No. ME-SBG works with your existing curriculum. The support materials are modular and optional—a buffet of resources, not a prescribed script.
Choose one or more grades from 6-8. All teachers in the chosen grade level(s) must use proficiency ratings by standard (academic mastery only) and allow reassessment for full credit. Everything else is flexible—use our materials or yours, adapt routines to your schedule.
No problem. The system works for both traditional and standards-based report cards. Scores by standard can be translated into letter grades.
ME-SBG makes the hardest part—reassessment for full credit—actually sustainable. Most schools grading by standard still struggle with reassessment because the time and material demands are too high. If you’ve already solved this sustainably, you may not need us—but that’s rare.
No. Each teacher can choose what works—standard by standard—from an online library of support materials. The system empowers teachers with flexible, ready-to-use options.
No. ME-SBG is designed to lighten the load with ready-to-use tools, flexible supports, and simple routines that ease implementation.
All participating schools implement ME-SBG. Some begin in September 2026, others in September, 2028. Random assignment ensures a fair, rigorous evaluation—but every school benefits.
Research files never contain student names; each student is identified only by a state student ID, which we then replace with a study code. The classroom app connects securely to your student information system (via Edlink) so teachers and students see dashboards by standard, but those roster records stay in your system, separate from research data. Data sharing is covered in our MOU, approved by an independent ethics board (IRB), and meets state requirements such as New York’s EdLaw 2-D.
In brief: Solutions are context-specific—we help you develop what works for your schedule.
Details: Real examples from pilot schools:
Critical clarification: This is NOT mastery-based or self-paced learning. The class moves through curriculum at normal pace—all students learn new content together. Students who need reassessment study earlier standards at home or during study hall, then reassess even after the class has moved on.
Flashback days (optional strategy): Some teachers implement periodic flashback days where the whole class revisits earlier standards—but it’s highly differentiated, not whole-class reteaching. Each student works on the specific standards they need:
In brief: A one-day paid PD that explains what teachers will do differently and why.
Details: Topics:
Ongoing help continues through the year via optional webinars and check-ins, with formats responsive to what principals find most valuable given their demanding schedules.
In brief: Schools keep all resources permanently and build internal capacity.
Details: During Years 3–4, we continue working with Cohort A schools to build sustainability infrastructure:
All materials remain free after the two-year support window. The only cost is staff time for local PD.
In brief: No costs for participating schools; others may pay for training or system integration.
Details: For study participants: Zero cost for materials. All ME-SBG resources remain available permanently at no cost.
Important note: During your two-year implementation period, we provide stipends for teacher PD and PLC time. After that window, all materials remain free, but schools need to budget for teacher time for internal refresher trainings—or integrate them into existing PD structures.
For non-participants: Schools wanting to implement ME-SBG later will need to pay for initial training, implementation support, and potential software integration costs.
SBG has two key features:
• Current proficiency by standard: Each student receives a separate proficiency rating for each math standard, based on the most recent credible evidence of what they know and can do.
• Further learning and reassessment: Students can reassess for full credit after showing evidence of further learning.
Behavior, effort, and homework completion do not change academic proficiency ratings. Learning habits matter, and SBG classrooms address them separately.
No. Schools continue to use the same type of overall grade they already use, such as a percentage or letter grade for each subject. Under SBG, the academic part of that grade is calculated from current proficiency ratings across standards. The exact calculation depends on the district.
Proficiency ratings and report card grades serve two different purposes.
Proficiency ratings tell you what a student understands and what they need to work on. For example, a student might be Proficient in dividing fractions but Close to Proficient in solving percent problems. A single overall grade cannot show you that.
In contrast, a report card grade, such as a letter grade or percent, tells you how a student is doing overall. In SBG schools, report card grades often summarize a student’s proficiency across multiple standards.
In a classroom without reassessment, a student who doesn’t learn to divide fractions in October gets a low score, the class moves on, and that’s the end of it. No one expects that student to go back and learn it. The structure quietly accepts that some students—perhaps many—won’t learn some standards. Our goal is for every student to learn every standard.
Reassessment is not a free second try. Before reassessing, students must show their teacher evidence of further learning—such as corrected work explaining what they misunderstood, plus documentation of the practice or help that got them there. The expectation is not merely a better score—it is eventual proficiency on the standard. Even if a student does not reach proficiency on every standard, each standard they go back and learn is a success. Relearning and reassessing builds perseverance, and classrooms using this approach have achieved stronger math results.
