Grade Inflation…
The furor over grade inflation, which has existed since the 1960s, is now at fever pitch. Advocates and dissenters are armed with “proof” (or at least fervently held opinions) that their point of view is the right one. So for the record, here is the summary argument of each side:
Pro: Higher grades (including, for some, the elimination of a zero grade) could be confidence builders, motivating students to learn, to achieve, and graduate.
Con: Grade inflation masks and belies a demonstrated decline in actual learning, a decline which is precipitously coupled with a lowering of academic rigor.
Whichever view you hold about grade inflation, what cannot be refuted is the ever-widening discrepancy between students’ Grade Point Averages (GPA) and their assessment results and scores on standardized tests.
For those opposed to grade inflation, this gap is alarming confirmation. To rectify the situation, some propose more closely aligning the tests with curriculum or vice-versa. This idea seems like little more than teaching ever more rigorously to the test to produce more pleasing outcomes of superficial knowledge. Others would restore course rigor for high-achieving students and verify the impact of this change with – you guessed it – standardized tests.
Those who insist that the emotional benefits of grade inflation can encourage students to persist also prefer that grades be replaced by more holistic assessments of student development, including demonstrations of social awareness, creativity, inquiry-based thinking, as well as demonstrated progress in academic course work. This approach is akin to portfolio assessments, which allow students to show their intelligence in different modes, but, at present, are not widely accepted as satisfying the requirements for a high school diploma in the U.S.
But is standardized testing the answer? It purports the myth that memorization of selected facts is the equivalent of active learning, thinking, and understanding. It is not. Further, our common belief is that students who are able to use prepped facts to correctly respond to multiple choice questions and earn a proficient rating have demonstrated academic content mastery. They have not.
Once upon a time, standardized tests had a useful purpose: To identify challenges and gaps in learning and/or understanding for individual students so that educators could address these problem areas in the classroom. Why, then, do we choose to credit standardized tests results as indicators of intelligence, academic achievement, and as arbiters of future potential and success? And what have they to do with grade inflation and reduced academic rigor?
In response to the first question, federal funding is directly tied to school performance on standardized tests. In response to the second question, according to the literature, schools want to encourage students to stay so they can graduate and go on to college or a career training program. The longer they stay, the more opportunities they have to pass any required standardized tests.
Just imagine if standardized tests were not a mandate for school existence, and if educators could expose children to the joys of meaningful learning and let them explore, think, and use all of their unique sensibilities and talents. Then, maybe our kids would learn and be able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding just for the fun of it.
It seems to me that grade inflation is a bubble, trapped within the bigger bubble of standardized testing. Burst one and the second will burst as well, freeing us all. Wouldn’t that be something?
Note: While a majority of schools are caught in the trap of teaching to the test; some have had the courage and fortitude to follow a different path with excellent results for children, for teachers, and also on standardized tests. I call them Schools That Work. Read more about them in both my blog and my newsletter, Unpacking Education. You may be inspired to find your own way to follow their lead.