MCGILL UNIVERSITY

Grade Inflation
Converging Perspectives Towards Education
SOCI210A Professor Steven Rytina Antonio Giordano 260584403 12/4/2013

TA: Kimberly Seida

Over a decade into the twenty first century, in times of unprecedented exchanges of revolutionary ideas, the modern Canadian education system finds itself in a peculiar position. Drawn between competing views, educationalists and sociologists alike have taken up the task of establishing whether the state of the current education model is in need of major reform or would benefit from a return to the methods practiced by previous generations. Before introducing divergent perspectives of this ongoing discussion, it is imperative to first consider the documented trend of grade inflation which lies at the heart of the debate. Until approximately 1960, it was expected that no more than 35% of students in any given Ontario secondary classroom could expect an evaluation of B or higher. By 2007, this number has risen to an astonishing 90% while neighboring provinces experience similar fluctuations (Allahar and Cot, 2007). Presumably, this pattern begs the question: Is grade Inflation harmful(Brym, Lie, Roberts, and Rytina, 2013: 436)? Emerging from the debate are those who call for the return of more rigorous evaluations. It is these distinguished members of academic circles whose desire it is to return to the old standard. Notable Canadian sociologists James E. Cot and Anton L. Allahar provide an analytical discussion of this perspective (2007). They claim that the phenomenon leads weak students to develop ill-judgement of their competence and strong students to work less for their grades as they are more easily attainable, creating an unrealistic sense of superiority amongst members of the higher percentiles. Causes of the grade inflation are cited as being linked to the democratization of the education system and as an accommodation for students who are disengaged in education. The proposed solution, based on functionalist theoretical analysis, acknowledges the existing hierarchical social structure. It proposes that as only a
1

select few students will make it to socially desirable employment positions, it is rational to weed out less qualified students early on. Doing so is hypothesized to save them from stress later in their academic career, and their eventual university instructors from unqualified students. Assumed by adherents of this approach, is the existence of standardized grading as the most efficient way to evaluate an individual student s capability. In opposition to the strict standards proposed above, is an alternative assessment that criticizes the various assumptions made by so many academics, namely that raising academic standards improves learning. Several prominent figures devoted to further questioning this notion are Sir Ken Robinson, professor emeritus at the University of Warwick, and Stanley D. Eitzen, professor emeritus of Colorado State University. A prominent educationalist and popularizer of pedagogic criticism, Robinson argues that an emphasis on excellence undermines the education process, reducing learning to a means rather than an end. Similarly, Eitzen explores the impact of alternative pedagogical ideologies on societies, specifically Denmark and other Nordic countries. The following discussion offers a critique of the main concepts proposed by Cot and Allahar whilst combining theoretical and empirical substance. Second, it contends with the beliefs held by adherents to the alternative pedagogical theory. Motivated by the immense grade inflation in the Ontario education system, Ontario professors James E. Cot and Anton L. Allahar voiced their concerns in Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis (2007). Here, they assert that the phenomenon compromises academic achievement as well as learning itself. By raising the average class grade, they state that students define themselves as more able or knowledgeable when they really are

notThis can bolster their self-esteem, but not their abilities or willingness to try harder (2007: 157). However, this theory does not take into consideration advances in behavioral psychology, or rather, it may misinterpret them. In the famed Robertson-Jacobson study, students whom were expected by teachers to be outperformers indeed fulfilled their evaluators impressions due to the Pygmalion effect (Jacobson and Robertson, 1992); the greater the expectations placed on people, the better they perform. It is conceivable to end the discussion here by concluding that stricter grading is synonymous with higher expectations. However, this does not take into consideration the students implicit understanding of what is expected by the proposed system. As only a very small fraction of the class is ever rewarded high grades in these programs, students begin to learn from a young age of their apparent self-worth or in most cases, worthlessness. Working to achieve higher grades is likely seen as futile as only a handful of students will ever achieve such grades. Further, students who do not usually receive such grades will internalize poor results as a false representation of their ability (Crocker, 2002). Considering that academic ability in young children is commonly based on students socioeconomic status and that the Pygmalion effect is more pronounced at a younger age, it is quite appropriate to be wary of re-introducing the old British grading system (Rist, 1970). When Cot and Allahar take up the task of establishing the reasons for the recent grade inflation, their speculations are troubling. In their opinion, the rise in grades is primarily due to the democratization of schooling in Canada: For while university degrees were once the sole property of elites, the processes of democratization and political correctness have witnessed the wide conferring of college and university credentials on increasingly large numbers of individuals, who are not necessarily academically or intellectually inclined (Allahar and Cot,
3

