The Grading Crisis | 013 | Learning Over Points
Grading is a structural failure we’ve ignored far too long.
Everyone sees it. Few want to talk about it. Fewer still are willing to do something about it. I get it. Grading is a touchy subject.
But here’s the truth: grading practices have become a lottery for students, especially the most vulnerable. Same course, same institution, different section…wildly different outcomes. That’s not academic freedom. That’s structural inequity.
And while some love to invoke “academic freedom,” let’s be honest, what’s often defended isn’t the freedom to teach critical content but the ability to keep outdated practices. There’s a difference between academic freedom and academic responsibility.
The real shame? Faculty with high success rates and low equity gaps are using that same freedom to innovate and improve. They’re experimenting, reflecting, adjusting. They’re showing what’s possible. And yet, they’re often dismissed by some faculty as “easy,” “soft,” or “coddling students” for their academic responsibility to students.
Consider the following. An inquiry & action team of math faculty surveyed their colleagues on their grading practices. The findings revealed that a student in the same course, but in two different sections (two different faculty), is given very different course grades. The example below shows the difference between an “84%” and “72%” final grade, but there are more examples that can mean the difference between passing and failing. This variation occurs in all subjects, not only in math, and not just at this campus.
We’ve got a grading crisis on our hands. And it’s hurting the very students we claim to serve.
A Quick Reality Check
Academic freedom is under attack, but mostly the what (e.g., CRT, DEI, content), not the how (teaching methods, grading). That distinction matters.
Low success rates don’t always equal rigor, they often signal unexamined, antiquated practices. Dramatic grading inconsistency is a systems failure, and it deserves action, not excuses.
Addressing the Grading Crisis
Below are some prompts to spark real faculty dialogue and institutional change. Use it to create a PD session, team reflection, or just gut-check your own practice.
Expose the Variation
Ask:
What does grading variation look like at your college, within a course, across departments?
Have you ever compared syllabi or student outcomes across sections?
Reflect:
Are we okay with a student passing or failing based purely on which faculty member they get?
What messages do we send about fairness, consistency, and learning?
Interrogate Rigor
Ask:
Who defines “rigor” in your department? What assumptions does it rest on?
Do we equate difficulty with quality?
Reflect:
How might our definition of rigor be exclusionary or just lazy gatekeeping?
How are students performing in high-stakes assessments? Are those assessments even valid?
Encourage the Retake (Yes, Really)
Ask:
What happens when a student fails a key exam? Do we assume they can’t learn or that they haven’t learned yet?
Reflect:
What if we allowed a retake as part of productive struggle?
If they pass after the second attempt, is that not success? Why do we resist that?
Observe & Learn (Instead of Lecture & Shame)
Ask:
Have faculty with low success rates ever observed those with high success rates? What’s stopping that?
Reflect:
What would it take to normalize faculty learning from each other—without ego or defensiveness?
Note: I’ve had the privilege of supporting a math inquiry & action team at Ventura College. These fabulous math faculty tested and scaled a formal “Learn from Your Peer” program where faculty observe each other teach, reflect, and implement what they learned. These Ventura College math faculty didn’t suffer from low success rates. They genuinely want to continually improve their craft and I love them for it.
Differentiate Between Freedom & Responsibility
Ask:
Are we using “academic freedom” to innovate or to avoid accountability?
Reflect:
What’s our responsibility to students when data shows persistent equity gaps?
Is freedom a shield or a platform for growth?
A Word on Mindsets
Changing grading practices requires emotional intelligence. It’s not just about data; it’s about identity, fear, and even trauma. Many institutional conservatives (faculty and administrators alike) were themselves hazed by an inequitable system and now perpetuate that system in the name of tradition.
That doesn’t excuse it. But it helps explain it. And yet, there are bright spots.
Faculty like Kelly Spoon are actively rewriting the narrative. She and her math colleagues at Mesa College in California have high course success rates (top 12% out of 115 California colleges), not because they’ve lowered the bar, but because they’ve refined their craft. Reimagining grading, and by extension, pedagogy, is not just for the humanities or social sciences. It’s happening in math. And it’s working.1
So let’s take a cue from Kelly (learn from her):
Center learning, not points
Celebrate iteration in our students and our colleagues (for those willing to change)
But Entrenched Thinking is Real
I sometimes bring in math experts with vast on-the-ground experience of shepherding successful math reforms with significantly improved student outcomes to support departments. One of them, who missed part of his daughter’s morning UCLA freshman orientation to Zoom in, showed up with a powerful PD session: Start with the why, then work toward the how.
He didn’t even get through finishing the why.
To keep them anonymous, let’s call it “XYZ College” math department—one of the bottom ten in California out of 115 colleges for math course success—couldn’t handle it.2 Despite two prep meetings to co-create the agenda, the chair and dean folded under pressure during the session with faculty. My guest was cut off. Then, the loudest obnoxious and unkind voice in the room took shots at me throughout the day complaining that someone dared to waste his time. His idea of innovation? Rearranging content. That’s not transformation. That’s furniture moving. The rest of the faculty who had interest in what my colleague had to say missed out. Other college math departments that have been exhausted with mandates had the the decency and respect to let my colleague complete his session. To this day, they reach out to him because they appreciated the rich lessons and resources he provided them. The XYZ College math department allowed the loudest few to dictate their direction and culture.
Look, I’ve got three kids. They all went to community college. If they were geographically closest to this college, I would’ve had them take math elsewhere. When entrenched groupthink takes hold, it’s best to find other alternatives because the chances of them meaningfully improving their craft is close to zero.
And that’s the heartbreaking part. This isn’t about egos or turf wars. It’s about the students we lose when educators refuse to improve.
So let’s stop acting like rethinking grading and our classroom practices is some form of betrayal or abuse. It’s the opposite. It’s an act of care. Of courage. Of commitment to student success.
Because hubris kills continuous improvement. And sometimes, it just makes people stupidly rude. So, when the five strategies above to address grading won’t work on an entrenched department, consider the following actions:
Support the one faculty member willing to change their practice. Let that faculty member potentially serve as a catalyst for change for others in the department. There’s tremendous opportunities with A.I. for faculty to experiment. For example, leveraging A.I. for just-in-time remediation.
Psychology faculty often teach statistics. For non-STEM majors, ensure students enroll in stats with psychology faculty (provided they have good success rates).
For STEM majors, invest in embedded tutors for faculty with the lowest success rates.
Faculty who are proud to employ shitty pedagogy and grading practices and refuse to change deserve to get a shitty schedule.
Support students who want to advocate for better pedagogy and grading practices. At K12 school districts, parents have a powerful voice and influence at the Board. At colleges, it’s the students, but they don’t typically know that.
If none of the above works, divert students to another college with better math teachers.
Final Take
Grading isn’t just an instructional decision. It’s a justice issue. And unless we deal with it head-on, we will keep watching inequity play out in our classrooms, one grade at a time.
And if we don’t act? Don’t be surprised when students (and advocacy groups) demand transparency. For example, a push to make course success data publicly available by faculty name. There’s one group of faculty I come across that tend to be fine with this: Black faculty.
I’m here for courageous conversations. But more than that. I’m here to support courageous action.
Let’s stop making student success a lottery. Let’s start making grading about learning.
Onward…
Let’s connect:
Dr. Al Solano
Founder, Continuous Learning Institute | About
Host, Student Success Podcast
A meaningful test of success is how helpful we are in contributing to our fellow human being’s happiness.
*Adapted from the Continuous Learning Institute blog post on grading.
CCCCO data mart, math success fall 2023 and spring 2024.
Ibid.