Sir, – The term grade inflation is being bandied around a lot, apparently without regard for its potentially pejorative meaning.
The term has little relevance in any discussion of this year’s Leaving Cert.
Inflation may be said to occur when the same assessment instrument (for example a final exam) is marked more leniently from one year to the next in order to produce better results. However, when two entirely different assessment instruments are used, there is no question of inflation, only explicable and logical difference.
Teacher grades may be based largely on ongoing formative assessments, whereas the Leaving Cert exam is a one-off highly stressful summative assessment, a mere snapshot of performance.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Formative assessments may be given under more benevolent circumstances and are designed not just to produce a number or grade but to provide feedback for learner improvement.
Formative assessments generally do not test the entire curriculum in one go; parts of the curriculum are tested progressively throughout the course and are therefore more manageable for learners.
They may assess a learner’s response to the poems of Yeats rather than test the entire range of poets on the course, for example.
They can be based on research projects and portfolios demonstrating the skills of discovery, comparison and evaluation, not just memory.
Both formative and summative assessment have their place, but it is wrong to consider that the results obtained from formative assessment are inflated versions of summative assessment.
They are too radically different to be comparable. Their goals are too different, as are the curricular ranges, test-taking circumstances and assessment instruments.
Whether formative or summative, each assessment type has its own reliability.
Higher marks in formative assessment should be treated as naturally occurring and not as suspect.
The problem now is that two different instruments are being given equal value as yardsticks when being used for college admission. That is unfair.
A Department of Education that is keen on algorithms should now be able to work out a new algorithm of equivalences to ensure that deferred students seeking admission this year will be seen to have played a different game with different rules and a different scoring system.
The situation will become even more complex in November when students can pick and mix their best scores from two different kinds of game. – Yours, etc,
Dr RAYMOND SHEEHAN,
Las Palmas,
Spain,