In UK education we have a range of grades available to recognise student performance at different levels. However, certain grades act as cliff-edges and receive far more attention and institutional focus than others. When I was a teacher of GCSE students the focus was on the C grade and making sure as many students got a C or above. With the new GCSE system the same has happened with Grade 5. At university, that cliff-edge is a 2.1 degree classification which often translate to a 60% or a B grade. Why does this matter and what impact does it have on our educational practices?
Firstly, let’s be clear that these grade cliff-edges are entirely arbitrary. Someone decided that schools would be measured by % of pupils who achieved a grade 5 or above. This was the metric to be used and because of this school behaviour changes in order to get the best result in that metric. The same at university, at some point in history graduate employers decided (completely arbitrarily) to set a 2.1 degree classification as a simple metric to weed out having too many applicants. Now, universities spend an awful amount of time and effort on this grade cliff.
As a school teacher, it was made very clear that our focus should be first and foremost on C/D grade (now Grade 4/5) boundary students. They were to get the most attention. The more capable students were fine and at no risk of going below a C, so they could get on with it themselves. As for the E and below students, they were a lost cause! They were not going to help with the metric! (Maybe, I am being overly cynical here but you get the idea).
At university, the 2.1 degree classification cliff has become the de facto measure of a so called ‘good degree’, it impacts employment prospects, it impacts whether students can study for a Masters degree, it has become THE marker of university success. Regardless of the fact that for many students just getting a degree represents a remarkable achievement, not getting a 2.1 carries a social stigma. This in turn creates enormous stress for students worried that they might not be able to achieve a 2.1. And of course, has raised concerns about biased teaching and assessment practices in universities particularly against students of colour. When the boundary is so important the impact of even small biases gets magnified.
What concerns me here is that an arbitrary grade determined by those outside the educational system has so much impact on staff and students within the system. There is no good evidence that having a 2.1 makes you a better or more successful employee than having a 2.2. Getting a C grade or grade 5 at GCSE is hugely influenced by family circumstances (e.g. this study) and not the school or the individual pupil. Yet this arbitrary boundary has huge impacts on the individual student.
Of course, it is easy to criticise but less easy to offer a solution. What is my solution? Firstly, we should recognised the arbitrary nature of such grade cliffs and think about why and whether they should exist and what impacts they have our educational system. At the moment, these boundaries are taken for-granted and treated as if they have some sort of absolute reality that can not be changed rather than acknowledged as socially constructed, arbitrary boundaries that can be changed. Ultimately, I would suggest a simpler pass / fail grading system, especially at university (with its supposed criterion referenced system of assessment). More radically, we might even consider ‘ungrading‘!
Neil's Learning Journey 