The Limits of A-E Grading and the Carnegie Unit
The Carnegie unit was created in 1906 to standardize curricula. Today, it no longer fits the educational needs of a rapidly changing society. Students are promoted based on hours spent in class rather than their actual knowledge or skills. Meanwhile, A-E grades rank students in a way that doesn’t fully capture their growth or abilities.
Research continues to reveal the flaws in this approach:
- A 2018 Journal of Educational Psychology study found that grades often show behavior more than learning.
- Stanford University research shows that students in competency-based systems outperform peers in problem-solving. They are trained to think critically rather than just prepare for tests.
The Promise of Competency-Based Feedback
Competency-based feedback offers a more effective way to evaluate student progress. It focuses on demonstrating mastery of key skills—whether it’s problem-solving, communication, or collaboration—rather than simply logging hours. States like New Hampshire and parts of Vermont are using this model. Students there feel more engaged because they better understand their strengths and areas for improvement.
The tools we rely on, like PowerSchool and Skyward, were built around traditional grading systems. Customizing them for competency-based feedback was problematic and often slowed down our efforts to innovate. Instead of a system designed for modern learning, we were constantly trying to adapt old frameworks to new ideas.
Cultural Resistance: Moving Beyond Tradition
Despite its advantages, shifting away from A-E grading is tough. Parents and students are attached to the idea that letter grades reflect success. Universities and scholarships still look at GPAs, making families nervous about how a new grading system impacts college prospects.
Teachers, too, have valid concerns. Many have spent years mastering the traditional grading system. They see competency-based education as a threat to their autonomy. Others view it as an overwhelming change in their workflow. A 2019 CompetencyWorks report highlighted a significant barrier. Teachers in transitioning districts pointed to a lack of professional development and support.
Breaking Away from the Carnegie Unit
The rigidity of the Carnegie unit doesn’t just affect grading. It limits flexibility in how schools operate. Competency-based education requires schedules that allow students to move at their own pace. States like New Hampshire have successfully adopted a “credit for competency” model. This model prioritizes student learning over time spent in class. Their success shows us that real change is possible. However, it requires systemic reforms in how we measure progress. Additionally, it requires reforms in how we allocate time in schools.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Grading and Feedback
The transition to competency-based feedback is not without challenges. It’s essential if we want to prepare students for the future. My experience showed that partial implementation is possible. However, to make a real difference, we need a broader cultural and systemic change. The tools we use, like PowerSchool and Skyward, need to evolve to support new approaches to teaching. Higher education also needs to rethink its admissions process, moving beyond GPA to evaluate the whole student.
This change won’t happen overnight, but we must start the conversation. Changing the outdated grading system will require collaboration among K-12 educators, universities, and education technology providers. The current system boxes students into limited categories. Every student deserves the chance to be evaluated based on what they truly know and can do.
Leave a Reply