothing. Is it fair for both to get a fifty? I do think proficiency competency grading should be the standard. This is where the grading conversations get complicated, because we're trying to fix a system without redefining what grades mean. If a student turns in nothing, we don't have evidence of learning. That's not a fifty. That's missing information. But if a student attempts the work and struggles, that tells us something different. So again, we come back to the same question. What does the grade represent? Changing the scale doesn't fix the problem if the meaning stays the same. And many schools are trying minimum grading like fifty instead of zero. And even standard based grading. And those are steps in the right direction. But none of it works without a clear understanding of purpose. So what if we completely flipped how we think about grades? What if the highest possible grade wasn't 100 but 50? And a zero didn't mean failure, it meant no evidence of learning. Because let's think about that for a moment. Right now, a zero can mean you didn't turn it in, you didn't understand it, you didn't try, or something else entirely. But those are very different situations. So what if we made it clear? Zero equals no evidence. Anything above that, some level of understanding. Now I'm not saying we all need to switch to a zero to fifty scale tomorrow, because that would create a whole new set of challenges. But here's the point. The numbers aren't the real issue. The meaning behind them is. What we really need isn't a new number system, we need clarity. Clarity about what counts as learning, clarity about what counts as evidence, and clarity about what a grade is actually communicating. Now let's bring it all together. What does fair grading actually look like? Fair grading focuses on mastery. What does the student know right now? Fair grading allows relearning, because learning is a process, not a one-shot event. Fair grading uses practice as feedback. Not everything belongs in the gradebook. Homework and quizzes should be used as data to drive instruction, not averaged into the final grade. And fair grading separates behavior from academics. Yes, responsibility matters, but it is not an academic grade. So now you may be wondering, if we separate behavior from grades, then how do we hold students accountable? Because I want to be very clear, behavior absolutely matters, but we must separate academic learning from behavioral expectations. So the question becomes where do we address behavior if not in the academic grade? Behavior should still be taught, reinforced, and addressed, but in ways that actually change behavior and not distort grades. Here's what that can look like. Providing clear expectations. Students should know exactly what is expected, deadlines, participation, responsibility, and respect for learning time. Natural consequences should be applied, not academic penalties. If work is late, the consequence should be about the behavior itself. Provide structured time to complete the assignment, loss of privileges, require completion during support time and parent communication, not automatically lowering academic understanding. Students should be allowed to reflect and repair. Students should have opportunities reflect. Why was it late? What barriers existed? What plan will prevent it next time? That's where growth happens. We should provide support systems. Some students aren't struggling with content. They're struggling with organization, home responsibilities, and executive functioning. So behavior support should look like check-ins, planners, intervention time, and mentoring. So the goal here is not to ignore behavior. The goal is to stop using academic grades to manage behavior. When we mix the two, we end up with grades that don't reflect learning, punishment that doesn't change behavior, and confusion for everyone involved. And students don't actually get better at either. If we want better behavior, we have to teach behavior. If we want accurate grades, we have to measure learning. Those are two different jobs. This is not about making things easier. Because right now, grades can misrepresent struggling students, overestimate others, and confuse everyone in between. So I'll leave you with this. If a grade is supposed to communicate learning, can we confidently say it does? Because in a world where support varies, tools like AI exist, and learning takes time, we have to be more intentional than ever. Not just about what we grade, but why. If this episode made you think, share it. Start the conversation and ask yourself, what do my grades actually measure? Because our students deserve clarity, not confusion. Thank you again for joining the Advocate Podcast. I've been your host, Dr. Christy N. Love. And until next time, keep asking the hard questions, keep showing up for our children, and keep advocating because children deserve adults who won't stop fighting for them. Be blessed.