The Admin Angle: Grading Drift

I. Introduction

A student earns an 82 in one teacher’s class and a 94 in another teacher’s class. Did the second student demonstrate substantially more mastery? Maybe. Or perhaps one teacher accepts unlimited late work while the other deducts 20 percent after a deadline. One averages retakes with the original test while another replaces the score completely. One gives ten points of extra credit for bringing tissues. Another refuses extra credit because it has nothing to do with academic achievement. Down the hallway, a missing assignment becomes a zero in one gradebook and a 50 in another.

At some point, those differences stop being harmless teacher preference and become grading drift: the gradual development of inconsistent grading practices that make grades mean different things depending on which classroom a student happens to enter. A century of grading research shows that teacher-assigned grades can represent a combination of academic achievement and nonacademic factors such as effort, behavior, participation, and work habits. That complexity does not make grades useless, but it does mean school leaders should pay attention to what their grades actually communicate (Brookhart et al., 2016; Bowers, 2011).

Want done-for-you lesson plans for less than $2? Click Here to explore.

The answer is not for principals to dictate how many points every worksheet should be worth. It is also not to mandate the latest grading philosophy wholesale. Research on grading reform suggests that meaningful changes are difficult, context-dependent, and heavily influenced by teacher beliefs and schoolwide support (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Instead, administrators should establish a small set of consistent grading expectations around the questions that most affect the meaning of a grade: late work, reassessment, missing work, extra credit, academic versus behavioral factors, and how teams determine final marks.

A grade should not mean one thing in Room 201 and something fundamentally different in Room 203.

That is not teacher autonomy. That is a system without a shared definition of what its most visible measure of student performance actually means.

II. What Grading Drift Looks Like in a Real School

Grading drift rarely starts with a formal decision. It develops slowly because teachers inherit practices from mentors, departments, former schools, personal experience, and whatever the electronic gradebook happens to make easiest.

Research reflects this complexity. Brookhart et al. (2016), reviewing more than a century of grading research, found that grades frequently incorporate multiple dimensions beyond straightforward academic achievement. Bowers (2011) similarly found that high school grades appear to capture both academic knowledge and students’ ability to navigate the social processes of schooling.

Inside a school, that can produce situations like these:

• One sixth-grade teacher accepts assignments until the final day of the quarter, while another stops accepting them after five days.
• One algebra teacher allows every assessment to be retaken, while another allows no reassessment.
• One teacher gives a zero for missing work, while another enters 50 percent.
• One department counts homework for 40 percent of the grade, while another views homework primarily as practice.
• One teacher awards extra credit for bringing classroom supplies, while another limits every point in the gradebook to evidence of course learning.
• One teacher lowers grades for poor behavior or participation, while another reports those concerns separately.

Individually, teachers may have thoughtful rationales for each choice. The problem appears when students encounter substantially different grading systems for the same school experience.

If grades influence eligibility, awards, course placement, honor rolls, transcripts, family concern, and decisions about intervention, then their meaning cannot be entirely dependent on individual preference.

III. Why Grades Lose Meaning When Everyone Uses Different Rules

The central leadership question should be simple:

What does a grade in this school mean?

If teachers cannot answer that question in reasonably similar ways, administrators have a system problem.

Guskey and Link (2019) examined the factors 943 K–12 teachers considered when determining report-card grades and found considerable complexity in how educators weigh achievement, effort, improvement, behavior, and other factors. The findings help explain why two educators looking at similar evidence can arrive at different grades.

This matters because grades perform several functions simultaneously. They communicate performance to students and families. They influence student decisions and motivation. At the secondary level, they become part of transcripts used by colleges and other institutions. Pattison, Grodsky, and Muller (2013) argue that the value of grades depends in part on their ability to function as meaningful signals; when the relationship between the grade and what it is supposed to represent weakens, so does that signaling value. Importantly, their analysis also cautions against defining grade inflation simply as rising grades—higher grades are only problematic when they no longer accurately communicate the underlying performance they are intended to signal.

