Grade Inflation - One of Four Significant Issues Facing Secondary Education in the Immediate Future
Depending on how one looks at it, this is either a very exciting time to be in education—or a highly uncertain time. I tend to think it’s more of the former, but certainly there are many open questions in terms of educational trends and patterns as we move deeper into the 21st century.
During this school year I will use this space to highlight four of the issues on my radar presently, starting with the subject of grades. The Upper School faculty will be discussing these topics in meetings throughout the year.
Issue 1: Grade Inflation and Finding New Ways for Students to Distinguish Themselves
Across the nation, there is growing concern over the old method of grading students on a traditional A-F scale. Developed more than a hundred years ago, this method of measuring student achievement has its roots in wanting to sort out and differentiate students, separating the high achievers from the lower ones. In the past, some institutions even believed in models like the “bell curve,” which ensured that some students earned A’s, some F’s, and the majority were bunched in the middle with C’s. That was considered an optimal and fair grade distribution. We can therefore begin to see how the idea of actual student learning may not be as important as student ranking.
Certainly, in the last few decades, educational strategies have changed to meet the needs of more learners in order to be more student-focused. The vast majority of schools appreciate that when motivated students and effective teachers work together, performance improves, and that outcome is good for all. However, that shift has led to a couple of new problems. For one, high-achieving schools are now seeing a bunching effect at the higher end of the grade scale, as more and more students are able to be at a high B or low A average, up to 4.0 on the traditional four-point scale. That means there is a narrowing funnel for students to differentiate themselves, at least in terms of grade point averages.
In response, the Mastery Transcript Consortium (MTC), of which CA is a member, is exploring new methods of assessing students and “creating a high school transcript that reflects the unique skills, strengths, and interests of each learner.” Part of the MTC’s strategy is to do away with the old A-F grading model and replace it with a portfolio-based model in which students would be able to demonstrate achievement, even mastery, in multiple areas.
While the MTC originated with a group of independent schools like CA, some public schools have also joined the movement. Some public systems like the Portland (Maine) high schools are moving towards a “proficiency-based diploma system” starting in 2021. Much of the entire New Hampshire public school system K-12 has shifted to digital portfolios as well. The trend here is towards alternative ways to allow students to demonstrate what they know and what they can do in different, more substantive ways.
What exactly is a portfolio-based or competency-based system, and how is it different from a traditional grading/assessment model? Students work towards a certain goal of achievement, sometimes defined as mastery (although I worry that term suggests too lofty an endpoint). The point is that students continue to work on an area of study until they have reached a level that shows they truly know it before moving on. In essay writing, I might ask a student to work on an introductory paragraph, completing multiple drafts until I believe all the goals for that paragraph have been met: an enticing opening sentence, length of at least four sentences, clearly stated thesis, etc. Once students have done that, they have “mastered” the introduction and can move on to the next paragraph. Is the final paragraph “A” work? Perhaps so in the old model, but in this new paradigm the teacher is not thinking in terms of grades, but rather in terms of helping students demonstrate their learning. In the old model, some students would have been given a lower grade (probably on their first and only draft) and would have had to deal with that reality. Would they learn from receiving a C-? Sometimes. Grades can be motivators in some cases, and some students will do what they can to do better next time. But would it not be preferable to allow that same student to work until getting to a higher level, ensuring that the learning is complete—without the negative feedback of a low grade?
At CA, our first trimester with Freshmen echoes this proficiency-based approach. For the last few years we have utilized a Pass/Fail system for the three Freshman-level core courses: Global Perspectives, Coming of Age in the World (English class), and Biology. The Pass/Fail system typically allows students to get to the point of mastery before moving on to their next assignment. Teachers give ample feedback and provide opportunities for students to re-do their work, often multiple times. Another way of framing this approach is that it emphasizes the skill-building involved. Students gain confidence and experience what it looks and feels like to be successful.
A second negative effect of grading actually matters much more in terms of student wellness. The “bunching effect” of students due to grade inflation has also led to increased competitiveness, which in turn has led to greater student anxiety and hyper-performance. While some competition is healthy, too much can also lead to students scrambling for what they perceive is the magic of the “A,” which then they assume will lead to better college admission results. This forces many students to be grade-focused instead of learning-focused, much to the dismay of teachers who strive for more meaningful interactions.
To a certain extent, of course, these students are right to focus on grades. In the current model, the GPA does matter, since it is a benchmark by which colleges can readily compare students in a competitive process. But even people on the college side are worrying about their ability to distinguish between tightly bunched GPA numbers, and concurrently, have at least begun to note concerns about the impact of hyper-competitiveness on students’ health. These are two of the reasons why the MTC has caught the attention of admissions deans and college presidents.
Again, I want to reiterate that I don’t see grade inflation as an inherently bad thing, as in economics where the word “inflation” certainly has a negative connotation. Student grades are rising primarily because teachers are teaching better, and students are doing better at being students! Much greater understanding of different learning styles and pedagogies means that all effective teachers bring a full arsenal of teaching strategies to the table now in ways that were unheard of just a generation ago. Students understand themselves as learners better and those with diagnosed learning differences are given accommodation plans that help them achieve success rather than being branded with low grades. We should all regard these developments as great news. As Alfie Cohn, a noted critic of traditional education, wrote recently, “93% of NYC restaurants get an ‘A’ from the health dept. Does anyone whine [then] about grade inflation? No, those results reassure us. But in education a scarcity model of excellence persists: Many students getting A’s is thought to signify mediocrity. There must always be losers.”
That notion of “winners” and “losers” in the current educational model certainly feels outdated and unfair. Unpacking the reasons behind grade inflation and actively seeking better assessment models will continue to help us provide the best possible environment for all our learners.
© 2023 Colorado Academy
