Competency-Based Grading in a Traditional Classroom

Last year, my wife decided she wanted to start running again. She hadn’t had a regular running routine since college, and as we are both approaching 40, she figured it was now or never. So, she signed up for a 10K to give herself a goal.

She trained consistently for several months, and on race day, she completed the 10K and felt great. Her body felt strong, and she genuinely enjoyed both the preparation and the payoff. Motivated by that experience, she signed up for a 25K (15.5 miles) that she had four months to train for.

Again, she trained, she raced, and she finished strong. So she registered for a marathon the following fall. After months of grueling long runs, sore muscles, and several pairs of running shoes, she crossed the finish line of a marathon. 26.2 miles. I was rightfully in awe.

The Problem with Averaging Growth

Now imagine I had to give her a grade for her running ability based on her time and speed. Running a marathon? That’s clearly an A. A year ago, she wouldn’t have been physically or mentally ready for that. Back then, maybe her 10K would’ve earned her a C.

But she practiced. She built endurance. She improved. And her “higher grade” reflects that.

Now, in a traditional grading system, we’d average the C and the A—and call her a B runner. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sit right with me. If you’ve ever watched someone finish a marathon, you know that’s A-level work. But because of where she was at the beginning of her training journey, her grade would average to a B.

Are you seeing where I’m going with this?

If a student scores a C for their writing ability in September, then engages in practice and instruction, and in November scores an A on a similar assessment, that C is not reflective of their ability anymore, is it? Instead, it is just a marker for where they were and shows how far they’ve come. Incorporating it into their final grade does not make any sense. And yet this is exactly what we do with students’ grades. We take their average score and use that to reflect their knowledge and ability, knowing full well it is not accurately reflecting their current knowledge and ability.

The Negative Implications of Traditional Grading

1. It Punishes Growth
A student who starts off struggling but works hard, improves, and ultimately demonstrates mastery is still penalized by their early attempts. This sends the message:
“It doesn’t matter how far you’ve come—your missteps will follow you.”
That approach discourages effort and fails to honor the learning process.

2. It Misrepresents What a Student Actually Knows
Final grades are supposed to communicate a student’s current level of understanding. If the grade is based on an average of performance over time, then it becomes a murky reflection of both learning and unlearning—and not truly representative of where the student is now.

3. It Undermines the Purpose of Assessment
Assessments should inform learning, not label students. But if a low grade lingers long after the student has mastered the skill, assessments shift from being a tool for growth to a permanent record of failure.

4. It Creates Inequity
Not every student starts with the same background knowledge, support, or confidence. Averaging grades means students who need more time to learn are penalized for needing time. It rewards those who come in with prior knowledge and punishes those who are actually doing the most growing.

Grading Based on Competency

An alternative to traditional grading is an approach called competency-based grading. In this model, students are assessed on their ability to demonstrate specific skills or knowledge—called competencies—rather than on how well they perform overall across a set of assignments. The focus shifts from averaging every score to identifying whether a student has mastered the key concepts by the end of a unit or course.

Instead of being penalized for early struggles, students are given the opportunity to improve over time—retakes and rewrites— and their grade reflects their most recent or strongest level of understanding. To stick with my wife’s running example, if running a marathon is her measure of mastery of the skill of running, then she has mastered that competency. And while the 10K was an important step for achieving mastery, it is no longer a measure of her ability.

This approach provides a clearer, more accurate picture of what students actually know and can do, and it gives all learners—especially those who need more time or support—a fair chance to succeed.

Competency-Based Grading Requires a Shift in Thinking

My hope is that this concept is resonating with you. However, if you’re like me and were raised in a traditional school system and have taught in a traditional school, the idea of eliminating averages within a learning unit, allowing retakes, and allowing your class to be more self-paced raises some red flags.

Of course it does.

Moving toward competency-based grading means rethinking some deeply ingrained habits about how we assess and report learning. It asks us to see grades not as a record of completed tasks, but as a reflection of current understanding. That can feel like a big shift—especially in schools where points, percentages, and averages have long been the norm.

But the goal isn’t to lower expectations or eliminate accountability; it’s to make sure our grading practices align with the actual purpose of education: helping students learn and grow.

When we prioritize mastery over timing, we create space for meaningful growth, deeper learning, and more accurate reporting of student progress.  

