When teachers inflate grades — giving higher marks than students’ actual performance warrants — the effects ripple far beyond the classroom.
Increasingly widespread high school grade inflation can cost students more than $200,000 in lost earning potential per teacher per year, finds a groundbreaking new study. Authored by Jeffrey T. Denning, Rachel Nesbit, Nolan Pope, and Merrill Warnick, this rigorous analysis of high school data from Los Angeles and Maryland reveals that widespread grade inflation isn’t harmless feel-good pedagogy—it’s actively sabotaging students’ futures.
Average high school GPAs have risen nearly half a letter grade over the past four decades, even as standardized test scores decline. The divergence screams inflation: teachers awarding higher grades for the same or lesser performance.
The study, a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, distinguishes two forms of leniency. When teachers inflate grades across the board—giving higher marks than students’ actual performance warrants—the effects ripple far beyond the classroom.
A single teacher who is noticeably more lenient can subtly suppress test scores the following year, slightly lower the chances of students graduating, and nudge them toward less rigorous postsecondary paths, particularly two-year colleges. Over a lifetime, these small shifts add up in a staggering way: Researchers estimate that the cumulative effect of widespread grade inflation can cost students more than $200,000 in lost earning potential per teacher per year.
There is another, narrower form of leniency: pushing marginal students just over the failing line. This “passing grade inflation” can help students finish high school and increase retention rates, especially among those who might otherwise drop out.
But the benefits are short-lived, and the long-term payoff in career readiness and earnings often remains limited. The study—”Easy A’s, Less Pay: The Long-Term Effects of Grade Inflation”— shows that early, unchecked leniency sets students on trajectories that favor comfort over mastery, masking gaps in knowledge and ultimately holding them back.
These findings resonate deeply with my work at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. For more than a decade, I’ve documented grade inflation’s corrosive effects, particularly in higher education, where A’s now dominate (nearly 50 percent of grades nationwide, up from 15 percent in the 1960s).
In reports like “Combating the ‘Other’ Inflation: Arresting the Cancer of College Grade Inflation” (2014) and ongoing commentary, I’ve argued that easy grading debases transcripts, erodes academic standards, and disincentivizes rigor—leaving graduates unprepared for competitive workplaces. The new high school study extends this critique downward, showing inflation starts early and compounds over time.
Colleges bear significant responsibility for fueling high-school grade inflation. Many award substantial merit scholarships based at least partly on GPA, creating powerful incentives for high schools to hand out higher marks.
The result is perverse: students who attend rigorous high schools that maintain honest grading standards are unfairly disadvantaged in the scholarship competition compared with objectively weaker students at more lenient schools who receive inflated grades they did not earn. This GPA arms race penalizes excellence and rewards compliance with lowered expectations.
Beyond schools attempting to mask inadequate instruction, parents pile on fierce pressure for easy As. Too many refuse to face reality: not every child is college material, yet viable non-college pathways exist—if only families would consider them.
Instead, some parents demand inflated grades rather than confront tough choices—cutting back on overscheduling so kids have time to study, limiting endless screen time that breeds academic laziness, or simply expecting real effort instead of entitlement. The easier path? Badger teachers until the transcript shines, even if the skills stay dim.
Why does this matter? Grade inflation attacks the meritocratic core of American opportunity. True equal opportunity demands honest signals of achievement so individuals can pursue success through effort and merit.
When grades lose meaning, the system rewards compliance over mastery, punishing diligent students while masking deficiencies in others. Lower performers may gain a temporary reprieve from failure, but the study shows mean inflation uniformly reduces learning (via muted incentives), harming even high achievers, who coast on easy As.
This isn’t abstract theory. My analyses highlight how inflation discourages math and science majors—where standards remain tougher—exacerbating shortages in fields vital to prosperity. The high school data confirm that lenient grading blunts effort, lowers test performance, and steers students away from rigorous paths. “Passing leniency” helps at-risk students avoid dropping out, but often funnels them into less demanding postsecondary options, limiting upward mobility.
Policymakers must act. The study validates low-cost reforms: clearer grading standards and transparency. In Texas, I’ve long advocated measures like median-grade reporting on transcripts (as in the proposed “Contextualized Transcript” bill, which passed in the Texas House, although not the Senate, in 2013 and again in 2025).
Posting classroom median grades on transcripts exposes inflation without mandating curves. Such sunlight empowers parents, students, and employers to demand better. Districts debating “equitable” grading—often code for leniency—should heed this evidence: Broad inflation harms long-term success more than it helps short-term equity.
Education’s mission is preparing children for productive lives and responsible citizenship, not weak efforts and low standards. Grade inflation betrays that mission, eroding meritocracy by spending public resources on illusions rather than genuine achievement.
As we confront persistent achievement gaps and workforce readiness challenges, let us recommit to honest evaluation. It fosters real opportunity and rewards effort fairly. The Denning, et al. study provides more empirical ammunition. Now leaders must summon the will to reverse course and restore rigor to American classrooms.