When Public School “A’s” Do Not Match University “A’s” - Grading on the Curve of Sympathy and Circumstance rather than Skill and Mastery

    I have profound and personal insight into what defines an “A” student, having observed and interacted with numerous examples of such students throughout both secondary and higher education. Across the United States, there are thousands of these high-achieving individuals, each with their unique strengths and potential. Sadly, many of them may never have the chance to reach their full capabilities due to educational systems that are often inadequate or designed to cater only to a mediocre standard. For instance, credit recovery programs frequently aim at the lowest common denominator, prioritizing basic competencies over the cultivation of critical thinking, creativity, and advanced skills. This systemic issue not only stifles the aspirations of bright students but also perpetuates a cycle of underachievement that limits their future opportunities and the overall advancement of our educational landscape.

By Don Allen - Journal Of A Black Teacher (2025)

  

 There exists a deep and widening gap between the success students are encouraged to think they have achieved in public schools and the demanding expectations that await them in college. This inaccurate and unsettling perception of academic achievement, so widespread in Twin Cities metro schools, generates a false impression of readiness on the students' part. Some systems are giving A's to students who are not able to perform at the level of college reading, writing, and critical thinking. The consequences of this mismatch are all too real, echoing through generations and exerting lasting effects that are difficult to remedy. Go to any number of urban classrooms in Saint Paul or Minneapolis, and you will meet students whose GPAs indicate greatness—3.5s, even 4.0s. Yet, when these same students sit for a university entrance exam, complete a basic academic writing assignment, or read material at a collegiate level, they flounder. It is not because they are incapable; it is because they have been graded on a curve of sympathy and situation instead of skill and mastery. What is being applauded in K-12 environments too frequently is not the rigor, expectations, and accountability of higher education.

    The classroom environment today mirrors an appalling difference between the grading systems that dominate secondary education and the expectations maintained by post-secondary institutions. This mismatch is not an indication of a deficiency in student ability but of systemic organizational flaws in schools. In most public high school environments, grading criteria frequently incorporate non-academic elements like behavior, effort, and participation. Although such qualities are of inherent value to the student, they can be used to mask a student's true academic proficiency. For this reason, high-achieving students can be poorly equipped to manage the intensity of university-level coursework. This misalignment manifests in difficulties across critical subjects such as writing, chemistry, English, communication, and organizational skills, ultimately hindering their academic success at the collegiate level.

    Zaretta Hammond emphasizes the use of authentic assessment in culturally responsive pedagogy by asserting that "Authentic assessment and transparent grading are essential parts of a culturally responsive classroom" (quoted in Feldman, 2019). Artificially high grades based on non-academic grounds do not reflect a student's actual academic competency, which ultimately causes them to falter in university environments. The document outlining the current state of school expectations and grading practices makes it alarmingly clear: the “A” a student earns in high school may not be grounded in consistent, transparent criteria. Instead, it may reflect attendance, behavior, or effort—criteria which, while important, do not equate to academic mastery. At the university level, professors do not grade on kindness. Students are held to rigid standards and must demonstrate evidence-based argumentation, synthesis of texts, and the ability to write with clarity and depth. Many of our students, particularly in under-resourced schools, simply have not been taught these skills in a sustained, high-expectation environment.

    This disconnect is not just academic—it is structural. Leadership at the administrative level in many inner-city schools is stretched thin or altogether absent when it comes to confronting grading equity and postsecondary readiness. Leadership turnover, minimal instructional oversight, and the lack of a coherent vision for academic excellence have weakened the system. If the leaders in the building are not instructional experts—if they are consumed with discipline, compliance paperwork, or political optics—then who is holding the line on learning? Who is ensuring that an “A” in English means a student can write a five-paragraph essay with a thesis, evidence, counterclaim, and citations? Too often, the answer is no one.

    Noted education author Karen Chenoweth stresses the necessity of leadership in developing equitable practices in schools. She says, "Each one of those things listed requires leadership to establish common goals, a common language, a culture of trust" (Chenoweth, 2021). In the absence of leadership, grading practices can remain inconsistent and not aligned with the knowledge and skills required at the university level. We must name what is happening without flinching: we are graduating students who are emotionally resilient but academically underprepared. We are applauding them across the stage with diplomas that do not match their readiness. We tell them they are college-ready because our internal systems say so, but the world they are entering quickly exposes the truth. This is not a failure of the student. It is a failure of the adults in the system to be honest, rigorous, and future-focused.

    Michael Fullan emphasizes the importance of coherence in educational approaches. He asserts that "When the school is organized to focus on a small number of shared goals, and when professional learning is aligned with those goals and is a group effort, the evidence is overwhelming that teachers can do much better in terms of student achievement" (Fullan, 2014). This indicates that a combined grading strategy, with a focus on scholarly ability, can prepare students for future academic demands.

    Dr. David Webb is not a fan of conventional grading scales. He feels that "the percent scale should not be used for grading. 70% of a percent grade scale is wasted by being used for accurate judgments of poor work" (Webb, 2023). This observation highlights the inefficiency and inaccuracy of conventional grading systems and, hence, complicates the transition from high school to university. The truth is hard: many students are not failing school—school is failing them. Until we reconcile our grading policies with real-world expectations and until school leaders prioritize instructional integrity over inflated statistics, our students will continue to pay the price. It is not enough to say we believe in equity. We must demand high expectations, train teachers in practical assessment, and hold leaders accountable for academic outcomes that are more than cosmetic.

    The consequences of these marking procedures are severe. University-bound students can struggle with the increased expectations and level of academic difficulty, resulting in elevated stress levels, decreased performance, and even dropout. This system failure not only has negative consequences for individual students but also tarnishes the reputation of educational institutions that have failed to prepare them properly. To this end, grading practices must be adopted that are true indicators of students' academic success. This entails setting explicit standards that are only pegged against academic performance, offering professional training for teachers on fair grading, and developing an open and accountable culture within schools. These will prepare students for the demands of university work and close the gap between the grades awarded in public schools and those awarded at the university level.

References

Chenoweth, K. (2021). One simple question can accelerate progress toward equity. Learning Forward. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/journal/leading-for-equity/one-simple-question-can-accelerate-progress-toward-equity/

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms. Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2014). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. Jossey-Bass.



Webb, D. (2023). Grading: Don't use the percent scale when grading. Bluesky. Retrieved from https://bsky.app/profile/djphysicswebb.bsky.social/post/3lcjayl7jn22c