Learning Is Dynamic. Grading Should Be, Too

By Thomas Guskey (Education Week, April 1, 2026)

Summary for Educators

Thomas Guskey’s April 1, 2026, Education Week opinion piece challenges one of the most deeply ingrained practices in education: traditional grading systems that treat student performance as fixed rather than evolving. In “Learning Is Dynamic. Grading Should Be, Too,” Guskey argues that grading policies must reflect the fundamental truth that learning develops over time. When grading systems fail to account for growth, improvement, and revision, they risk misrepresenting what students actually know and can do.

Guskey identifies two false assumptions that have shaped grading practices for decades. The first is the belief that grades are assigned to students rather than to student performance. This distinction is crucial. Students themselves are not static entities; their knowledge, skills, and understanding develop through instruction, practice, and feedback. When grades are treated as permanent judgments, they can signal finality rather than progress. Guskey emphasizes that because performance can improve, grades should remain open to revision as learning deepens.

The second flawed premise is the notion that grading must occur at a single moment in time. Traditional grading systems often capture performance snapshots rather than the learning journey. A student who struggles initially but ultimately masters the content may still carry the burden of early low scores. This practice can distort the accuracy of grades as indicators of learning and may discourage persistence. Guskey suggests that grading should better reflect a student’s most current level of understanding, not an average of earlier mistakes made during the learning process.

For educators and school leaders, this perspective has important implications for assessment design. Dynamic grading approaches, such as opportunities for reassessment, standards-based grading, and mastery learning models, align evaluation practices with how learning actually occurs. These approaches emphasize formative feedback, additional practice, and revision opportunities, reinforcing the idea that mistakes are part of the learning process rather than evidence of failure.

Guskey’s argument also highlights the motivational dimension of grading. When students believe early errors permanently limit their achievement, they may disengage or adopt fixed mindsets about their abilities. By contrast, grading systems that allow improvement encourage persistence, resilience, and deeper engagement with content. In this way, grading policies become part of the instructional process itself, reinforcing a growth-oriented culture.

Importantly, Guskey does not suggest eliminating grades. Instead, he calls for a clearer understanding of what grades should communicate. Effective grades provide accurate information about student achievement, guide instructional decisions, and support communication with families. When grading reflects the most current evidence of learning, it becomes more meaningful and actionable for students, teachers, and parents.

School leaders play a key role in supporting grading reform. Guskey notes that meaningful change requires addressing longstanding misconceptions about grading’s purpose. Leaders must provide professional learning opportunities that help teachers align grading practices with research on learning and motivation. Clear communication with families is also essential, as changes in grading policies can generate confusion if expectations are not clearly explained.

Ultimately, Guskey’s message is both practical and philosophical: grading systems should support learning rather than simply label it. When grading practices recognize that improvement is possible and expected, schools create environments where students are encouraged to continue striving toward mastery.

For educational leaders seeking to build cultures of continuous improvement, dynamic grading policies offer a powerful lever for change. By aligning assessment practices with the realities of how learning develops, schools can promote greater accuracy, fairness, and motivation—ensuring that grades truly reflect student growth.

Original Article

------------------------------

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT (5.2) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com