That distinction is important for administrators.

The problem is not that a school has too many A’s.

The problem is when nobody can confidently explain what an A represents.

IV. Start by Defining the Purpose of a Grade

Before arguing about zeroes, retakes, or late penalties, administrators should lead staff through a more fundamental question:

What information should the academic grade communicate?

A useful starting definition is:

An academic grade should communicate a student’s demonstrated level of learning in relation to the course or grade-level expectations.

That definition does not automatically resolve every grading debate, but it provides a test for future decisions.

Ask:

• Does this grading practice make the final grade a clearer measure of learning?
• Does it distort the grade with information that could be reported another way?
• Would two students with similar mastery receive reasonably similar academic grades?
• Could a parent look at the grade and understand approximately what the student knows and can do?

Research makes clear why the conversation is necessary. Teacher-assigned grades have historically included both achievement and nonachievement factors, and those factors can give grades value in some contexts while simultaneously complicating their interpretation as pure measures of academic achievement (Brookhart et al., 2016; Bowers, 2011).

The goal should therefore not be to pretend grades are perfect measurements. The goal should be to make their meaning more intentional, more transparent, and more consistent.

V. Late Work: Stop Letting Every Classroom Invent Its Own System

Late work is one of the fastest ways grading drift becomes visible to families.

Imagine two students who complete the exact same history essay to the exact same standard.

One receives a 90.

The other receives a 63 because it was three days late.

What is the 63 communicating?

Part of it reflects history learning. Part reflects timeliness. The problem is not necessarily that deadlines should never matter. Deadlines absolutely matter in school and life. The question is whether the academic grade is the best place to communicate that behavior.

Check out our engaging printable posters. CLICK HERE to explore!

A schoolwide late-work framework could establish expectations such as:

• Students are expected to meet deadlines.
• Teachers communicate meaningful deadlines clearly.
• Late work triggers follow-up, intervention, or other accountability rather than an unlimited free pass.
• Academic penalties, if used, remain within agreed schoolwide boundaries rather than varying dramatically by teacher.
• Chronic missing work triggers a support process rather than simply accumulating failing marks.

That still gives teachers flexibility. A high school Advanced Placement course and a third-grade classroom do not need identical procedures. A long-term project may require different deadlines than a nightly practice assignment.

Consistency does not mean sameness.

It means the school agrees that one teacher should not effectively destroy a grade for three late assignments while the teacher next door imposes no meaningful expectation at all.

VI. Retakes: Create a Learning Policy, Not a Grade-Boosting Game

Retakes generate some of the strongest disagreement in grading conversations.

One side argues:

“If students did not learn it the first time, why shouldn’t they have another opportunity?”

The other asks:

“If students can retake everything indefinitely, why would they prepare the first time?”

Both concerns are legitimate.

The strongest answer is usually not unlimited retakes or no retakes. It is structured reassessment.

One recent cluster randomized controlled trial provides particularly useful evidence here. Kramer et al. (2025) studied a ninth-grade mathematics approach combining standards-based grading, formative assessment, feedback, and reassessment. Students in intervention schools demonstrated stronger mathematics learning than those in business-as-usual schools. Critically, the reassessment system required additional learning activities before students could try again; it was not simply “take the test repeatedly until you like the score.”

A district or school might therefore establish reassessment expectations such as:

• Reassessment is available for identified priority learning.
• Students must complete corrective work before reassessing.
• Reassessment measures the same standard without simply repeating identical questions.
• Teachers establish reasonable reassessment windows.
• Teams agree in advance how the new evidence affects the recorded grade.

This preserves the principle that learning can improve over time without turning reassessment into an endless point-recovery system.

And it avoids another form of grading drift: the student who can retake indefinitely in first period but gets one attempt in fourth period.

