The politics and process of grade inflation

For 60 years as an educator in both schools and universities, I have listened to “University … instructors are warning there’s a high level of unpreparedness among first year students …” (Not making the grades, July 25, Free Press).

In all of those years, the fault-finding and blame-laying have not changed. Now every time the accusations arise, I am reminded of a memorable cartoon from the Excellence in Education movement of the 1980s. It featured a student talking to another, “Whenever we have excellence in education, I don’t learn more, I just get lower marks.”

It’s a regular reminder that the recurring “grade inflation” furore is more a political question than an educational one, as are most of the predictable responses. If we seriously believe what some university professors are implying — that their curricula are critical and indispensable, their teaching and assessment methodologies are above reproach and that today’s students are deficient — we should be worried. Something would really be amiss if we were so sure they were right but, of course, the truth is very different. Past discussions suggest the ensuing script.

University professors declare that high schools are not preparing student’s adequately for the programs they choose, high school teachers say the same about the middle years, middle years about the early years and early years about the parents not readying children for the rigours of school life. Finally, everyone blames the government and the minister of education for lack of oversight, demanding that this emergency situation demands immediate attention.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest that the whole charade is just a deliberate diversion or distraction. But I am not.

I believe that most everyone in the system, from parents to professors, is well meaning and committed to doing their best for young people. And because they care they can easily be drawn into public machinations like the grade inflation scam, and each will process it and respond in their own way — ranging from feeling guilty to being resentful, neither of which is very helpful, and both of which can do our young more harm than good. The political response and its implications are self defeating at all levels.

The educational response is different and, I not so humbly suggest, should prevail. Parents get the children they get, not necessarily the ones they imagined, and good parents accept their children as sacred gifts, and do their best to help them become self-regulating, self-governing individuals. This usually includes sending them to the care of others — schools, teachers and other adults.

Good teachers at all levels welcome the children and young people as they are, accepting the responsibility to advance their meaningful learning, and helping them accept their self-worth and imagine their positive possibilities. And they concern themselves more with this than with judgments about their presumed deficiencies and faults.

Good professors do the same but, because they are the first to deal with these people as adults who have made conscious choices, they can rightfully have greater expectations about attitudes, behaviours, and efforts. That level of responsibility is a step beyond what is expected in schools where the programs are largely, choices aside, predetermined. If the educational imperative is accepted, then grade inflation is a non-issue.

However, post-secondary institutions are also responsible for credentialization, and parents and teachers are aware that credentials rely largely on prior academic performance. The stakes can be high, which explains why we continue to return to the question of marks. Marks on tests, although one of the crudest ways to measure achievement and potential, are generally accepted by the system and the public. I think this is because they seem to provide certainty, enhance efficiency, and predict success, again more political than educational.

The high stakes would explain why high school parents’ appeal their adolescents’ marks to the highest levels, insisting that they be raised — university entrance, scholarships and recognition are up for grabs — added to the desire to appear as good parents by their children and peers. And many teachers have learned that it’s easier to give slightly higher marks than to have your evaluations be overturned by an administrator bowing to parental wishes.

After all, what is the statistical difference between a 93 and a 96 arrived at through subjective tests administered to students at various stages of maturity and states of mental health?

At the university and college level similar political decisions are made — why go through the challenges of multiple appeals at various levels to have someone change the grade you gave from or a B+ to an A?

It’s doubtfully worth the hassle, particularly when you’re also aware of the tentativeness of your scholarly reputation, the imperfections and vagaries of your judgments, and sometimes, accompanying threats of retribution.

In my view, everyone involved would benefit from not being drawn into the political “grade inflation” diversion as a substitute for a real meaningful dialogue about why and how we need to educate our young in the first instance.

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba.