Redos for Learning: An Unpopular Opinion?

If you know anything about me or my teaching style, you know that I am a big fan of allowing redos. It’s kind of an unpopular stance; many teachers refuse to allow redos because they believe students should have gotten it right the first time. “If only they had managed their time better,” “studied harder,” or “paid attention in class,” the argument goes. I have even heard, “Well this is not how real life works.” And yes, on the surface, it does feel unfair to the students who did manage their time, who studied when they were supposed to – and performed well because of it – to offer redos to those who supposedly did not, but if the purpose of my class is for students to learn the material and build skills, then I suggest “one-and-done” testing doesn’t make sense. A single score shouldn’t be the final word on what a student knows, especially when that score might reflect a bad day, stress, illness, or a misunderstanding, not a lack of ability. When students only get one chance to get it right, grades become a system of punishment and reward rather than data points that inform teaching and learning. In my mind, redos aren’t about lowering standards or rewarding poor planning. They’re about creating a system where grades reflect what students ultimately know and can do.

Thus, in my classroom, a grade is not meant to be a final verdict on a student’s skills or ability. It is meant to be evidence of learning, and sometimes that learning takes more than one try. That is why I allow redos of work: not because standards do not matter, but because I want students to have a real chance to meet them, solidify them, and take their learned skills into the next year – and beyond.

At the heart of this choice is a simple belief that mistakes are not the enemy of learning. In his book 10 to 25, David Yeager argues that analyzing mistakes is an important step in learning not to make them again. I want my students to experience that process directly. If a student misses the mark the first time, I want that moment to become information, not a permanent label.

My approach fits with a mentor mindset, which Yeager describes as combining high standards with high support. In that mindset, the teacher does not lower the bar; the teacher helps students reach it. That is also what Yeager calls “collaborative troubleshooting,” which means solving a young person’s problem with them rather than doing it to or for them.

Most importantly, I see redos as part of teaching, not just grading. I am not interested in rescuing students from hard work; I am interested in helping them do the hard work well.

To that end, before every assessment, I make sure there is a Redo Procedure in place that is clear, fair, and focused on growth. It is not a free-for-all. Students who wish to rewrite their papers must understand what they got wrong in the first place, and have a plan for how to make it right – or how to work towards “rightness.” To prevent haphazard, “throw the spaghetti on the wall and see if it sticks” redos, I remind students that the newest grade will replace the previous one – even if it is worse. Given more time for reflection and more time for improvement, I expect to see that improvement. This avoids students merely fixing a comma here or a quote there and hoping I am in a better mood when I grade the paper the second time – it means they have to go back and do the work. This policy ensures that only students genuinely committed to improvement will opt in. It’s designed to be manageable for teachers and meaningful for learners.

In the end, allowing redos is about more than points. It is about building a classroom culture where students can make mistakes, examine them honestly, and return to the task stronger than before. That is what learning looks like, and that is what I want my class to value.