2007: 116). One must take a moment to regain their composure after such an utterance which echoes the kind of thinking behind such outdated notions as social Darwinism. The reality of the Canadian education system is in fact one of stratification. Although much less pronounced than its American counterpart, universities in Canada remain heavily populated by students from high earning families (Davies and Zafira, 2012). Whats more, the link between family advantage and childrens educational achievement has not weakened (Brym et al ., 2013: 207). In fact, the highest ranking Universities remain elitist in nature with the average students family income being higher in comparison to other Canadian Universities. This disparity became increasingly stratified between the years 2006 and 2011 (Davies and Zarifa, 2012). Thus, if Cot and Allahar have witnessed a change in the character of their students at the University of Western Ontario, it is not due to the students cultural and economic capital, but some third variable. A second conjecture reported by the pair is the lack of engagement on the part of students. They claim that due to its increasingly evident effect on expected income, students enter university because of motives other than education or academic achievement itself as a result of influence from parents and other social pressures. In short, it is hypothesized that in the eyes of the student, higher education has become a fashionable trend. Although this second claim is much more difficult to challenge empirically, it should be noted that research published by Statistics Canada reports levels of academic engagement amongst students who choose to persue post-secondary engagement as high (Gluszinsky and Shaienks, 2007). Henry Giroux of McMaster University, in response to contentions similar to these by his Ontarian counterparts, points out an evident contradiction: The new education debate has little to do with fulfilling the American dream of social equality; justice is quite beside the point

for the new conservative reformers. Their major concern is the changing world economy and the new international division of labor (1993). Although applied in an American context, Giroux outlines the inconsistency between the motives of heralds for strict grades, and their explicit explanations. Specifically, there is illogicality between the concerns of Cot and Allahar, and their proposition. It would be rather presumptuous to assume the political affiliation of the two scholars as such irrationality entails falling into the trap of generalization. Truthfully, they may very well be liberal minded as hinted in their critique of the consumer based mentality with which modern students view education (Cot and Allahar, 2007: 120). However, if such is the case, it is then difficult to grasp the reasoning for their functionalist based approach to education. The professors allege that societies are naturally stratified and that it would be consistent with reality to weed out weaker students. In keeping with this thinking, they go on to express their frustration as professors, when dealing with students whom, in their opinion, will not attain the employment positions they desire. Yet this analysis pays no attention to the function of the education system in their proposed model. If only a select few will ever be chosen to continue higher education, and recognizing post-secondary education as a sure means to upward social mobility, it is only natural to expect a large number of students to view education as a commodity, the degree to which would surely expand after a decrease to university acceptance rates. If speakers for stricter grading expect students to perceive education as a liberating, creative, and free-thinking development, it is futile to place such a high emphasis on performance and test results, as they narrow the spectrum through which children asses their schooling experience.
5