Yes. In a randomized study of 29 schools, eighth and ninth graders in SBG classrooms made more than one and a half times as much progress on standardized Algebra and Geometry tests as students in traditional-grading classrooms. The approach combined the same two features described above: proficiency ratings by standard and full-credit reassessment after further learning. See research summary ›
Each math standard gets its own rating. The ratings show what you have learned and what you still need to work on. If a rating is below Proficient, it does not have to stay there. You can go back, learn what you missed, and reassess for full credit. Show that you have learned more, and your new rating replaces the old one — the earlier low rating is gone.
Step 1: Review your proficiency ratings to find a standard you need to work on.
Step 2: Look at your most recent assessment. What did you get wrong? What did you not understand?
Step 3: Get a Reassessment Contract or Retake Ticket from your teacher. Use it to plan how you will learn the standard better.
Step 4: Do the work. That might mean correcting the problems you missed, doing practice your teacher assigns, or getting help from your teacher or a classmate. Then write down what you did and turn in your contract or ticket.
Step 5: Reassess just that one standard—not the whole test—using new problems. Your new rating replaces the old one.
Your teacher will tell you what help and practice are available, when and where you can do the work, and when you can reassess.
Usually, your teacher will not set a fixed number of reassessments. If you are still below Proficient, you can learn more and ask to reassess again. But you cannot just keep reassessing a standard over and over. Each time, you must show that you did more work and learned more. That takes real time, so most students who reassess a standard do it just once.
Your teacher will usually set a deadline — for example, within two weeks or by the end of the marking period. That way, the standards you still need to work on do not pile up.
Homework does not change your proficiency rating. Your proficiency rating on a standard is an honest answer to one question: have you learned the math?
Some teachers count only your proficiency ratings toward your report card grade. Others also count things like finishing your practice work. Ask your teacher how it works in your class.
For many standards, you probably will not reach Proficient without practice. Understanding a method in class does not always mean you can use it on your own later. Sometimes a method does not fully make sense until you have used it a few times. With practice, you are more likely to remember the method later, and you can use it more easily with fewer mistakes. Practice also helps you figure out what you can do on your own and where you still need help, so you can get help before the assessment.
To earn High Performance, you first need to show that you are Proficient. Then you need to show that you understand the math deeply, not just that you can use it correctly. You might solve a problem that looks different from ones you have practiced, explain why a method works, or find and correct a mistake in someone’s thinking.
For many standards, your teacher has a High Performance Learning Task that lets you practice this kind of thinking. In some classrooms, you can also earn High Performance by teaching a classmate until they reach Proficient.
Specific practices vary by school. Your child’s math teacher can explain how SBG works in their classroom.
Most ME-SBG schools use four levels. Here is one example.
HP: HIGH PERFORMANCE – I understand the concepts deeply and can explain why they work. I could teach this!
PR: PROFICIENT – I can consistently apply the skills and concepts to solve math problems.
CP: CLOSE TO PROFICIENT – I can do the routine procedures, but I cannot yet consistently solve realistic problems.
NYP: NOT YET PROFICIENT – I’m still learning this one.
Some schools use only three levels, combining the two below Proficient.
Behavior, effort, and homework completion matter, but they are not the same as learning. A student may work very hard and still not yet understand percents; another may put in little effort and still master them. Each student’s proficiency rating on a standard reflects what that student knows and can do—nothing else. If a student has not yet learned the standard, we owe it to them to say so clearly—so they know what they still need to learn and can keep working toward proficiency.
That does not mean SBG classrooms ignore the learning behaviors that help students reach proficiency. Most of our teachers have students regularly rate their own learning habits—for example, participation, completing practice, and perseverance. We prefer this approach because a student who reflects on a habit is more likely to change it than one who is simply graded on it. Some classrooms also give learning habits their own standard—a Traits of a Learner rating using the same proficiency levels—or make learning habits a small part of the report card grade, for example, 90% academics and 10% learning habits.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer because each district’s report card system is different. However, the underlying principle is the same:
The academic grade is built from proficiency ratings, not from an average of assignment scores. Each standard covered during the marking period counts once, using the student’s current rating.
In schools that use A/B/C/D/F grades or an equivalent percentage system, many of our districts begin with three benchmarks:
Note: These are starting points, not requirements. Districts may choose different benchmarks. For example, half Proficient and half Not Yet Proficient could be a high D.
Districts can then assign numerical values that produce those results. For example, in a district where 90–100 is an A, 80–89 is a B, 70–79 is a C, and 60–69 is a D, one possible conversion is:
Proficiency rating | Numerical value |
High Performance | 100 |
Proficient | 90 |
Close to Proficient | 70 |
Not Yet Proficient | 50 |
The teacher averages these values across standards to determine the academic report card grade.