Getting Started with Competency-Based Grading

Moving towards a competency-based grading approach requires a fundamental shift in how we view grading. It forces us to ask the question: "What do we want grades to communicate?" This is a shift from the traditional model, and sometimes shifts are challenging. Sometimes they take time. Going from one way of viewing grades and recording student progress for over a hundred years to a different way can make you a little uncomfortable. However, it is possible, and even "traditional" schools can implement more accurate, growth-centered grading practices. Here's a few tips to start making that shift in any classroom.

1. Start Small

You don't need to overhaul everything at once. What if you tried implementing competency-based grading for just a single unit this semester? Figure out the key competencies of the unit—your learning goals—and assess accordingly. When that unit’s complete, reflect on how it went. What would you do differently? How did students react to it? How did you feel about it? Then make some adjustments.

This doesn’t require changing everything about how grading works. Teachers can still submit A-through-F grades, but in a competency-based system, those grades reflect the most recent and strongest evidence of mastery—not an average of every attempt. Standards-aligned rubrics still guide the assessment of specific skills and knowledge. The key difference is that the focus shifts to the latest demonstration of learning.

2. Keep Using GPA if That's Helpful

In some schools that use competency-based grading, there is no GPA and the final report card simply lists the grade for each competency. But in school systems where you have to assign a final grade, which is most of them, you can still give students cumulative grades—except now, the final grade is based on the mastery of competencies, rather than an average of learning units

For instance, let’s say in January you taught a persuasive writing unit and the highest level of mastery a student demonstrated was a B. Then in February, you taught a novel unit and the student received an A. In March, you did grammar and they scored a C. Each of those grades reflects their understanding of that competency. Their final grade could be an average of all three of those.

3. Set Clear Boundaries Around Retakes

Concern: “They’ll just slack off and retake it later.”
Solution: Require students to complete extra practice, corrections, or conferencing before re-assessment. If a student wants to retake, I need to know that they did some learning—otherwise, we’re just going to see the same result as the first time.

Here's how it can look: Thomas scores a 65% on his argumentative essay. He’s frustrated and asks if he can redo it. His teacher says yes, but first, he needs to revise two body paragraphs based on her comments, fill out a revision planning sheet outlining what he’ll change and why, and review a mini-lesson on using evidence effectively.

After completing those steps, Thomas submits a new draft—and this time, he earns an 88%.

By requiring effort and reflection before the retake, the teacher ensures that the new grade reflects growth, not just a second chance. If a student chooses not to give their best effort the first time, they are ultimately adding more work to their plate. And if the student did give their best effort the first time, but did not get the grade they want/are capable of, they now have an opportunity to work toward it.

4. Make Feedback the Centerpiece of Assessment

So often, assessment is used solely to signify what a student has learned by the end of a learning unit. We collect this data, but then we move on to the next unit—and the data becomes just evidence of whether the teacher did their job well and whether the student did theirs. We’re not using it to improve student learning. It just goes into the gradebook.

It’s like when you score a student’s essay, and you leave a bunch of comments about what they did well and what they didn’t. Then you write—with a red pen—their grade at the top. How many times have you done this, and the student doesn’t even look at the comments you took time to write? They just look at the letter grade, and then the essay goes in the trash.

It’s frustrating, but I get why students often do this: Why go through and read my teacher’s comments if I can’t even use them to improve my grade?

But when we view assessments as a way to figure out what students need, we can make adjustments to help meet those needs. These formative assessments could be exit tickets, quick writes, peer assessments, or using a rubric to assess students during a class discussion.

Even summative assessments—like essays or unit tests—can still be formative. If a student gets their summative essay back and it’s a C, and they want a better grade, they can put in the work to improve it. And if they revise it and earn an A, that A is representative of what they know. It’s accurate. It means they took your feedback and grew.

Which is kind of the point of school… right?

Let’s Sum It Up

Competency-based grading isn’t about throwing out everything you’ve ever done—it’s about aligning our grading practices with what we actually believe about learning. That students can grow. That progress matters. That the most important thing is where they end up, not where they started.

When we stop penalizing students for early attempts and prioritize feedback, giving them space to revise and improve, we’re not lowering the bar—we’re giving them the opportunity to reach their full potential.

This shift takes time, and it’s okay to feel a little uncomfortable at first. But starting small, setting clear expectations, and focusing on feedback can move us toward a system that’s more accurate, more human, and more aligned with the heart of teaching: helping students learn.