Let us now ponder an idea that is quickly written off by those devoted to raising scholastic standards, one which has become a central point in the arguments of their adversaries. On page 120 of Ivory Tower Blues: A University system in Crisis, the authors dismiss, in one swift sentence, demands for grades to be used less in educational institutions: while grades are not necessarily the best indicators of students promise, they are perhaps better and more easily obtained than all other presently available indicators (2007). Although this is debateable, it misinterprets the entire premise of its challengers. Opponents of strict grading standards do not call for an abolishment of grading altogether, as such poses many structural problems. Even those holding Marxist intentions should understand the need for some kind of evaluation system to exist in our present market driven society, to facilitate the task of employers. Instead, they call for a drastic decrease to the use of tests in primary and secondary education. Todays curriculums are dominated by a culture which seems to value the use of standardized tests. Sir Ken Robinson, a British educationalist known for his disdain of standardization commonly refers to this model of education as misguided: If we atomise people and separate them and judge them separately, we form a kind of disjunction between them and their learning environment (2008). Fortunately, we need not theorize about the results of such test reduction on learning as real examples on nation-wide scales exist. Particularly, it is the Nordic countries whose socialist political philosophy has spilled over into the education systems, directing curriculum away from standardization and tests. Let us begin with Denmark. Danish classrooms do not, for the most part, cater to competitive individuals whose success or failure depends on outshining their classmates (Eitzen, 2007: 129). In fact, the use of evaluations such as report cards are practically non-existent in the primary grades

and are much less frequent in secondary schools when compared to Canadian institutions. However, this is not to say that Danish teachers have no way to determine the performance of their students: When the students reach the end of the mandatory lower-secondary education in the ninth grade, from which they will pass on to an academic high school or to vocational education, they have been relatively free of the artificial pressures of testing throughout most of their school careers. However, at this stage they are required to pass a series of written and oral examinations on required and elected subjects...two examiners reach a consensus (one of which is the students teacher) on the appropriate score for the students performance on the test (Eitzen, 2007: 128). Even when Danish students experience some form of standardization, they are evaluated in a manner that recognises the diversity that exists amongst human intelligence and learning, taking into consideration the teachers own knowledge of their students capabilities instead of keeping to some standard made by bureaucratic administrations. Here, the focus of the education system is not to produce efficient test takers, but efficient learners. Yet, for the economically minded North American, results are the primary indicator of a systems success. With this said, Denmark does not score above Canada (PISA, 2000-2006). Instead, topping all three fields of testing (mathematics, reading literacy, and science) is Finland. Following the publication of these results, an international inquiry into the systems success was initiated by several separate institutions. Similar to the Danish model, Finnish schools are comparatively free of standardized testing. In a point of fact, it is not mandatory to give students evaluations

until the eighth grade (Kallioniemi, Niemi, and Toom, 2012). Instead, students are individually tracked by teachers so that when a student either falls behind, or is not being challenged, the teaching staff will quickly implement a plan to address the unique problem. What is crucial to understand is that although the students learn together in groups, each student is evaluated and given material that suits their corresponding ability. Finally, the teachers implementing such changes are of an entirely different breed than what is typical of North-American schools. All teachers must receive at least a Masters degree to teach even the youngest of pupils. As you would expect, the teachers thus merit a much higher salary for their efforts and are highly respected in society as teaching is a revered career (Kallioniemi et al., 2012). Another aspect to be considered by those whose wish it is to strive for academic excellence is the absence of formal schooling in Finland before the age of seven. Once registered for school, students receive little or no homework as classroom learning is valued over all else. The Finnish system, in keeping with Nordic tradition, does not value individualism. This is represented in the lack of competition between schools as virtually all schools, though given much more academic freedom than expected, produce equally competent students. To be fair, we must reflect upon the school systems which Cot and Allahar point to themselves, as models to be emulated, namely Germany. In the same international student evaluation, German students placed below Canada in all three categories, and only above Denmark in science (PISA, 2000). However, what is noticeably different in the German system is the comparatively large difference that exists between the test results of students from differing socio-economic backgrounds, with higher members on this scale faring much better. Admittedly, this difference exists in all nations though it is unusually pronounced in Germany
8