VII. Minimum Grades and Zeroes: Stop Pretending This Is a Simple Debate

Few grading issues generate more heat than minimum-grade policies.

Should the lowest score be a zero?

A 40?

A 50?

Should a missing assignment receive the same minimum as an attempted assignment?

There are legitimate mathematical and philosophical arguments on multiple sides, and administrators should be cautious about pretending the research has produced a universal answer. Even the stronger experimental evidence supporting some standards-based grading practices does not automatically validate every policy commonly bundled under the standards-based grading label. Kramer et al. (2025), for example, studied a specific model built around learning outcomes, formative feedback, and structured reassessment—not every possible minimum-grade or late-work policy.

The leadership failure is therefore not necessarily choosing one minimum over another.

The leadership failure is allowing:

• Teacher A to enter zeroes.
• Teacher B to use a 50-percent floor.
• Teacher C to leave missing assignments blank indefinitely.
• Teacher D to exempt missing assignments entirely.

Now the mathematical rules of the grading system—not simply student learning—can determine whether students pass.

Schools should settle the issue deliberately.

Whatever policy is chosen, leaders should explain:

• what a missing mark means
• what an attempted but very weak performance means
• whether the minimum applies to both situations
• what students must do after missing important work
• how families can distinguish missing evidence from demonstrated low achievement

A consistent policy does not end the debate.

It makes the debate an institutional decision rather than a classroom lottery.

VIII. Extra Credit: Ask What the Extra Points Actually Prove

Extra credit is another small practice that can quietly destroy consistency.

Consider these examples:

• Five points for bringing tissues.
• Ten points for attending a school event.
• Bonus points for decorating a binder.
• Five extra points for answering a challenge question tied directly to course content.

Those are not equivalent practices.

If the grade is intended to communicate academic achievement, the first three add information that has little to do with academic mastery. Research has long established that grades frequently contain nonachievement factors, which makes their interpretation more complicated (Brookhart et al., 2016; Bowers, 2011).

A simple schoolwide expectation might be:

Extra credit must demonstrate additional learning related to course expectations.

That still gives teachers enormous flexibility.

It simply means students should not be able to transform a B into an A by donating dry-erase markers.

If extra points do not represent additional evidence of learning, leaders should ask whether they belong in an academic grade at all.

IX. Grade Inflation: Monitor the Signal, Not Just the Average

Grade inflation can become a politically charged phrase, so administrators should use it carefully.

An increase in A’s is not automatically evidence of lower standards. Students may genuinely be performing better. Curriculum may have improved. Tutoring may be stronger. Teachers may be providing more effective feedback.

Pattison et al. (2013) make this distinction directly: grade inflation is best understood through the signaling power of grades, not simply through an increase in average GPA. If higher grades correspond to stronger achievement, calling the change “inflation” may be inappropriate. The concern appears when grades rise while their ability to distinguish or communicate actual performance deteriorates.

That gives administrators a much better monitoring strategy.

Instead of asking only:

“Are grades going up?”

Ask:

• Are course grades becoming increasingly disconnected from common assessment results?
• Are failure rates dramatically different between teachers teaching the same course?
• Does one department award substantially more A’s despite similar performance indicators?
• Are students entering the next course with grades suggesting mastery but lacking prerequisite skills?
• Have policy changes altered grades dramatically without corresponding evidence of additional learning?

This is not a reason to use standardized assessments as the sole truth. Teacher grades contain information tests do not, and Bowers (2011) emphasizes their multidimensional nature. It is a reason to look for unexplained discrepancies.

Grades should be informative enough that the next teacher does not routinely discover that a student who earned an A never mastered the essential prerequisite skills.

X. Build Schoolwide Grading Guardrails Without Micromanaging Teachers

The alternative to grading drift is not a 47-page grading handbook.

Principals do not need to prescribe:

• how many assignments teachers enter each week
• the exact point value of every assessment
• identical category weights across unrelated subjects
• one mandatory reassessment format
• identical daily grading routines

Instead, create guardrails around the consequential decisions.

