Benefits of Using Skills-Based Instruction in Advanced Placement Courses

At Fargo Public Schools, we’ve been working through a districtwide grading reform since 2019, a herculean initiative that has reshaped our instructional practices, curriculum, and assessments across core content areas. The original goal was to ensure that grades accurately reflect what students know and are able to do. This meant moving away from a point accumulation system and toward skill-based proficiency scales, paired with assessments intentionally designed to measure meaningful learning rather than compliance or task completion.

Over the past three years, an unexpected but welcome outcome emerged: Several Advanced Placement (AP) courses have seen a steady increase in exam performance, with students consistently scoring above the national average. What used to be a daunting July day—the release of AP scores—has grown into a moment of genuine excitement for us in recent years. The positive outcomes are the result not of teaching to the test, but of stronger instruction, more intentional assessment practices, and explicit student outcomes. In this sense, AP success became a visible indicator of the broader impact of grading reform. Here’s how rethinking grading and instruction has transformed AP curriculum in our district.

Implementing grading reform in AP classes

As implementation of this new grading system deepened across the district and instructional practices strengthened, these same principles extended into Advanced Placement classrooms. Teachers began applying the same skill-focused assessments, Tier 1 instructional strategies, and collaborative professional learning community structures. These changes were not implemented as a test-prep strategy, but as a way to intentionally improve daily learning.

Making summative grading count. In our district, only summative assessments contribute to a student’s grade. When grades depend solely on summative evidence of enduring skills, daily lessons must guarantee that every student reaches proficiency.

Previously, student work often emphasized class completion, such as annotation checks or participation points—both of which seemed disconnected from the real learning goals we were hoping students would achieve. Now, course skills are explicitly defined in proficiency scales that measure students’ ability to develop claims, analyze evidence, and communicate ideas in a logical line of reasoning. Because expectations are clearer for students, assessments are more meaningful, and the evidence of student learning reflects growth rather than superficial compliance.

For example, on the Argumentation scale, “Proficient” means a student writes a defensible claim, selects relevant evidence, and explains how that evidence supports the claim with a clear line of reasoning. “Advanced” adds nuance, addressing counterarguments or limitations of the evidence.

Transforming Tier 1 instruction. This grading shift has sharpened Tier 1 instruction: the everyday, best practices all students receive when they walk into the classroom. Instructional design is rooted in each student acquiring enduring skills. For example, in Advanced Placement Language and Composition, each discussion and text pairing is designed around specific analytical and argumentative skills. To refine instruction, we have intentionally shifted our day-to-day engagement strategies to emphasize skill-based learning and application of knowledge through a skill, rather than isolated fact recall. In practice, that means students routinely use the success criteria to self-grade, revise, and improve their work before the summative assessment.

We have seen the most student growth by implementing these skill-based strategies. In AP Biology, students work in teams to interpret data sets. That interpretation doesn’t just include surface-level questions of “What trends do you see? Explain them using evidence,” but having students generate questions and hypotheses from that data, “What question does this pattern raise?” or “What hypothesis could explain this trend between trials 1, 2, and 3?” Students then critique the experimental design and data quality, use math and representation to make meaning, or create an argument from evidence that connects data to underlying concepts. These skills are then reapplied as students are asked to design a follow-up investigation. This pushes them to not just read and analyze, but think like a scientist by applying what they have learned to new experimental design.

More important, when instruction focuses on active learning and development of skill, we teach students how to think critically rather than simply recall information, preparing them for the unknown of an Advanced Placement exam.

Formative assessment practices that mirror mastery. The grading shift also reimagined assessment itself; students engage in formative assessments that mirror summative assessments. Teachers give “scrimmages”: ungraded, skill-based assessments where students are given feedback.

Research supports this. John Hattie’s synthesis of more than 1,600 meta-analyses places teacher clarity, feedback, and self-grading among the most powerful influences on achievement. In prioritizing feedback before grades, we can guide and support learning without penalizing mistakes. By clarifying what students need to know and providing meaningful feedback into daily instruction and formative assessments, intentional Tier 1 practices support students for the rigorous tasks that AP courses demand.

These scrimmages are crucial in all classrooms, but even more so in the Advanced Placement classroom, as they provide students with real-time feedback on where they are in their AP exam preparedness without impacting their grades. This supports students’ growth, as these scrimmages create frequent, low-stakes practice that reveals misconceptions early, giving students opportunities to receive feedback, making revisions normal rather than exceptional. Research shows why this approach increases scores: Formative assessments with explicit targets reliably raise achievement, and ungraded testlike practice produces larger long-term performance gains.

Allowing retakes, to a point. Beyond this, students can retake their summative assessments, but only after completing daily practices or formative assessments. This reinforces the connection between practice and proficiency, wherein many students understand that their daily efforts matter and affect both their proficiency on summative assessments and their AP exam score. That practice is targeted: revising with the success criteria, correcting mistakes, and demonstrating the skill again before reassessment.

By changing how we grade, we changed how we teach, and our students’ success on AP exams is simply the measurable proof. When grades reflect expectations, instruction becomes clearer: Define the skill, give students low-stakes practice that mirrors the summative, provide feedback tied to criteria, and reassess when students have relearning opportunities.

The gains we have seen reflect more than test-prep success—they demonstrate a system where skill clarity, formative feedback, and collaborative instruction prepare students for college-level work. Increasing student outcomes doesn’t come from extra homework or grading nonacademic factors. Each summative assessment in our AP courses targets these enduring skills where teachers use progress checks that focus feedback on skill growth.