In a previous post, I explained competency-based or “mastery” grading: a restructuring of the common grade system that compresses everything from course tests, homework, and class participation into a system that assesses students based entirely on whether or not they’ve mastered specific skills and concepts. (For a look at how mastery grading works in practice, check out how schools like Columbus’s Metro Early College School and Cleveland’s MC²STEM high school, and even suburban districts like Pickerington, make it work). In this piece, I’ll discuss some additional benefits and drawbacks of mastery grading.
Mastery grading is innovative in that students only move on to more complex concepts and skills once they mastered simpler ones. As a result, the failure to master on the first attempt isn’t “failure.” It’s a chance for students to receive additional instruction and support targeted at specific weak spots, work hard, master key concepts, and move on with a firm foundation in place.
For teachers, the possibility of meaningful achievement data that is disaggregated by child and skill and directly drives instruction should be drool-worthy. Imagine knowing at the beginning of the year—before ever giving a diagnostic assessment—what your new students have fully, partially, and not-yet mastered.
To be clear, implementing mastery grading effectively will take a shift in mindsets, habits, and practice, and it will increase the administrative burden at first. Teachers will have to be true masters of their content. They will also be called upon to plan even further in advance: If students are meant to move on once they master a concept, they will need a place to move on to—including new concepts, ways to practice, and assessments. The students who don’t master concepts on the first try will need remediation in various different forms. Yes, differentiation is hard, but mastery grading systems—if implemented effectively— offer a genuine chance to get it right. Schools adopting mastery grading could mitigate the time burden by providing teachers with additional planning time. Schools could also designate time for teachers of the same subject to share resources and ideas. Teachers can leverage online resource-sharing hubs, including sites that boast lessons written by effective teachers. There are applications that make tracking mastery data easy, allowing teachers to focus on planning instead of tracking. The rise of blended learning and adaptive models makes effective, personalized remediation real without asking teachers to build a system from scratch on their own. Plus, once systems and materials are created, they need only be improved—meaning that the burden decreases with time.
One of the most vocal arguments against mastery grading is that it sets kids up for failure. Those who make this argument believe that it’s wrong to take away the “help” we give to students who struggle: points for showing up, points for being on time, points for homework completion, points for participation, points for extra credit. But grades were designed to reflect academic achievement. When we report performance influenced by factors like attendance, behavior, or assignment completion, we struggle to stand behind grades as an accurate assessment of what our students have truly achieved. It’s not that attendance and effort don’t matter—it’s that they should be tracked separately from achievement. Otherwise, high-performing students who struggle with completing homework are labeled as academically struggling, and academically struggling students who are diligent in homework and attendance have no idea that they aren’t progressing. Teachers should always have full authority to track and report any metric they deem necessary, including homework or behavior. But achievement is achievement—and should only be measured by content mastery.
No one wants to tell the hardworking, well-behaved kid that he needs remediation. But this isn’t about what adults want, or what’s easiest for them. It’s about what kids need. When adults say that mastery grading will set kids up for failure, what they’re really saying is that they’d much rather let kids graduate with a diploma that’s a lie and let them deal with the fallout rather than take responsibility for a system that fails millions of kids every year simply by passing them along. We see this already in far too many cities in Ohio and across the country.
Do I empathize with the high school teacher who bristles at mastery grading ninth graders who read at a fourth-grade level? Yes, particularly because I was one. Mastery grading isn’t a silver bullet. But that doesn’t mean we should keep lying to students about their performance. Students and their families deserve to know where they stand. The remediation and individual attention that mastery grading engenders is exactly the kind of attention that struggling students, high-performing students, and every student in between needs. It’s the kind of honest, kid-focused approach that all students deserve. Governor Kasich’s proposed pilot program is a smart way to test if this approach can work at scale—and to determine how it works in practice in various contexts.
