While students around the world received last summer their report cards and diplomas, in Switzerland, the Federation of Swiss Enterprises (Economiesuisse[1]) recently took a stand on the issue of grades, in a policy paper entitled “Debate on grades at school: we’ve lost our way…”. The paper argues that grades at schools are not sufficiently relevant or fair, and above all, do not allow comparisons of students’ performances on a national scale. As a result, many Swiss enterprises resort to standardized tests or to their own assessments to optimize the link between a student’s skills and his/her potential future vocational workplace. To overcome this problem, Economiesuisse states that there is a need to introduce standardized tests for all students in secondary school and at the end of their schooling. Harmonized at the national level and designed in collaboration with all stakeholders from the economic and educational spheres, these tests would make grades more accurate and therefore more exploitable.

Undoubtedly, Economiesuisse’s concern deserves to be heard. Indeed, grades remain a universal and clear symbol to communicate about students’ performance (Guskey & Link, 2019). However, most of the time, the information they provide is insufficient to determine a student’s real achievements and potential for progress. On these points, the policy paper produced is (unfortunately) right: for more than a century, research has shown that grades are often of little informative value, and mainly aim at selecting students, with all the perverse effects we know (Brookhart et al., 2016). But the proposed solution to this issue is where the problem lies: the suggested argument goes astray, for at least three reasons.

The first is pedagogical. Assessing learning in the form of a graded report assumes that the requirements for validating success are consistent with what has been taught and learned (Brookhart, 2022; Pasquini, 2019). Therefore, only classroom teachers should assume the role of assessing students since they teach them on a day-to-day basis, and guide their progress. As a result, comparing grades on a large scale would presuppose that all teachers are working in similar contexts, teaching the same thing, at the same time. Unrealistic.

The second reason is political. In a decentralized system like the Swiss one, responsibility for assessment depends mainly on teachers’ skills. Implementing standardized tests would therefore be an open denial of their expertise (Pasquini & DeLuca, 2022). Moreover, this would result in a “teaching to the test” effect, which is unanimously acknowledged to be detrimental to learning, because it focuses on training students to be perfect test-takers (Stobart, 2008). On the other hand, centralized systems such as Ireland’s, which assess students’ achievements primarily on the basis of external tests, do not better manage the transition from school to work.

Finally, the third reason is axiological and cultural. In Switzerland, public schools must assume a global and general training mission that integrates educational and instructional tasks enabling all students to learn, in order to become lifelong learners  able to face a complex and changing world. This purpose is impoverished when it is reduced to a utilitarian aim. But understanding it without including a pragmatic dimension is also risky. So, what would be the next step?

As in most Western countries, the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education has defined core skills that all students should achieve by the end of grades 4 (8 years old), 8 (12) and 11 (15) of compulsory schooling. These standards represent the basis on which students are assessed through their curriculum (for the german, Italian and french region). This is a first step. However, for greater effectiveness between schools and the economy at least three areas of work will be necessary. First, universities must strengthen teacher training on assessment practices and constructive grading (Pasquini, 2021), in line with contemporary research findings. This action is urgently needed, as training in these fields is insufficient everywhere (Moss, 2013). Second, economic stakeholders could intensify their relations with schools and assessment experts, to avoid devising chimerical solutions whose major limitations have long been known (Koretz, 2017). Third, both worlds have to discuss what kind of assessment culture (Birenbaum, 2016) would enable all students, whatever their choices, to learn and keep their desire to progress throughout their lives. It would be a win-win situation for everyone!

References

Birenbaum, M. (2016). Assessment culture versus testing culture: The impact on assessment for learning. Dans D. Lavault et L. Allal (dir.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (p. 275-292). Springer.

Brookhart, S. (2022). Criteria connect grading with other assessment practices. La Revue LEeE, 6. https://doi.org/10.48325/rleee.006.01

Brookhart, S., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J. McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K. & Smith,(…). (2016). A century of grading research : meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803-848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069

Guskey, T. R. & Link, L. J. (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students’ grades, Assessment in Education : Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(3), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1555515

Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of Chicago Press.

Moss, C. (2013). Research on classroom summative assessment. Dans J. McMillan (dir.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (p. 235-256). SAGE Publications.

Pasquini, R. (2019). Conceptually expanding the curricular alignment model to understand the coherence of the graded summative assessment practices of teachers: issues and perspectives. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 42 (spécial), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084128ar

Pasquini, R. (2021). Quand la note devient constructive. Evaluer pour certifier et soutenir les apprentissages. Presses de l’Université Laval.

Pasquini, R. & DeLuca, C. (2022). Standardized Testing vs Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices. Canadian Teacher Magazine. https://canadianteachermagazine.com/2022/09/26/standardized-testing-vs-teachers-classroom-assessment-practices/

Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon: Routledge.

 

Raphaël Pasquini

Full Professor – Formative and summative classroom assessment

Training and Research Unit in Teaching, Learning and Assessment

University of Teacher Education, State of Vaud

Avenue de Cour 33 – 1014 Lausanne – Switzerland

[1] https://www.economiesuisse.ch/en