Two students submit essays that both receive a score of 75.
At first glance, their performance appears identical. But the stories behind those two scores may be very different. One student might have scored a 74 on the previous assignment—essentially maintaining the same level of work. Another might have improved dramatically from a 60.
In both cases the essays themselves may be similar in quality. Yet one student clearly demonstrated substantial learning along the way.
This raises an interesting question for teachers: should grades reflect only the current piece of work, or should they also recognize improvement over time?
In many courses, particularly those that emphasize writing and analytical thinking, improvement is an important part of the learning process. Students revise strategies, incorporate feedback, and gradually strengthen their arguments and use of evidence.
To recognize that progress without distorting the meaning of grades, some assignments may include what we call a growth bonus.
The idea is simple: meaningful improvement deserves recognition—but the quality of the current work must still matter most.
How the Growth Bonus Works
The growth bonus uses a mathematical rule that compares the current score with a previous comparable assignment.
Three values are involved:
R – the raw score on the current assignment
B – the score from a previous assignment
T – a readiness target representing strong course-level work (often around 82)
The adjusted score is calculated as:
Adjusted = max(R, R + 0.8 × max(0, R − B) − 0.2 × max(0, T − R))
In plain language, the formula does three things at the same time.
First, it rewards improvement from the previous assignment. If a student improves by ten points, most of that improvement is reflected in the adjustment.
Second, it moderates extremely large score jumps when the current essay is still below the level expected for the course. This keeps the adjustment from turning a developing essay into a top-tier score.
Finally—and importantly—the formula guarantees that the adjusted score can never be lower than the original score.
The growth bonus can help a score. It cannot hurt it.
A Quick Example
Suppose a student scored 61 on a previous essay and 72 on the current one.
The improvement is:
72 − 61 = 11
Most of that improvement is rewarded:
0.8 × 11 = 8.8
Because the essay is still somewhat below the readiness target of 82, a small moderating adjustment is applied:
0.2 × (82 − 72) = 2
The adjusted score becomes:
72 + 8.8 − 2 = 78.8
The student’s improvement is recognized, but the final score still reflects the level of the current work.
What Happens If the Score Declines?
If the new score is lower than the previous one, the improvement term becomes zero. In theory the formula could produce a slightly lower number—but the rule
max(R, …)
ensures that the final score never drops below the original score.
In practice, this simply means the raw score stands as it is.
Why Not Just Use Standardization?
This approach adjusts scores based on the statistical distribution of scores in the class.
A simplified version of the formula looks like this:
Standardized score = ((R − μ) / σ) × s + m
Here:
R is the raw score,
μ is the class average,
σ is the standard deviation,
and the constants s and m determine the new spread and average of the scores.
Standardization can be useful when a test turns out to be unusually difficult or unusually easy. However, it measures performance relative to the class rather than improvement over time.
In some cases it can also produce surprisingly large adjustments. A raw score in the low seventies might become a ninety simply because the class average was low.
The growth bonus approach focuses instead on learning progress—recognizing students who improve while still keeping grades tied closely to the quality of the work itself.
Why the Readiness Target Matters
The readiness target used in the formula—often around 82—represents the level of performance typically associated with strong work on AP-style writing rubrics.
It is not a passing threshold or a minimum expectation. Instead, it serves as a reference point that helps keep score adjustments realistic.
Students who are already writing at a strong level will see modest adjustments. Students who are improving rapidly will see more noticeable ones.
The Larger Goal
Ultimately, the purpose of the growth bonus is not to inflate grades. It is to encourage the kinds of behaviors that lead to real academic progress: revising writing strategies, strengthening arguments, integrating evidence more effectively, and improving clarity and precision of language.
Grades should communicate meaningful information about learning. They should reflect both where a student stands today and how far that student has come.
The growth bonus is one way of recognizing both.