A practical set of schoolwide grading non-negotiables might address six areas:

1. Purpose

Academic grades primarily communicate evidence of academic learning.

2. Missing Work

The school has a common definition and response process for missing evidence.

3. Late Work

Departments or grade bands operate within schoolwide parameters for deadlines and penalties.

4. Reassessment

Students have a defined pathway for demonstrating improved mastery after additional learning.

5. Extra Credit

Bonus opportunities, when offered, connect to additional evidence of course learning.

6. Communication

Gradebooks are updated with sufficient consistency that students and families can understand current standing.

Everything else can remain much more flexible.

That is the leadership sweet spot: consistent meaning without identical classrooms.

XI. The Grading Drift Audit

Before changing policy, principals need to know how much drift actually exists.

Do not begin with a staff meeting announcing your preferred philosophy.

Begin with an audit.

Step 1: Sample actual grading practices

Ask teams to anonymously document how they currently handle:

• missing work
• late work
• reassessment
• extra credit
• homework or practice
• participation and behavior
• final grade calculation

Step 2: Compare teachers teaching the same course or grade

Look specifically for contradictions.

For example:

• Teacher A: late work accepted for full credit all quarter.
• Teacher B: 10-percent deduction each day.
• Teacher C: no late work after one week.

That is a leadership conversation waiting to happen.

Step 3: Examine grade distributions

Look for patterns such as:

• dramatically different failure rates among comparable sections
• unusually large differences in A rates
• sudden changes after grading-policy shifts
• concentrations of students failing primarily because of missing work

Step 4: Compare grades with other evidence

Use multiple sources:

• common assessments
• benchmark performance
• student work
• prerequisite success in subsequent courses

The goal is not perfect correlation. Grades measure more than a standardized test does (Bowers, 2011). The goal is to investigate major mismatches.

Step 5: Ask students

Students can often describe grading drift better than adults.

Ask:

• “What happens if work is late in different classes?”
• “Which classes allow retakes?”
• “What does it take to earn an A?”
• “Can you tell from your grade what you actually know?”

Their answers may tell you more about the consistency of your grading system than the written handbook.

XII. How to Lead Grading Reform Without Starting a Staff War

Grading is personal.

Teachers have often spent years developing their practices. Many believe their system communicates important values about responsibility, effort, persistence, and preparation. Administrators who walk into a faculty meeting and announce that everyone has been grading “wrong” should expect resistance.

Research supports taking that concern seriously. Olsen and Buchanan (2019) studied teachers undergoing grading reform and found that change was partial, tentative, and dependent on schoolwide support. Grading reform is not just a technical change to a spreadsheet. It intersects with teacher identity, beliefs, expectations, and understandings of fairness.

A better rollout sequence is:

• Show the drift before proposing the solution.
  • Present anonymous examples of contradictory grading practices.
• Define the problem together.
  • Ask staff what students and families should reasonably expect grades to mean.
• Identify a small number of non-negotiables.
  • Do not redesign the entire grading system in one semester.
• Pilot contentious changes.
  • A reassessment protocol can be tested before districtwide adoption.
• Study the consequences.
  • Look at grade distributions, missing work, student learning, teacher workload, and student behavior.
• Adjust before scaling.
  • A policy that sounds elegant but produces major unintended consequences should be revised.

Consistency is the goal.

Ideological purity is not.

XIII. Case Studies

Case Study 1: The Same Course, Two Different Worlds

A suburban high school discovered that failure rates in two sections of the same required course differed dramatically. The curriculum and common final assessment were nearly identical, but the grading systems were not. One teacher heavily weighted homework completion and late penalties; another emphasized tests and allowed structured reassessment. Leadership initially assumed the problem was instructional quality. A grading audit revealed that the definition of the course grade itself was contributing substantially to the difference. The department developed shared expectations around assessment weighting, missing work, and reassessment while preserving flexibility in daily instruction. This composite case reflects research showing that teacher grades can incorporate different mixes of achievement and nonachievement factors and therefore require deliberate attention to what grades are intended to communicate (Brookhart et al., 2016; Bowers, 2011).

