Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion College grade inflation

Nicely worded philly! Thanks for taking the time to put this down.
I have struggled explaining this like you have here. A lot of gifted parents feel this way too.

I am going to steal/share some of your thoughts.

Absolutely. When considering education in general, 11-40% of pupils know the material before the class begins.

The goal of generating grades which signal "equal outcomes"?
-VS-
The goal of achieving one term's growth for each student and/or grades which honestly reflect the growth (or lack of growth) for each pupil throughout the term?

I believe you are describing "grade level proficiency."
Grade level proficiency is NOT the same as assigning grades which indicate "equal outcomes."

Regarding achieving grade level proficiency, some may say that a teacher's role is to provide ample opportunity for all students to learn the prescribed grade-level curriculum. Teachers cannot ensure student learning. Learning is the student's role.

In a perfect world, yes. I believe you used the word "should" 11 times in your post. I do agree that these are useful policies/practices to advocate for.

Meanwhile, the thread has been discussing what IS, not what "should be." Various parties have been attempting to share their observations on trends in grade inflation/deflation, over time. I personally believe that BOTH grade inflation and grade deflation are occurring, and I believe both are occurring due to incentivization for teachers/schools/institutions/programs to assign grades which indicate "equal outcomes."

I do not believe that has been suggested. If you believe otherwise, would you please kindly show me where this has been suggested?

To use your form of expression, what's stupid is to assign grades to your exemplar 5th grade math class which indicate "equal outcomes" among all pupils when some of the children in your exemplar class are at the 7th grade math level.

This, I believe is the essential topic of the thread: how much can we trust grades (and college degrees conferred) to be indicative of what the pupil knows,
- when grades may be inflated (exaggerating student demonstrated performance)
- when grades may be deflated (under-reporting student demonstrated performance)
- when teachers/institutions/programs are incentivized to report grades which indicate "equal outcomes"

Assigning grades which indicate "equal outcomes" signals that all pupils have learned the material equally. That each is performing at a level which is indistinguishable from one another.

This false. Concerns about teachers being incentivized to assign grades which indicate "equal outcomes" include:
- grades not providing pupils with honest and meaningful feedback on growth throughout the term
- falsifying records to signal that all pupils are performing at the same skill level
- some students may receive inflated grades (exaggerating demonstrated knowledge)
- some students may receive deflated grades (downplaying demonstrated knowledge)
- there is a ceiling beyond which growth is not measured
- growth beyond the ceiling is capped, thwarted, discouraged
- there are a growing number of grading practices in use to ensure the reporting of "equal outcomes"
- truth, honesty, integrity fall by the wayside when essentially measuring with a rubber ruler to report "equal outcomes"
- questionable value of college degrees conferred

This statistic is misleading. It means that 11-40% of students scored as an average student in the next grade up would score on the same test. This does not mean that they have mastered the material typically taught in their own grade or the next grade up.

That may be. Do you have a source for that information? Thanks, Kai.

The quoted source in this post, Accelerate Illinois, provides this citation: 4. Matthew C. Makel, Michael S.Matthews, Scott J. Peters, Karen Rambo-Hernandez, and Jonathan A. Plucker, “How Can So Many Students Be Invisible? Large Percentages of American Students Perform Above Grade Level”, Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, 2016.

I looked for a link, this is what I found:
1) http://edpolicy.education.jhu.edu/h...ican-students-perform-above-grade-level/
2) http://edpolicy.education.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/StudentsinvisiblemastheadFINAL.pdf

Reading linked research report...
Although I was recalling information from 2+ years ago, and could've done so inaccurately, I believe the excerpts above indicate that "11-40% of pupils know the material before the class begins" represents the findings fairly well.

While various assessments were utilized in this research, the methods described include early administration of the grade-level end-of-year tests and therefore do not appear to be accurately summarized by the statement: "It means that 11-40% of students scored as an average student in the next grade up would score on the same test. This does not mean that they have mastered the material typically taught in their own grade or the next grade up."

Some students have significant inbound knowledge, however, with teachers/institutions incentivized to provide grades indicating "equal outcomes" these students may tend to receive grades indicating the same demonstrated knowledge as classmates. A variety of known grading techniques are in play, to deflate the reported grades of these students, and also inflate the reported grades of other students. This can occur at every educational level, including college.

I looked at this article, and I stand by my statement. They are comparing student proficiency and *not* mastery of grade level content.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into it further right now, but I will try to remember to revisit this thread when I do (which should be in the next few days).

I hope these are the ideas from philly103's post that you wish to further disseminate, mecreature: Unfortunately, despite years of successful advocacy, some strong supporters of "equal outcomes" continue to object to acceleration and student grouping by ability, readiness, achievement... or any means of providing continued growth for pupils at the top, until pupils at the bottom catch up and attain grades reflective of having achieved "equal outcomes." Note: "equal outcomes" is NOT synonymous with "grade level proficiency."

That said, much of the post was far outside the topic of college grade inflation, or even the broader topic of grading practices. I'll tie this back to the thread by saying that grades recorded for earlier educational levels do impact college readiness, college grades, college grade inflation/deflation, and the value of degrees conferred.

While I found your list of extracts to be interesting, especially in how it illustrates how different people can read the same post and take different things from it, I would also encourage people watching this thread to read and reflect on philly103's whole insightful post, rather than to rely on a "Cliffs Notes" version. Thank you for taking the time to share it with us, philly103, without worrying about whether it precisely fit within the bounds of the thread title.

I look forward to reading your thoughts and sources, whenever you may post them. In the meanwhile I believe we can both agree that the research indicates a percentage of American Students Perform Above Grade Level... thereby allowing the conversation of grade inflation/deflation to continue.

When some students perform above grade level, are "equal outcomes" possible?

What role does (or might) grade inflation/deflation play in recording grades which indicate "equal outcomes" among pupils with different performance levels... whether in earlier education experiences or at the college/university level?

LOL, this was not intended to be a "Cliffs Notes" version of philly103's post, but rather was clearly labeled as ideas which I hope mecreature had in mind when planning to share "some of" philly103's thoughts.

Rather than not fitting precisely within the thread title, philly103's post veered off-topic, leaving behind college grade inflation or even the broader topic of grading practices. Much of the post content was far outside the topic including philly03 arguing against strawman statements, such as practices which had not been suggested ("It's stupid to expect a 5th grade math class to teach 7th grade math just because a minority percentage of the students can handle it.") and viewpoints mis-attributed ("Your concern about equal outcomes seems predicated on the idea that teachers should not want all of their 5th graders to grasp the 5th grade curriculum solely because there are some kids who are capable of grasping more.")

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

To the degree that others continue philly103's side conversation without tying their posts back to the thread... the thread has been hijacked. Possibly a new thread could be created for that side conversation... ?

Meanwhile, I'll tie this post back to the thread by saying that grading practices and grades recorded for earlier educational levels do impact college readiness, college grade inflation/deflation*, and ultimately even the value of degrees conferred.

*Grade deflation mentioned in article which mckinley introduced and sought feedback on: article by Patrick Julius (March 2018).