At our latest regional workshop, two Wisconsin districts—Wilmot Union High School and Monroe School District—shared the kind of stories that educators remember. Not the glossy “after” picture, but the honest middle: the experiments, the missteps, the aha moments, and the decisions that actually moved learned forward.
One district is pushing toward a fully standards-based system; the other is reorganizing grading around the skills students will use long after high school. Both started in different places, but both were driven by the same question: What do we want learning to look like, and what will it take to get there?
Together, they offer a powerful look at what it takes to rethink learning in real classrooms, not theoretically, but practically, messily, collaboratively, and with students squarely at the center.
At Wilmot Union High School, the move toward standards-based grading began the way most real school change does: slowly, experimentally, and with plenty of honest trial-and-error. It started with teachers digging into book studies, trying new ideas, bringing in consultants, and exploring different ways to make learning more transparent. There was no shortage of effort or energy, but the work lived in separate pockets without a shared structure to tie it all together.
One gradebook offered a forty-nine-page report card that, not surprisingly, confused students and families. Some departments were still relying on Scantrons and decade-old materials. Consultants offered compelling ideas, but the momentum faded as soon as the day ended. Everyone was doing something, it just wasn’t all moving in the same direction yet.
When Don Norwick stepped into his role as Associate Principal of Curriculum & Instruction at Wilmot, he didn’t bring a finished model. He brought something much more practical: a commitment to shared language. Teachers needed tools they could explain confidently to students and families, not rubrics borrowed from a book, not grading scales that shifted from classroom to classroom, and definitely not systems no one could defend under pressure.
That’s where Wilmot’s ESIC tables came in.
These “Essential Standards + I Can Statements” documents became the anchor that the school had been missing. Each one outlines the standards for the course, the student-friendly “I can” statements, and the common rubrics teachers use to assess learning. Instead of separate syllabi, pacing guides, and course overviews, everything lived in one place. And students could finally understand what they were working toward.
Wilmot didn’t switch to standards-based grading overnight. The first year was a pilot with 21 teachers, mostly in freshman courses. The gradebook wasn’t right at first. The rubrics weren’t right at first. Some teachers understandably dug in their heels, while others sprinted ahead. But the shift worked because the community agreed that clarity, communication, and consistency mattered more than perfection.
Over time, that clarity helped the school refine core practices, like:
As Don put it during the workshop, progress wasn’t about having a flawless system. It was about having an intentional one.
And that shared commitment has made room for deeper instructional collaboration, more targeted support, and more meaningful conversations about student learning. To keep that clarity visible in everyday practice, Wilmot uses Otus to house their ESIC tables, rubrics, and shared evidence of learning, giving teachers, students, and families one aligned view of what success looks like across courses.
Monroe School District, represented by Susan Anderson, Learning and Technology Coach and co-leader of evidence-based teaching and learning work, approached grading from a different starting point: a fundamental question about the purpose of school.
As they were evaluating their grading practices, leaders spent time considering the relevance of school for their students and their struggles with student engagement. Discussing a vision for the kind of students they want to send into the world, they landed on a simple idea: graduates who know who they are, understand what they’re capable of, and can confidently say they can handle anything that comes their way.
From there, the team framed their work around five key principles. The first centers on shared accountability:
These commitments pushed Monroe to organize grading around enduring skills; things like analyzing texts, reasoning, communication, and applying technical knowledge. In Otus, those enduring skills sit at the top of every course, giving students, families, and teachers a clear, consistent view of what learning looks like, skill by skill, no matter the classroom. Using shared rubrics and simple 4-3-2-1 scales, teachers now evaluate how students grow in those skills over time. No more chasing points, playing the game over what is formative and what is summative, or lobbying for extra credit. Instead, student work is evidence of the skills they are learning and all of it matters to show a student’s learning story.
This shift also reshaped assessment design. When assessments are framed as evidence of skills, they now ask students to show their thinking, justify decisions, and apply learning in real contexts. Practice is treated as preparation or rehearsal rather than part of the final score, giving students room to learn without penalty.
Together, these changes have made grading conversations more meaningful. Teachers can distinguish whether a student is facing a “won’t do,” “can’t yet,” or “thinks they can’t” challenge and respond with support that fits. Most importantly, students engage in frequent and consistent feedback with their teachers to have a clear sense of what their success looks like, skill by skill, across their courses. In this way, the students are owning their learning and developing their sense of agency, which is exactly what educators want as they prepare students for their next chapter.
Though their approaches differed, Wilmot and Monroe surfaced three shared takeaways that resonated with all in attendance:
Anchor your work in clear, student-friendly learning goals, whether through standards and “I can” statements or enduring skills.
Students and families shouldn’t need a decoder ring to understand success. Clear rubrics, shared scales, and consistent structures make grading more transparent and fair.
When evidence of learning is organized clearly, teachers can actually use it: for feedback, for planning, for intervention, and for conversations with families.
Big grading shifts aren’t driven by a shiny new tool or buzzword. They’re driven by teachers and leaders who come together around a shared vision of learning and stick with it through the messy middle.
That’s what Wilmot and Monroe showed so clearly. The shift wasn’t perfect, but it never is. Rethinking grading is about being aligned, intentional, and willing to reexamine old habits in service of better learning.
And having a unified place to see every data point and learning trend in Otus? That doesn’t hurt, either.