Case Study 2: Retakes Without a Learning Requirement

A middle school had encouraged teachers to offer reassessment, but every team interpreted the expectation differently. Some required corrections and additional practice. Others simply allowed students to retake the same test during lunch. Students quickly learned which classes offered the easiest point recovery, and teacher frustration grew. The school redesigned reassessment around a common principle: another attempt required evidence of additional learning first. Teams could determine what that evidence looked like. The change preserved second chances while restoring instructional purpose. The approach parallels the structured reassessment model examined by Kramer et al. (2025), in which reassessment was connected to formative feedback and additional learning rather than functioning solely as grade replacement.

Case Study 3: Reform That Moved Too Fast

A district attempted to overhaul late work, minimum grades, reassessment, homework weighting, and extra credit simultaneously. Teachers understood the individual ideas differently, families received mixed explanations, and staff began quietly creating workarounds. District leaders stopped the rollout, gathered teacher feedback, and restarted with three agreed principles rather than a long list of mandates. Teams received time to calibrate practices before additional changes were considered. The second rollout moved more slowly but produced greater consistency because leaders treated grading reform as an implementation and professional-learning challenge rather than simply a policy announcement. This composite case reflects Olsen and Buchanan’s (2019) finding that grading reform is complex, gradual, and dependent on meaningful schoolwide support.

XIV. A 90-Day Plan to Stop Grading Drift

Principals do not need to resolve every grading controversy in one semester. A focused 90-day process can establish the foundation.

Days 1–30: Discover

• Conduct the grading drift audit.
• Compare practices within grade levels and departments.
• Review grade distributions and major discrepancies.
• Survey students and teachers about what grades currently mean.
• Identify the three areas of greatest inconsistency.

Do not announce solutions yet.

Understand the system first.

Days 31–60: Define

Bring representative teachers together and establish shared principles.

Questions might include:

• Should academic grades primarily reflect learning?
• How should responsibility and work habits be communicated?
• What should happen when evidence is missing?
• Under what conditions should reassessment occur?
• What types of extra credit, if any, make sense?

Translate the answers into a few clear guardrails.

Days 61–90: Pilot and Calibrate

Choose the practices that most urgently need consistency.

Then:

• pilot shared expectations
• compare how teachers interpret them
• review actual student examples
• identify unintended consequences
• gather family and student feedback

Only after that should the school move toward formal, broader policy.

The objective is not to win a grading debate in 90 days.

It is to make grades more coherent than they were 90 days ago.

XV. What Principals Should Protect as Teacher Judgment

Consistency should never become micromanagement.

Teachers still need professional judgment around:

• the best assessments for their content
• the amount of practice students need
• appropriate feedback methods
• instructional pacing
• when additional evidence of mastery is needed
• how to support an individual student within schoolwide expectations

The line for administrators is this:

Teacher judgment should shape instruction. Schoolwide expectations should protect the meaning of the grade.

Olsen and Buchanan (2019) provide a useful reminder that grading practices are closely connected to teachers’ professional identities and beliefs. Reform that ignores that reality is likely to generate superficial compliance rather than meaningful change.

A principal should not inspect every gradebook looking for identical practices.

A principal should be able to explain why a B in one seventh-grade math classroom means approximately the same level of academic accomplishment as a B in another.

XVI. FAQ

Should every teacher in a school use the exact same grading system?

No. Consistency should focus on the meaning of grades and the most consequential policies, not identical classroom procedures. Different subjects require different forms of assessment, practice, and feedback.

Should behavior and responsibility count in academic grades?

