Where Action Research Meets Community of Practice in Grading Redesign
Grading redesign work rarely fails because educators do not care. It stalls when people are asked to carry complex change alone.
Across districts, we hear a familiar story. Leaders and teachers want grading to be more accurate, fair, and motivational for students, but the work often feels isolating. Sometimes the work begins within a small pilot cohort. Sometimes it is experienced as a top-down approach. Frequently, educators quietly experiment, unsure whether what they see is evidence of progress or simply the discomfort that comes with trying something new.
Many leaders advancing grading redesign are doing so by intentionally bringing teams together. They create a “community of practice” with teacher leaders, administrators, and instructional coaches to advance the initiative. Even then, the work can remain siloed if those teams do not have opportunities to learn alongside others navigating similar challenges in a variety of contexts.
Even when teachers engage in action research – the process of testing practices, gathering evidence, and reflecting to inform their next steps- people can find themselves navigating this on their own, without sufficient shared coherence across the school or district.
At Crescendo Education Group, a recent partnership allowed us to explore this question alongside district leaders within a California county who had intentionally convened to lead grading redesign.
So, what becomes possible when a community of practice and action research are intentionally designed to work together?
Why Community Alone Is Not Enough
Community matters deeply, but community by itself is not sufficient for systemic change.
Professional communities that are disconnected from action research can become spaces for sharing ideas without examining how those ideas play out in classrooms and schools. For grading redesign, shared values are essential, but values alone do not redesign grading systems.
What leaders and teams need is a community anchored in practice. A space where teams bring real dilemmas, real artifacts, and real questions from authentic implementation.
Why Action Research Alone Is Not Enough
Action research is a powerful lever for grading redesign. It allows educators to test practices in real classrooms, respond to local context, and learn through iteration rather than theory alone.
Many educators describe how meaningful it is to be given permission, not just individually but as a team, to try something new.
“Being put into this position to honestly try new things is what ultimately got me to step outside of my comfort zone.”
At the same time, action research can feel overwhelming. Even when leaders bring teams together to do this work, those teams can struggle to interpret what they are seeing if they are learning in isolation.
Without broader sense-making, it becomes difficult to distinguish between what is not working, what is unfamiliar, and what needs more time to develop.
As one participant reflected:
“Having the freedom to try new things and the support when those things work and do not work has allowed me to fine-tune my outcomes for the better.”
The challenge is not the action research process itself. It is the isolation, even when the work is team-based.
A Hybrid Model That Honors Both
When community of practice and action research are intentionally designed together, something shifts.
In this model, district leaders organize teams to serve as living labs. These teams test grading changes within their own contexts, which can include policy constraints, leadership structures, community expectations, and student needs.
At the same time, districts within a county came together where the community of practice becomes the learning engine. District leadership teams come together to surface patterns, share dilemmas, and create meaning across contexts.
Learning travels not as prescriptions, but as insight.
One district leader captured this clearly:
“Seeing how other districts are implementing equitable grading helps us identify opportunities to increase impact in our own district.”
Here, no single district or team is expected to have all the answers. Each contributes to a shared understanding without erasing local context.
Co-Creating the Community Before the Work
Rather than defining “Community of Practice” for participants, we invited them to co-create it.
We began with a simple prompt:
When you hear ‘Community of Practice”, what comes to mind?
Participants named collaboration, learning, growth, shared purpose, empathy, and brave space. These were not technical definitions. They were relational commitments.
Participants then reflected together on what mattered most, what felt central to practice, what surprised them, and what felt missing. This opportunity created space for shared expectations to begin to take shape in their own language.
Finally, participants responded individually to this question:
What is important for me to remember as a member of this community
Their responses were consistent and clear.
- Everyone brings value
- People learn at different paces
- Openness and listening matter
- This work is a journey
Before defining the work itself, participants outlined how they wanted to show up as members of this Community of Practice.
Why the Community Must Come First
Grading redesign requires leaders and teams to question long-held assumptions, acknowledge uncertainty, and publicly surface missteps. That kind of work demands trust, not as a feel-good concept, but as a structural necessity.
By co-creating the community before diving into research questions or implementation plans, leaders intentionally established the conditions for honest learning.
Trust does not come later. It makes the work possible.
Why This Matters for Grading Redesign
Grading redesign can not be packaged as a checklist of strategies. It is an adaptive system shift that requires leadership teams that work alongside individual champions.
Educators and leaders consistently tell us how important it is to do this work with others.
“I am a solo teacher in my subject, so I do not have a department to lean on.”
“I am glad to have company in this work.”
When leaders intentionally bring teams together, and those teams are supported through a true community of practice, experimentation becomes safer. Questions become shared rather than internalized. Learning becomes collective rather than siloed.
The Work Ahead
This approach does not promise quick fixes or linear progress. It resists the urge to declare impact too early. Instead, it focuses on building the conditions leadership teams need to sustain complex change over time.
Grading redesign does not fail because educators lack commitment.
It falters when leaders and teams are asked to navigate complex change alone.
When community of practice meets action research, learning is no longer isolated, and the conditions for lasting, equitable grading begin to take shape.