Read on Twitter
Let's talk about 'grade inflation', that concept everyone seems to accept is a bad thing, automatically associated with undeserved grades, slack teachers, 'all must have prizes' and lack of rigour.
This is a gross misunderstanding.
This is a gross misunderstanding.
Firstly, what's the aim of education? Is to raise the level of skill and understanding of as many as possible or of only a few? If you want to educate as many as possible to as high a level as possible, you'll be happy if more achieve criteria set and get higher grades.
If however, the aim of education is to ensure that the majority of people stay under-educated enough to know their place and do boring jobs for example, you'll be horrified if too many actually reach the same finish line as, for example, the privileged few in exclusive schools.
Constantly reiterating 'grade inflation' leaves no room for more of the population as a whole to reach set criteria.
However, what's the role of exams? If you want exams to be competitive in the sense of sorting out who's going to get limited places, you have to put in ranking.
However, what's the role of exams? If you want exams to be competitive in the sense of sorting out who's going to get limited places, you have to put in ranking.
If you do this, you must be clear. This wouldn't be a pass/fail situation on criteria but a simple who's top, next etc with cut-off lines. In this scenario, A*, A, B, C are far too blunt as thousands more may genuinely reach the standards to get the grades than there are places.
So what to do? Make more places? Raise criteria each year to limit places, but NOT, then, claim parity with previous years? In fact, there's little evidence of grade inflation but a lot of evidence of conflict between raised standards, limited opportunities & how to discriminate.
