It’s a debate districts are having across the Bay Area and the country, given increasing concerns over grade inflation, racial inequities on report cards and at the most basic level, whether an A means students actually mastered the subject matter or simply showed up and didn’t make waves. In Palo Alto Unified, creating a uniform system of grading isn’t going to happen any time soon, Austin said. The district is taking it slowly and allowing educators to learn about evidence-based grading and to opt in. Teachers still have complete control over how they grade, whether to give D’s and F’s, or allow additional time to complete assignments or retake tests. Moving to a structured, calibrated grading system based on mastery of subject matter will not be embraced by everyone, with many critics and concerns.Those conversations are particularly fraught in high-achieving and mostly affluent districts like Palo Alto where families often place intense pressure on students to get high marks. But grading approaches vary. Some teachers grade on curves, some don’t. Some give students a temporary grade of incomplete or no mark to allow students to keep trying, while others don’t. Some deduct points for bad behavior or tardiness, while some offer extra credit for helping clean the classroom. In many classrooms, a letter grade—be that an A, B or C—doesn’t necessarily reflect how much a student learned, but rather what the teacher prioritizes and counts in a grade book. A subjective, individualized system of grading offers a potential for grade inflation or bias and the current system used in most school districts could be so much better, said Alix Gallagher, director of strategic partnerships for Policy Analysis for California Education, a University of California independent research center. Grades should signal to parents, teachers, college and employers what kids know and what they can do, she said. “You want clarity” from grading systems,” she said.