Proficient is not a consolation prize. A student rated Proficient can make sense of a real situation, identify and carry out the mathematics it calls for, and interpret the answer. A student who does that across every standard covered during the marking period has demonstrated real mastery. That earns an A.
High Performance is not the same work done better. It is a different kind of thinking applied to the same grade-level mathematics: making sense of unfamiliar situations, judging whether someone else’s reasoning holds up, explaining why a method works, or defending a conclusion when more than one answer can be justified.
We encourage students to work toward High Performance. It receives a higher numerical value than Proficient and can raise a student’s overall grade. But encouraging it is different from requiring it. If High Performance were required for an A, schools would face pressure to water down the entire rating scale—otherwise, students who were Proficient on every standard would be denied an A. Proficient work could be relabeled High Performance, and Close to Proficient work could be relabeled Proficient. The entire system would become less demanding.
Three fundamental principles guide reassessment in a standards-based classroom:
Before reassessing, your child will typically complete a “reassessment contract” or “retake ticket” documenting the further learning they have done. Teachers set their own reassessment procedures, such as when and where students can reassess and any reassessment deadlines. A reasonable deadline encourages students to address unfinished learning promptly, before later work makes catching up harder.
You do not need to remember the math. What helps most is knowing which standards your child has not yet reached and whether they have a plan for getting there.
An ME-SBG classroom has two essential commitments:
Taken together, these commitments mean that when an overall academic grade is needed, it is calculated from current ratings across standards—not by totaling or averaging points from individual assignments over time.
Beyond those commitments, many details vary by district, school, or classroom. These include proficiency scales, how standards ratings are converted into report-card grades, reassessment procedures and deadlines, how learning habits are addressed, and which standards are rated.
Teachers and schools may use, adapt, or set aside the materials we provide; many teachers already have materials they like, and ME-SBG does not ask them to replace those materials. For a description of the materials and supports available, see “What is ME-SBG?”
For each standard, first identify the skills and concepts students need to demonstrate. Then define what performance at different proficiency levels looks like.
Rather than assigning particular subskills to particular proficiency levels, ME-SBG uses Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) to distinguish among the proficiency levels:
Schools use different names for their proficiency levels, and some use three levels rather than four.
Depth of Knowledge is not a perfect fit for every state standard. Some standards explicitly require little beyond recalling information or performing a routine procedure. For those standards, our proficiency guides may define Proficient performance by asking students to apply the mathematics or use it in contexts that require connections to other standards.
A rating is your professional judgment about what a student currently knows and can do on one standard. It is not a calculation.
Use the most recent credible evidence. You are not averaging performance over time. A student who was Not Yet Proficient in November but is Proficient in December is now Proficient.
A proficiency rating should describe what the student knows and can do now, independently. Credible evidence may come from assessment items, independent classwork, student explanations, or targeted conversations. Homework and group work are valuable for learning, but they usually cannot tell you what a student can do on their own.
If evidence is incomplete or inconsistent—for example, when a student gets a strategic-thinking problem correct but a routine problem wrong—feel free to use a quick, targeted follow-up to find out what the student really understands. You might ask the student to correct what appears to be a careless mistake, have a short conversation, or give the student one additional targeted problem to solve.
If you don’t have time to collect more evidence, use your best judgment. What drives learning is the process itself: honest feedback by standard, further learning, and reassessment for full credit. The process still works when an individual rating is imperfect, and you can update the rating when credible new evidence appears.
Reassessment exists to support learning, not to fix grades. Establish a systematic process for students to show they have learned more before they reassess. Otherwise, some students will simply try again hoping for a better result—which wastes their time and yours. A good reassessment process should prompt students to figure out what they need to work on, do that work, and then try again.
Most ME-SBG teachers use a reassessment contract or retake ticket — a short form the student completes and turns in before reassessing. Practice varies across our schools:
Teachers also differ on whether unfinished practice on the standard must be completed first. Some require it; others do not, on the grounds that a backlog can block the relearning it was meant to support.
Further learning can happen wherever students can practice, use learning materials, or receive help. Reassessment requires an opportunity for students to demonstrate their understanding independently, usually under teacher supervision.
Some report cards contain only proficiency by standard. Most, however, also include a summary grade for each subject, because students and families reasonably want an answer to the question, “How am I doing overall?”
