De-emphasize Behavioral Factors¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 2 review), q2–q4 · 2 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

De-emphasizing behavioral factors means stripping non-academic criteria — compliance, attendance, effort, participation, late penalties, and conduct — out of grading so that a grade communicates only what a student knows and can do relative to defined learning goals. The practice is carried out by auditing gradebook categories, replacing behavior-based deductions with separate, non-graded reporting on work habits, and rebuilding grade calculations around evidence of mastery.

Design Implications¶

Grades serve as communication and decision-making inputs; when they blend achievement with conduct, they become noisy signals that distort both learner self-assessment and downstream instructional decisions [Guskey's analysis of grading reform obstacles]. Research on Assessment for Learning supports the underlying principle: feedback and grades are most useful when they describe task and process performance rather than the person Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]. Separating behavior from achievement also protects motivation, since punitive grading of non-academic factors tends to depress the self-efficacy of the very students it targets Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• An explicit list of prioritized learning goals or standards against which achievement is graded (Competency-Based Assessment)
• A separate channel for reporting work habits — conduct comments, rubrics for collaboration, or non-graded "citizenship" marks — so behavioral information is not lost, only relocated
• A revised gradebook and calculation policy (e.g., grading by standard, using most-recent evidence) rather than point-averaging
• Clear communication with students and families about what the new grade means

Constraints¶

• Removing late penalties and effort grades can reduce submission rates if no replacement accountability structure exists [~M] — the strategy works only when paired with re-engagement expectations, not grade removal alone
• Participation grades, though non-academic, can support engagement for some learners; eliminating them without alternative Check-In structures can leave quieter students disengaged [~W]
• Grades decoupled from behavior lose face validity for some stakeholders (parents, admissions offices) who expect grades to encode diligence, creating adoption resistance
• In systems where grades gate opportunities (scholarships, athletics eligibility), removing behavioral components shifts rather than resolves accountability

Implementation Variability¶

• Full standards-based grading: report achievement per standard, with habits of work reported separately
• Partial implementation: keep a single grade but cap non-academic deductions at a small, transparent percentage
• Re-engagement model (Feldman's "grading for equity"): replace zero-and-penalty practices with minimum floors, retakes, and revised deadlines while keeping behavior in a conduct report

Target Learners¶

• Students whose behavior or circumstances (late work, absences, language status) currently depress grades below their actual achievement — disproportionately low-income students and students with disabilities [~M]
• Students building Self-Regulated Learning capacity, who benefit from accurate achievement feedback over compliance signals [+M]
• Less clear benefit for students who need external behavioral accountability structures and lack self-management routines [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Mastery of content standards: the grade becomes a valid indicator of goal attainment
• Accurate self-assessment and metacognition: learners can trust the grade as information about learning, not conduct
• Not appropriate as the sole target for goals about collaboration, citizenship, or professional dispositions — those need separate assessment

Instructions¶

1. Audit the current gradebook and list every graded item; classify each as evidence of academic achievement or of behavior/effort/compliance.
2. Define or adopt prioritized learning goals so achievement can be judged against explicit criteria (Competency-Based Assessment).
3. Remove behavioral criteria from grade calculations; create a separate report for work habits (Assessment).
4. Replace penalty-based consequences (zeros, late deductions) with re-engagement structures: revised deadlines, retakes, and support tied to Formative Assessment evidence.
5. Recalculate grades from achievement evidence only (e.g., most recent or most consistent evidence per standard), and communicate the new meaning of grades to students and families.

Related Strategies¶

• Standards-based grading — the broader grading system this strategy is usually embedded in
• Re-engagement deadlines — the accountability replacement for late penalties
• Separate work-habits reporting — preserves behavioral information without contaminating achievement grades

Examples¶

• Grading for Equity (Feldman, 2019) — a widely adopted framework used in districts such as Oak Park Unified (CA) that removes behavior, effort, and attendance from grades and replaces zero policies with minimum scores and retake structures. https://gradingforequity.org
• Maine's proficiency-based diploma requirement (L.D. 1422, 2012) — required districts to award diplomas based on proficiency on standards, pushing schools to report habits of work separately from achievement.
• Ken O'Connor's grade-repair guidelines — used in many North American secondary schools to eliminate "the grade killers": zeros for late work, group-process grades averaged into individual achievement, and extra credit.

Key Sources¶

• Guskey, T. R. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 16–21.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Grading. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.
• O'Connor, K. (2017). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades (2nd ed.). Pearson.
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.