As we continue conversations across our membership about student learning and institutional effectiveness, one question comes up with remarkable consistency, particularly during reaffirmation cycles and committee reviews: “We can’t use course grades as assessment evidence, right?”

Just like that, another piece of accreditation lore takes hold. Let’s unpack it.

What the Law Actually Says

Let’s start by being clear, nothing in the Principles of Accreditation prohibits the use of course grades as evidence of student learning.

In fact, the Principles require institutions to identify expected outcomes, assess the extent to which those outcomes are achieved, and use the results for improvement. They do not prescribe the specific tools institutions must use to do so.

Grades can be used as part of an assessment strategy when they are intentional, transparent, and meaningfully aligned to learning outcomes.

The key word there is intentional.

Grades that are tied to clearly articulated student learning outcomes, supported by common rubrics or criteria, and analyzed beyond individual student performance can serve as legitimate evidence of learning at the course, program, or institutional level. The point of this is to be intentional, not to be used to reinforce a bias or to justify old habits. The point very simply is grades and assessments should have meaning and we need to communicate what that mean is, recognize adult learning research, and good assessment research in general.

Where the Lore Comes From

The misconception usually arises because grades often bundle too many things together.

Attendance, participation, effort, extra credit, late penalties, and behavior can all factor into a final course grade. When grades are used this way, without disaggregation, it becomes difficult to say what students actually learned versus how they behaved or complied. And we all know that just compliant is not where any of us, including in accreditation, want to be.

Over time, committee feedback warning against unexamined or overgeneralized use of grades morphed into a broader myth: “Grades are never acceptable assessment evidence.”

That leap is lore, not law.

Law vs. Lore

✅ Law: Course grades may be used as assessment evidence when they are clearly aligned to specific learning outcomes and analyzed appropriately.

❌ Lore: Grades can never be used for assessment purposes.

✅ Law: Institutions have flexibility to use multiple measures, including grades, embedded assignments, rubrics, exams, portfolios, and external benchmarks to demonstrate student learning. It is a matter of clear and intentional (there is that word again) documentation.

❌ Lore: Only standardized or externally validated tools are acceptable.

✅ Law: Assessment is about understanding and improving learning, not checking a compliance box.

❌ Lore: There is a single “safe” method that all institutions must follow.

The Pruitt Perspective

Before I get into my perspective, let me remind you all that this series is about where we currently are, not necessarily where we are headed. I had a wonderful back and forth with a valued colleague regarding this issue and a level of analysis we currently do not have. As we move forward with new standards, however, we have an opportunity to ask better questions regarding the effect of readiness and an assessment of student learning at a different level of analysis than the one that we currently have embedded in our standards. We have work to do and should embrace the “Students First, Always” mantra. So maybe as we move into the new standards, I will start a new series more along the lines of Imagine, if you enjoy John Lennon, or What If for you Marvel fans.

Now, back to the present. Grades are neither inherently good nor inherently bad as assessment evidence. Like any tool, their value depends on how thoughtfully they are used. I mean, the old saying about if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail comes into play here.

What matters most is whether an institution can clearly explain what students are expected to learn, how that learning is measured, and how the results are used to improve teaching and learning.

When grades are unpacked, when institutions can point to specific assignments, shared rubrics, or outcome-aligned components, grades can absolutely contribute to a strong assessment narrative.

The danger is not in using grades; the danger is in assuming grades alone, without context or analysis, tell the full story.

Accreditation does not ask institutions to abandon familiar tools. It asks them to use those tools with purpose, clarity, and evidence of impact.

So the next time the question comes up, you might ask:

Is that law or lore?

Next up: If grades can be used, what makes assessment evidence “meaningful” versus merely “available”? Stay tuned.