“You can’t be a prophet in your own land” is a familiar expression that captures one of the most frustrating realities of organizational change. It’s what behavioral scientists call the messenger effect — documented as far back as Hovland and Weiss’s landmark 1951 study on source credibility and research has re-affirmed consistently — whereby the same idea receives substantially different reception depending on who delivers it. The idea is simple but powerful. When an administrator or teacher-leader tries to introduce a new way of thinking to people around them–their colleagues, their staff, the community they work in every day–they are often met with resistance, skepticism, or polite indifference. But when an outside voice delivers the exact same message, something different happens. The idea is evaluated on its merits, without the baggage of organizational history and power relationships.
I see this play out constantly in my work around grading reform. Principals, superintendents, and department heads who have read the research, internalized the implications for fairness and professional integrity, and genuinely believe in the need for change find that when a member of my organization or I facilitate workshops, even when the content echoes what they’ve read about or what the leader has told them, something’s different. People become more open, more curious, and momentum shifts in the direction of grading reform.
This is not a failure of individual leadership. It is a structural feature of organizational change, and it’s worth examining why it is pronounced when the change is about grading.
Why Grading Is Unique
There may be no reform more necessary and more charged in American education than changing how we grade students. Grading is not like other instructional topics. In my experience as a former teacher, principal, and district administrator, no conversations with teachers was more potentially fraught with implications for labor contracts, professional integrity, and adult relationships within our school building, than those regarding grading practices. The reason becomes clear when one considers the broader context in which teachers work today and the expectations placed on them.
We ask teachers to implement new curriculum with fidelity while differentiating for every learner, and adapt and integrate new technology in real time. We ask them to navigate politically charged community expectations and address the full spectrum of students’ social, emotional, and academic needs. We ask them to manage classroom behavior, support individual students with complex histories, be culturally responsive and sustaining across race, gender, and class, and to accept compensation that, at least monetarily, does not reflect the difficulty or importance of the work during a time of declining union power.
Into that context, grading means something greater than entering points in the gradebook software. Because grading is, as I have often described it, teachers’ “last island of autonomy”, it is more than one more teaching task; it represents professional identity and trust in professional judgement. Grading is how a teacher’s professional expertise is formalized, enduring, and must be critically protected. That’s why many teacher contracts and state education codes explicitly enshrine a teacher’s grades as unalterable except under the most extreme circumstances. A teacher’s grades, after all, deserve that protection; no one is better situated to evaluate and report a student’s performance than their teacher.
That protection, though, creates a dilemma for leaders who want to do right by students and to support the integrity of each teacher’s instruction. After all, when every teacher is grading students differently, and no teachers have had sufficient access to grading research or support, leaders who want to talk about grading are really trying to support both teachers and students, yet when a principal says, “I’d like us to look at how we’re grading,” teachers often hear, “I’m not trusted,” or “I want to take away your professional autonomy” because that’s their experience from previous grading conversations with administrators.
This is the heart of what we could call the “native prophet” problem. The very person most responsible for student outcomes, and who understands how grading is a key lever for improving those outcomes, is also, by virtue of their institutional role, can be the least credible messenger for grading reform.
The Urgency of Grading Reform
I understand why leaders sometimes decide it’s not worth the fight. Grading reform is emotionally charged, legally complicated, and slow. Yet there are few aspects of education as proven–through both academic research and at the classroom level—to be in as critical need of examination and improvement as grading.
Grades determine who takes advanced courses, who believes they are capable of academic success, what opportunities are available to students beyond high school. And with decades of evidence, it’s clear that many of our most common grading practices—including averaging scores across a semester, offering extra credit, including non-academic behaviors in the grade, and using the 0-100% scale—make grades more inaccurate and less fair. Plus, students from low-income families, students whose parents work multiple jobs, students experiencing housing instability, students learning English–these students are disproportionately hurt when grades measure compliance and circumstance rather than learning.
Traditional grading doesn’t harm students because teachers intend it; it’s that the practices have been inherited and unexamined for generations. Without professional support to improve grading, we will continue to replicate what we’ve experienced, and every student pays the price. But traditional grading practices undermine effective teaching as well, turning classrooms into pressure-cooker performance spaces where everything a student does is evaluated, diluting teacher agency through the use of over-complicated gradebook calculations, and overwhelming teachers with dozens of daily grade data entries and tracking. Every teacher is harmed by traditional grading, too.
What Leaders Can Do
Be willing to recognize when you have a “native prophet” problem and find external voices to engage teachers’ curiosity in ways that you can’t. Inviting outside expertise is not a concession of your leadership authority or skills; it is an exercise of it. The leader who understands their own land and organizational dynamics well enough to create space for an outside voice is exercising more sophisticated leadership than one who insists on serving as the sole messenger for institutional change.
To maximize your investment in that prophet (or to “profit” from your grading “prophet”):
- When you’re assessing potential external support, ensure that their ideas, language, and takeaways move the work forward and align with your vision. You don’t want to be surprised by what they say and then scramble to mend gaps between your ideas and theirs.
- Coordinate with the outside grading support so teachers walk away from their workshop or conversation with clarity on their next steps or subsequent support. You want to avoid having the teachers experience one more professional development experience that goes nowhere.
- While the external person is working with your teachers, listen closely for content and ideas you can reference later as well as for how your teachers are responding—that way you can follow-up with tailored and meaningful next steps.
- Engage external support initially on a short-term basis to assess their impact, their approach, and how their teachers feel about future partnerships with them. Prophets can help in many ways, and the more that you and the teachers trust them, the more they can accelerate change that you’re leading.
A Long Journey With Many Prophets
This work takes time. Schools and districts that have made real progress with equitable grading have done so over years, not months—building shared professional vision and vocabulary, creating opportunities for teachers to pilot practices, and celebrating evidence-based results that show not just that improved grading practices are possible, but that there are immediate benefits for both teachers and students.
The native prophet problem is real, and school leaders must recognize that the authority that gives them their platform to lead grading improvements simultaneously can limit their credibility to advocate for it. Effective leadership requires utilizing resources—their own skills or those of others, both prophets inside the school and outside—to achieve their goal of successful learning outcomes for every student.
—
*Joe Feldman is the author of several articles on improved grading and Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms (Corwin, 2nd ed. 2024) and founder of Crescendo Education Group, which partners with schools and districts as a “prophet” to implement more accurate and fair grading practices.