The academic grade should be calculated from the student’s current proficiency ratings across standards—not from points accumulated on individual assignments over time.
A student who is Proficient on an individual standard is consistently solving DOK 2 problems correctly. On the state middle-school math tests we examined, most items are classified as DOK 1 or DOK 2, with relatively few classified as DOK 3. A student who is Proficient on every standard is therefore likely to score at or near the top level on the state test. This is low A-level work, and the report card grade should reflect that. For further discussion of why, see the family FAQ, “Shouldn’t an A require some High Performance?”
The exact procedure for translating a set of proficiency ratings into a summary grade depends on the scale your school uses for report cards. When schools have a choice, we recommend a familiar summary scale such as A–F or percentages. Below is one practical example of converting proficiency ratings into a summary grade on such a scale.
Worked example
If your school uses A/B/C/D/F grades or an equivalent percentage system, start with three benchmarks, such as:
Note: These are starting points, not requirements. You may choose different benchmarks. For example, half Proficient and half Not Yet Proficient could be a high D.
You can then assign numerical values that produce those results. For example, if your school defines 90–100 as an A, 80–89 as a B, 70–79 as a C, and 60–69 as a D, one possible conversion is:
Proficiency rating | Numerical value |
High Performance | 100 |
Proficient | 90 |
Close to Proficient | 70 |
Not Yet Proficient | 50 |
Average these values across standards to determine the academic report card grade.
Notice that these values produce the three benchmarks: all-Proficient averages 90, all Close to Proficient averages 70, and half Proficient with half Not Yet Proficient also averages 70.
Adjust the values if your situation differs. If your school’s cutoffs are not 90/80/70/60 — say an A starts at 93 — raise the Proficient value so that all-Proficient still lands at the bottom of the A range. If you want half Proficient and half Not Yet Proficient to be a high D, lower the Not Yet Proficient value.
Schools teach more than academics. They also teach learning habits such as completing homework, paying attention in class, and working well with others. These habits help students master academic content and matter later in life.
However, a proficiency rating has a specific job: showing what a student currently knows and can do on a particular standard—and what they still need to work on. It can serve that purpose only if it reflects academic learning alone. Including homework completion, attention, or effort in the rating would make that information less accurate, even though those learning habits matter.
That does not mean SBG classrooms ignore learning habits. We recommend setting aside time for students to evaluate their own habits. Our teachers have found that regular, teacher-guided self-evaluation helps students take greater responsibility for their learning, contributes to a more positive classroom, and supports academic progress.
Schools may address learning habits through student reflection and feedback alone, through a separate Traits of a Learner rating, or by making learning habits a clearly identified part of the overall report-card grade. In every case, the academic component of the grade remains based on standard proficiency ratings.
In brief: Math Empowerment through Standards-Based Grading (ME-SBG) combines SBG with the tools and routines that make it practical.
Details: It provides proficiency maps, re-learning and reassessment materials, a student dashboard, and supports for families and teachers. Funded by a $9.95 million U.S. Department of Education Education Innovation and Research (EIR) grant, the project serves Grades 6–9 across multiple districts.
Why resources + training? Standards-based grading often fails not because the concept is flawed, but because teachers lack time to create materials and manage reassessments. By providing ready-to-use resources alongside training, we remove the barriers that typically prevent effective implementation—so teachers can focus on instruction, not spending nights and weekends creating materials from scratch. We back this up with ongoing support for each district, including a dedicated point person and regular opportunities for teachers to get help as they implement ME-SBG.
In brief: A large study found students learned over half a year of extra math.
Details: In 29 high schools, SBG + reassessment classes outperformed traditional ones in Algebra I and Geometry. The current five-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) will test impact in middle-school math nationwide, with independent evaluation by Westat. Research summary ›
In brief: It supplies ready-to-use materials and scheduling routines that fit any timetable.
Details: Examples:
Students re-study and reassess without slowing the class pace.
In brief: 21PSTEM leads ME-SBG with research and district partners.
Details:
To register for the event, please do so through Lincoln IU’s PowerSchool page. If you already have an account, login and search for course 11352.
If you do not have an account, click on this link:
https://lincolnu12.pl.powerschool.com/ia/empari/login/guest.
Click on “Sign Up” to create an account. Once you do, then sign up for course 11352.
If you have any difficulty, please reach out to info@21pstem.org.