according to PISA (2000). A likely reason for this is the very structure that receives praise from Cot and Allahar. In addition to the inconsistency between the quality of schools documented at the primary level, students are sorted into five various types of schools at the age of 10 (12 in Berlin and Brandenburg), each varying in eminence and ultimately, purpose (F hr and Tapia, 1997). It is hardly surprising then that such a system would restrict students from disadvantaged families to advance on to higher education, as they would likely be channeled through vocational training. This is not to say that school is for everyone though a large misrepresentation, as seen in the case of Germany, is conceivable. Finally, there is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides of this education debate: the difference between learning and achievement. While Cot, Allahar, and their contemporaries seemingly view the modern school as a place for the brightest of minds to be intellectually challenged, it is conversely argued that the sole purpose of educators should be to teach. It is the difference between students focusing on how well they are performing, versus what they are performing. When discussing achievement and excellence, the process of learning becomes a task, with failure of this task to be avoided at all costs. Not surprisingly, when education is turned into such an undertaking, it undermines the creativity and curiosity within each individual. As Robinson explains in his presentation to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, when students are tested on creativity in longitudinal studies, their creative capacity plummets from 98% in kindergarten downwards to below 50% in subsequent years (2007). It is very likely that the primary reason for this decline in creative capacity is the great deal of negative socialization they receive from schooling. By stressing correct answers, it is likely that teachers unknowingly denounce
9

students willingness to be creative, the same characteristic to which Cot and Allahar attribute so much importance (2007). The ongoing discussion over grade inflation is one that raises questions concerning the essence of education. Some argue that positive evaluations should be kept for only the highest achieving students. Sociologists James E. Cot and Anton L. Allahar present a strong case in support of this supposition (2007). They assert that inflating grades is dishonest, providing a functionalist assessment of the Canadian system. However, as argued throughout this composition, the examination provided by the professors disregards the purpose of education as a process through which students are empowered by knowledge. Using examples from other national systems, with a focus on the Nordic systems, it can be appropriately concluded that an emphasis on high academic standards does not acknowledge the basis of human ingenuity, nor is it of great importance. We have to recognize that human flourishing is not a mechanical process; it's an organic process. And you cannot predict the outcome of human development. All you can do, like a farmer, is create the conditions under which they will begin to flourish (Ken Robinson, 2010)

10

Refrences Aronowitz, Stanley, and Henry A. Giroux. 1993. Education still under siege. Toronto: OISE Press. Artelt, Baumert, Klieme, Neubrand, Prenzel, Stanat, Schiefele, Schneider, Schmer, Tillmann, and Wei. 2000. PISA 2000: Overview of The study. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Brym, Robert J, Lance W. Roberts, John Lie, and Steven Rytina. 2013. Sociology : Your Compass for a New World. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. C t , ames E, and Anton Allahar. Ivory tower blues: A university system in crisis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Crocker, Jennifer. 2002. The Costs of Seeking SelfEsteem. Journal of Social Issues, 58: 597615. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00279 Davies, Scott and Davd Zarifa. 2012. The stratification of universities: Structural inequality in Canada and the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(2), 143 158. Eitzen, D. Stanley. 2007. Solutions to Social Problems (Fourth Edition). Toronto: Pearson. F hr, Christoph, and Iv n Tapia. 1997. The erman Education System Since 1945. Bonn: Inter Nationes. Niemi, Hannele, Auli Toom, and Arto Kallioniemi. 2012. Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
11

Rist, Ray. 1970. Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education. Harvard Educational Review 40, 3, 411-451. Robinson, Ken. 2010. Bring On The Learning Revolution!. Monterey, Ca: TED. Robinson, Ken. 2007. Changing Paradigms. London: RSA. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Shaienks, Danielle, and Tomasz luszynski. 2007. Participation in Postsecondary Education: Graduates, Continuers, and Dropouts, Results from YITS Cycle. Program for International Student Assesment, overnment of Canada.

12