Implementing a competency-based system in a public school is, to put it mildly, a high-stakes tightrope walk. Unlike private or charter schools, our families don’t always “opt-in” to our philosophy—they are a captive audience. This can make every shift feel contentious.
There is a loud, persistent argument that we should ignore the “system” and just focus on the “good stuff”: student agency, engagement, and better teaching. And honestly? That would be much easier. I’d probably sleep better. But while those pedagogical shifts are the engine of change, they eventually run out of road if the system isn’t built to support them.
The “Critical Mass” Trap
Don’t get me wrong: changing what happens in the classroom is vital. We need “on-the-ground” wins to show teachers, students, and parents what this looks like in action. You need a certain level of critical mass—a hum of excitement in the hallways—to even earn the right to talk about systemic shifts.
But here is the provocative truth: You can have the most engaging teacher in the world, but if they are trapped in a 100-point grading system, true transformation is dead on arrival. At a certain point, the “System” (with a capital S) stops being a neutral background and starts being a barrier to equity and agency.
When Grading Hijacks Learning
Grading and reporting are at the top of my “Transformation Villain” list. Why? Because the traditional grade is a master manipulator. It shifts the mindset of both the student and the teacher from true competency to work completion. And, it gives parents a false sense of security.
I remember trying to coach a student years ago during our first attempts at standards-based grading. I was trying to get them to focus on the nuance of a specific standard. “Forget the score for a second,” I said, leaning into my best ‘inspiring educator’ persona. “Look at the progress you’ve made in the skill itself and then let’s figure out what the next step is going to be.”
The student looked at me with a mix of frustration and pragmatism. “That’s great,” they said, “but I have to pass the class.”
In that second, I realized that as long as the “Grade” is the primary currency of the realm, the “Learning” would always be viewed as the tax students have to pay to get it. When the system makes the grade the end game, we aren’t producing scholars; we’re producing accountants of their own compliance.
The “Compliance” Graveyard
We often try to fix this with structural “add-ons,” like Standards-based grading and other grading practice shifts, Personal Learning Plans (PLPs), or Transferable Skills.
With a mandate for proficiency-based graduation requirements in Vermont, many schools changed–even improved–their grading methods, but this does not guarantee any specific result. While grading reforms are likely an improvement, they have a limit in terms of impact, if they have any.
In Vermont, PLPs are mandated for grades 7-12. On paper, it’s a dream. In reality? Consistent implementation is a persistent problem.
In our district, teachers were required to score “transferable skills” for years, yet we have very little evidence that these skills are being explicitly taught or assessed in a way that guarantees every student leaves us truly competent.
Here is the hard truth: These shifts require an immense amount of human accountability. Without changing the underlying system—the actual way we measure and report success—these initiatives just become more “stuff” for teachers to do.
You Can’t Teach Your Way Out of a Broken System
It is possible—and important—to make positive changes in the classroom. But eventually, those changes will hit a wall.
Changing the system (the grading, the reporting, the schedules) is what makes the shift visible and permanent. It forces us to move past “engagement” as a buzzword and into “competency” as a reality. We can iterate on instructional practices all day, but until the system rewards growth over compliance, we’re just redecorating a room with a collapsing foundation.