Lineage & Discourse Community Note: GOAL in Conversation with Grading for Growth
Introduction
The GOAL Framework (Growth-Oriented Assessment for Learning) is rooted in decades of scholarship on assessment reform, drawing from ungrading (e.g., Blum, Stommel, Sorensen-Unruh); labor-based contracts (Inoue); multimodal engagement (Carillo); Universal Design for Learning (CAST); trauma-informed pedagogy; and feminist and decolonial theories of education. Among this lineage, David Clark and Robert Talbert’s Grading for Growth (2023) stands out as perhaps the most comprehensive and practitioner-oriented synthesis of “alternative grading” practices to date. Their book and associated, ongoing blog and other writings distill and build upon years of experimentation and national dialogue into a clear, accessible model grounded in what they call the Four Pillars of Alternative Grading.
GOAL is in active conversation with Clark & Talbert’s work. We recognize Grading for Growth as a field-defining contribution that has, in concert with many other scholars and practitioners, emboldened hundreds of faculty to take first steps toward critically important grading reform. GOAL joins and extends this conversation into new territory: reframing assessment not only as classroom practice, but as a sociological and institutional project centered on belonging, agency, and care.
Mapping the Pillars
| Clark & Talbert: Four Pillars of Alternative Grading | GOAL Framework: Five Pillars | How GOAL Contributes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Clear Standards – student work is evaluated using clear, context-appropriate content standards. | 1. Learning for Flourishing – assessment serves student growth, curiosity, and meaning, not gatekeeping. | Moves from “standards” to purpose: emphasizes flourishing, belonging, and student voice in defining what matters. |
| 2. Helpful Feedback – students receive actionable feedback to improve their learning. | 2. Process & Pathway Visibility – learning work is seen, valued, and reflected back to students. | Feedback is not just corrective; it affirms engagement and labor, makes process visible, and acknowledges diverse paths to learning. |
| 3. Progress Indicators, Not Numbers – marks function as progress signals, not reductive scores. | 3. Iteration & Flexible Pacing – learning deepens through revision and flexible timelines. | Explicitly shifts focus from static, summative “marks” to cycles: emphasizes iterative practice, revision, and pacing as equity levers. |
| 4. Reassessment Without Penalty – students can reassess until they meet or exceed standards. | 4. Authenticity & Agency – assessment invites full selves, voice, and cultural/linguistic identities. | Builds reassessment into broader agency: students co-create authentic tasks and express learning in their own voices. |
| Prime Directive: Keep it Simple | 5. Equity & Flexibility by Design – accessibility, adaptability, and justice are defaults. | Makes equity a core design principle: UDL, trauma-informed pedagogy, and disability justice are embedded, not retrofitted. |
Conclusion
By placing GOAL’s five interlocking pillars of goal-oriented assessment for learning in dialogue with Clark & Talbert’s four pillars of alternative grading, we see both strong continuity and important distinctions, together working to grow and strengthen the awareness and community around this work. Both frameworks reject the entrenched inefficiencies and inequities of so-called traditional grading, and both foreground growth and feedback loops as central to learning.
Together, these frameworks illuminate different facets of grading reform. GOAL’s distinct contribution lies in its explicit sociological orientation: assessment reform as a lever for cultural and institutional transformation, not only classroom practice. GOAL centers belonging, agency, and care as explicit educational outcomes; integrates labor, process, and equity visibility; and situates grading reform within broader struggles for justice in higher education.
In this way, GOAL honors and expands on Clark & Talbert’s pioneering synthesis while extending the conversation into new domains of theory, equity, and institutional change. The field of assessment reform is thriving precisely because of this vibrant and expansive interplay of models, experiments, and communities of practice. Just as GOAL is both rooted in and contributing to this shared work, we hope to welcome more scholars and practitioners to join in collaborating and shaping what comes next.