Research shows that teachers frequently incorporate nonacademic factors such as effort and behavior into grades (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey & Link, 2019). Whether schools should do so is ultimately a policy decision. The critical leadership issue is transparency: if an academic grade is intended to represent mastery, mixing substantial behavior points into it makes that interpretation more difficult.

Should schools require a minimum grade of 50 percent?

The research base does not justify treating one universal minimum-grade policy as conclusively settled for every context. Schools should evaluate how their mathematical grading scale affects final grades, clearly distinguish missing evidence from demonstrated low performance, and monitor unintended effects after any change.

Should students be allowed to retake tests?

There is promising evidence for reassessment when it is embedded in a broader learning system. Kramer et al. (2025) found positive effects from a standards-based ninth-grade mathematics intervention that included formative assessment, feedback, and reassessment following additional learning. That should not be interpreted as evidence that unlimited, unconditional retakes are always effective.

Is extra credit always bad?

Not necessarily. If extra credit provides valid additional evidence of course learning, it can still fit the purpose of an academic grade. Extra points for unrelated behaviors or donations are harder to justify if the grade is intended to represent academic achievement.

How can principals identify possible grade inflation?

Do not simply count A’s. Compare trends in course grades with other evidence of performance, examine differences among comparable course sections, and look at whether students are successfully demonstrating prerequisite knowledge in subsequent courses. Pattison et al. (2013) emphasize that the core issue is the signaling power of grades, not merely whether average grades rise.

What if teachers strongly disagree about grading?

Expect disagreement. Grading involves beliefs about learning, responsibility, fairness, motivation, and the purpose of school. Start with a shared definition of what the academic grade is supposed to communicate, then address one high-impact inconsistency at a time.

Should principals change grading policy all at once?

Usually not. Olsen and Buchanan (2019) found that grading reform can be tentative and dependent on schoolwide support. Piloting, calibration, professional learning, and adjustment are more likely to produce meaningful change than a long list of new rules announced in August.

XVII. Conclusion

Grades are too important to mean something fundamentally different from one classroom to another. They influence how students understand their own performance, what families believe about progress, how schools identify students who need support, and how outside institutions interpret achievement. Yet decades of research show that grades can contain varied combinations of achievement, effort, behavior, and other factors depending on the teacher assigning them (Brookhart et al., 2016; Bowers, 2011; Guskey & Link, 2019).

The answer is not to seize every teacher’s gradebook and standardize every point. Nor should districts race into controversial policies on zeroes, minimum grades, late work, or retakes simply because a particular philosophy is fashionable. Grading reform itself requires thoughtful implementation and schoolwide support, and promising evidence for practices such as structured reassessment should be distinguished from claims that every reform bundled under the same label is equally supported (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; Kramer et al., 2025).

The principal’s job is to establish the guardrails.

Define what a grade should mean. Audit where your current practices contradict one another. Develop common expectations for the handful of grading decisions that most distort meaning. Preserve teacher judgment inside those boundaries. Then monitor whether grades are becoming clearer, more defensible, and more useful.

Because once a school allows grading drift to go unchecked, an 85 stops being an 85.

It becomes an 85 in this teacher’s class.

And when the teacher matters more than the learning in determining what the number means, the grading system has stopped doing its most basic job.

Sources

Bowers, A. J. (2011). What’s in a grade? The multidimensional nature of what teacher-assigned grades assess in high school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(3), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.597112

Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., Stevens, M. T., & Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803–848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069

Guskey, T. R., & Link, L. J. (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1555515

Kramer, S. L., Posner, M. A., Browman, A. S., Lawrence, N. R., Roem, J., & Krier, K. (2025). The impacts of a standards-based grading system emphasizing formative assessment, feedback, and re-assessment: A mixed methods, cluster randomized control trial in ninth grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 18(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2287594

Olsen, B., & Buchanan, R. (2019). An investigation of teachers encouraged to reform grading practices in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 2004–2039. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219841349

Pattison, E., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2013). Is the sky falling? Grade inflation and the signaling power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13481382