ME-SBG App

MESBG News & Updates

Stay informed about the latest research, events, and stories from our community.

Beyond Unlimited Retakes: Empowering Students Through Smart Reassessment Policies

An educator recently asked us an important question about reassessment in standards-based grading: “I thought we’ve been saying that students need as many opportunities as they need to demonstrate mastery. But can teachers set cutoffs—like not allowing reassessment on Q1 standards once the quarter ends?” Here’s our answer.

Short Answer
Yes—a teacher or school may set a Q1 cutoff for changing Q1 report-card entries. That’s consistent with our approach when paired with real, structured opportunities to learn and reassess.

How We Frame the Core Principle
Our core goal is student empowerment—helping students take charge of their learning. Reassessment for full credit after further study is the key means to that end. The focus is on learning (opportunities to master the material), not just “fair grading” (opportunities to demonstrate mastery).
This distinction matters. When we prioritize opportunities to learn over opportunities to test, we make different decisions about how to structure reassessment.

Why We Work Within Classroom Structures
Although some students study well independently, we believe most students construct mathematical understanding best as a social enterprise—working with peers and a teacher. That’s why we intentionally designed ME-SBG to work within the structure of a math class, with a group of students studying the same material together, led by a teacher.
This pedagogical commitment means we must balance the ideal (as many opportunities as needed to master material) with the practicalities of real classrooms.

What That Means in Practice
No Preset Numeric Cap
Students may reassess after demonstrating further learning (readiness steps: finish missing work, reflect/correct, engage in further study). Access to reassessment is about readiness, not retries.

Time-Bound Windows Are Allowed—And Sometimes Beneficial for Learning
Teachers can set time limits on when reassessment is available—such as within two weeks of completing a unit or by the end of the quarter. Many also schedule periodic “flashback days” that provide structured opportunities for catch-up and reassessment.

Real example of time limits supporting learning: One pilot teacher found that students waited until week 8 of a 9-week quarter to suddenly request help reassessing many standards, having made no attempts to restudy and reassess earlier. She adopted a two-week window per unit, which helped students develop better learning habits and take more ownership of their progress.
The time constraint didn’t limit learning—it supported learning by encouraging students to address gaps sooner rather than procrastinating.

Natural Revisits Throughout the Year
Many standards reappear naturally as the curriculum progresses (e.g., Q1’s dividing fractions shows up again in Q4’s missing-dimension area and volume problems). Teachers can use these moments to help students master earlier standards and document new proficiency.
If practical, they can go back and change the earlier grade. If not practical (because of administrative constraints), they can celebrate learning through notes home, certificates, or conversations with students.

When “Unlimited Opportunities” Actually Disempowers Students
Imagine a student who repeatedly fails reassessments on interpreting word problems after doing test corrections and watching videos. By the third or fourth attempt, something is wrong—and more attempts aren’t the answer.
Either the study method needs to change, or the assessments are inaccurate, or the student needs different supports. Focusing on “unlimited opportunities to demonstrate mastery” can actually disempower students as learners. It’s time to regroup and help the student figure out how to actually learn the material, not just provide another assessment opportunity.

Broader Context
The principle of “reassessment later” could logically extend to changing earlier-year report cards, and some schools may actually do that—but not all. Schools already make practical decisions about cutoff points in other grading contexts.

Bottom Line
We don’t let the perfect block the good.
Students get multiple opportunities to demonstrate new understanding after further learning, within sustainable windows that keep classes moving. Grades reflect current proficiency by standard, and late mastery is still recognized and celebrated even if earlier report cards don’t always change.
The system empowers students to take charge of their learning while working within the realities of classroom instruction and school systems.

What This Means for Implementation
When schools join ME-SBG, we help teachers design reassessment policies that work for their specific context. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer because different schedules, student populations, and grading systems require different approaches.

What matters is that students have:
-Clear understanding of the standards and what proficient and high performance look like
-Clear expectations about reassessment opportunities
-Genuine chances to learn material better (not just retest)
-Support systems that help them succeed, not just more attempts
The goal isn’t perfect grading—it’s powerful learning.

Have questions about how ME-SBG works in practice? Contact us or check out our FAQ.

Jessica Shupik, Ed.D.

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.

Teya Rutherford

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.

Chris Heckman

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.

Vivian Loewenstern

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.

Kylie Doyle

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.

Tim Flood

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.