Editorial: Proportional grading should not be implemented
Proportional grading, a new grading scale which divides letter grades into equal ranges, seeks to reduce impact on student grades. For example, instead of receiving a zero for an assignment you would receive 50%, essentially causing grade inflation.
Starting next year, teachers may be required to either adopt a 50-100% or 0-4 grading scale. We at The Olympian are not in support of the push for proportional grading.
While proportional grading aims to motivate students, it could lead to students dropping assignments due to it not having as much as a weight on their grade. In actuality, proportional grading could backfire and be counterproductive.
If you were to get a zero on an assignment, it is likely not due to actually failing the assignment, but rather, failure to complete it. By being more lenient and giving students a 50% for a missing assignment instead of a zero, it rewards unproductivity. We argue that if you did not do the assignment, you deserve the F.
In a survey recently conducted on proportional grading, the majority of CVHS teachers are against it. There is also a reason why so many teachers are against the forced implementation of proportional grading. Many teachers at CVHS have been teaching for several years and would know what works for them and how they want to teach their class by now. In fact, proportional grading would throw that completely off given inflated assignments.
With that, it may be easier to get a better grade in a harder class, or students would be able to skip various assignments and still achieve the letter grading they are aiming for.
If it were to be implemented in all classes including honors or AP classes, it would decrease the rigor many could be looking for and would no longer be a college preparation class, defeating the purpose.
Overall, proportional grading just simply doesn’t prepare you for college. While it might apply to high schools, it would not be implemented in college. With skipped/missing assignments, it builds on bad habits in high school and throws poorly nurtured students into the real world of college once again where the old grading system remains.
Instead of proportional grading, creating opportunities for students to retake/redo assignments for credit would be much more beneficial to both students and teachers. Failure to complete an assignment wouldn’t be rewarded and the student would get the chance to make up and still learn and do the same amount of work as peers as an alternative to achieve a grade. It is a solution for students to still put in the work, not automatically inflate everyone’s grades, and not push teachers into an entirely new grading system.
Thank you for taking a stance on an important topic. But let’s dig deeper into what equitable grading actually is, and why some of the concerns you raised deserve a closer look.
First: proportional grading isn’t about inflating grades. It’s about fixing a broken system. The 0–100 scale we’ve used for decades gives 60% of the scale to failure. That means one missing assignment—often due to stress, home issues, or misunderstanding—can mathematically destroy a student’s grade, even if they’ve learned most of the material. That’s not rigorous; that’s unjust.
Giving a minimum of 50% isn’t “rewarding laziness.” It’s a shift away from grading based on compliance and toward grading based on mastery. If a student hasn’t turned in work, there should be consequences, yes—but the priority should always be helping them learn and demonstrate understanding, not slamming the door shut with a zero.
Now to the claim that “teachers oppose it.” While some do have concerns, no verifiable data has been provided to show how many, who was asked, or how the questions were framed. And let’s be honest: disagreement alone doesn’t mean something is wrong. Many people resisted seat belts, women voting, and inclusive classrooms, too. We don’t shape policy based on who yells loudest—we shape it around what’s best for students.
Equitable grading doesn’t lower the bar—it raises it. It requires teachers to define what proficiency actually looks like. It means students can’t game the system by doing every extra credit assignment while never truly understanding the material. It demands real learning.
And most importantly—it prepares you for life. Because in life, growth matters more than getting everything right the first time. In work, in college, in relationships—you’re expected to learn from mistakes, adapt, and improve. That’s what equitable grading is about: not perfection, but progress.
Let’s build a system that believes in students’ ability to grow—not one that punishes them the moment they stumble.
CVUSD’s Board Policy Subcommittee is meeting tonight, 4/30/2025, at 5 p.m. to discuss adoption of proportional grading. It is Agenda Item 3G. Public comments are allowed!
I agree with the author of the article that this new grading system can be detrimental to a students’ strive to work for their grade.
I completely agree with your side. I think you should just get 50% for not doing work. Grades should be earned and should reflect the work you’ve done. It’s simple if you done no work then you deserve a 0%.
I agree that proportional grading doesn’t highlight the importance of completing work. We should not reward people for not doing any work. Our grades should reflect on how well we know the material.
Great article. I totally agree that the idea of implementing this grading form will eliminate the entire point of going to a class. Education should promote the desire to learn, or should at least prepare you for the workload of further education, it shouldn’t be about the letter grade you get.
I agree with the article as well. Students should be held accountable for not doing their work I and feel like the productivity problem is bad enough and it will only get worse.
By failing to complete an assignment, you did 0% of the work, and you should be graded accordingly. There’s an idea that if they have a strong grade already, they should just be given credit for a missing assignment, but in reality, they never did it. We don’t know if they mastered the skill until they complete the assignment.
I generally disagree with this article on the basis that this is a bad idea as this could potentially dissuade people from turning in low-quality or incomplete work as it could get a lower grade compared to not turning it in. But I believe that homework should only be for people who need practice. I would rather have standards-based grading as it would effectively deal with grade inflation from assignments.
I agree that its wrong to inflate students grades instead of giving them an accurate grade
I agree that Proportional grading should not be implemented as it may cause counterproductivity and negatively impact students’ grades.
I agree that proportional grading undermines the importance of completing work. Inflating grades for incomplete assignments create a false sense of achievement. Offering students to redo assignments when they get bad scores on them reinforces the value of hard work.
I wholeheartedly agree with this article. The fact is that many students can be careless about their grades, and inflating the grades to 50% to 0 can lead to careless decisions that may risk lowering their grades as some students may believe that it’s fine.