Consultant
Ms. Tice is a specialist in mathematics coaching, curriculum and instruction at 21PSTEM with over 40 years of experience in education as a public-school teacher in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio. She has worked in the Colonial School District, Plymouth Meeting, PA as both an embedded math instructional coach at the high school and as a classroom mathematics teacher. As instructional coach for Colonial School District, she assisted in creating standards-aligned district exams for grades 6-12 and provided professional development for the implementation of the newly adopted integrated mathematics curriculum. For the Bristol Township School District in Levittown, PA, she taught mathematics in grades 7 through 12 and was instrumental in implementing a new integrated math curriculum at the high school. As part of her final project for her M.S. in educational administration, she created a comprehensive plan to address the achievement gap among underserved groups of high school math students. At 21PSTEM she has provided professional development for teachers in multiple states for integrated mathematics programs and assisted in professional development for the ESSA (formerly ECASE) project math teachers in Egypt. Ms. Tice is excited to be part of the Standards-Based Grading research project at 21PSTEM.
In addition, she is a part-time professor of mathematics for prospective teachers at Bucks County Community College.
M.S. Gwynedd-Mercy University, Educational Administration
Certificate of Secondary Mathematics Education, The College of New Jersey B.A. Heidelberg University (Ohio), Elementary Education with Departmental Honors.
Consultant
Dr. Jessica Shupik’s professional journey has been defined by a passion for designing transformative learning experiences and driving positive organizational change. Through her doctoral research, Dr. Shupik has cultivated expertise that bridges research and real-world application. Throughout her roles in public education, corporate training, and nonprofit consulting, she has consistently developed and implemented initiatives that translate complex goals into measurable improvements in performance and engagement. As a learning professional, Dr. Shupik has crafted solutions tailored to diverse learners, from piloting programs that boosted test scores to leading national conference presentations on tech-infused education. She is recognized for her engaging public speaking, collaborative approach, and the ability to bridge communication across departments to achieve lasting, meaningful results.
Consultant
Dr. Teomara (Teya) Rutherford is an Associate Professor of Learning Sciences in the University of Delaware School of Education. She received her PhD in Learning, Cognition, and Development from University of California, Irvine, her JD from Boston University School of Law, and her bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education with a concentration in Computers in the Classroom from Florida International University. Dr. Rutherford’s research focuses on learning and motivation, especially in STEM and in digital contexts. Currently, she works on a number of federally-funded projects on K-12 mathematics and cybersecurity education and on university computer science. In each, she uses design tools, such as logic models and theories of change, to connect researchers, developers, and practitioners in creating, implementing, and evaluating learning-focused tools and products.
Student Success Programs Supervisor for PPS
Chris Heckman is the Student Success Programs Supervisor for Portland Public Schools in Oregon, where he supports work in mathematics standards and assessments. He’s taught 6-12 grades math for twelve years in the Portland area and has loved his experiences in math education working with youth. Apart from work, Chris stays active through exercise, outdoor adventures, and the occasional home repair project, expresses creativity through cooking and music (guitar and piano), and finds inspiration through reading and mindfulness / meditation. Currently, his two favorite teachers are his seven-year-old child – who offers daily lessons in wonder (and patience) – and his incredible wife, who he’s still working hard to impress.
Standards-Based Grading Specialist
Vivian Loewenstern-Jaffe has the background and experience that make her ideally qualified to play a supportive role in the Mathematics Empowerment through Standards-Based Grading Program. After a distinguished career as a mathematics teacher, she was a central office administrator in two school districts where she had the responsibility of implementing standards-based grading district-wide. In addition, she was a lead in the development of the mathematics curriculum and collaborated with others on the mathematics assessment system for a USAID funded project to develop STEM high schools in Egypt. In this role, not only did she create country-wide math assessments, but she performed numerous country-wide presentations on standards-based grading for teachers, administrators, and supervisors.
Logistics Coordinator and Administrative Assistant
Kylie Doyle is a Logistics Coordinator and Administrative Assistant on ME-SBG. She primarily works with travel, event coordination, and a multitude of other administrative duties to support the project. She has a background in visual arts, which she uses while managing the website and creating social media content along with other materials for ME-SBG. After work, Kylie enjoys writing, making art, and maintaining a growing collection of indoor and outdoor plants.
Lead Software Engineer
Tim Flood is the Lead Software Engineer for ME-SBG. In this role, he architects and develops the web-based platform that enables teachers to implement standards-based grading with their students, designing systems that handle LMS integration, standards management, and student performance tracking. A former project manager and scrum master turned software engineer, Tim collaborates with the ME-SBG team using Agile practices to deliver teacher-friendly tools. Outside of work, Tim’s interests range across weightlifting, long-distance swimming, reading, and drawing.