The bottom line in the great grade inflation debate

Published on Tuesday 26 August 2008 19:43

YOU have probably noticed that it is time for the annual "grade inflation" debate. It is an emotive subject and if you are a teenager or the parent of a teenager who has just received fantastic exam results and has heard someone say: "Ah, yes, but that's because exams are so easy these days," you have my sympathy.

If you are a university admissions officer, trying to work out how to distribute places to the record numbers of students with A grades, well, rather you than me.

This year's debate is no different and comprises the usual two camps: "exams and grades aren't what they once were," versus "Scottish educational standards are rising and grades prove it".

I'd like to propose the formation of a third group: "the grade inflation debate is largely irrelevant."

Comparing today's exam results with those of the past is an introspective exercise that may be of historical interest, but tells us little that we need to know about the present day.

Examination grades have to answer three main questions. For pupils, it is: "have I reached the standard of education necessary to allow me to do what I want with my life?"; for universities, it's "can we distinguish the most suitable students for the limited places we have on offer, and the standards they will have to achieve?" and for employers and society, it's "do our educational standards allow our young people the best chance of competing in an international context?"

There are a number of international studies that allow comparison of educational standards across countries, but they often don't separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. This makes it difficult to assess how Scotland is doing in its own right. However, there are a few that evaluate Scotland independently: the Progress in International Literacy Study (Pirls); the Trends in International Maths and Science Study (Timss); and the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa). The great advantage of these studies is that they are based on a fixed set of criteria applied internationally, regardless of national grading systems.

Pirls 2006, published at the end of last year, showed that when Scotland was considered independently it ranked 26th overall with England ranked 19th. The most recent Timss study ranked Scotland as 18th which, technically, was a draw with England. And in the Pisa study, Scotland outperformed the average and the UK as a whole in maths and reading but the results were down on previous years.

So, it appears to be a "could do better" situation. To make matters worse a 2007 Unicef report rated the UK as the worst place in the developed world for a child to grow up. Scotland was not assessed separately but I don't think we can assume that Utopia starts north of Gretna.

But which countries do well in the international league tables and rate as a good place to grow up?

The Swedes do well as far as quality of life is concerned, and their academic results are above the Pisa average, but they are not the highest achievers. Their education system is based on a 100 per cent voucher model, which allows a child to attend any school of their parents' choice, but does not allow schools to charge a top-up fee. This model has received a lot of attention from the opposition benches in Westminster and it allows choice that we simply don't have in this country, ensuring that parents are in the position of power – they can remove their child and take their voucher elsewhere if they are not happy. That said, Sweden spends considerably more than Scotland or England on education as a percentage of GDP.

The country that came top of the Unicef report, and did consistently well in the international league tables, was the Netherlands. And this is the interesting thing: ratings on the league tables and the Unicef report don't, necessarily, have anything to do with how much money is being spent. The Dutch spend considerably less than the English on education per head and the English spend less than the Scots.

The Dutch model is based on a system that gives each child a voucher or a price tag that parents can spend at any school including the independent sector. Seventy per cent of children attend independent schools, which are not the same as in Scotland because the average fee is a top-up of around 500 (395). As in Sweden, this makes it easier for different types of school to exist because they all have equal rights to a child's price tag and parents there can choose between the state standard schools, Montessori schools, Steiner schools and faith schools – whatever is available.

The Dutch are not alone in spending less and achieving more – Finland and Belgium are not far behind.

What this seems to show is that a focus on educational expenditure in absolute terms isn't giving us a clear picture of what's really going on. And interestingly enough, Scotland is among the highest spenders on education per capita.

A recent report from the McKinsey group provides valuable insight into the countries that are getting education right. It studied 25 of the world's school systems and concluded that, despite a massive increase in spending the world over and major attempts at reform, the performance of many school systems has barely improved.

The report shows that the highest achieving systems have three things in common: they attract the highest quality students into teaching and give the profession the status it deserves; teachers are given enough time to develop their skills and learn from each other; and the education systems ensure minimal variation in performance between schools, focusing the funding and support where it can have the greatest impact.

What does this international comparison and analysis mean for Scotland?

It helps us refocus on the bigger picture – we need to know if the next generation is being equipped with the skills they need to compete for work in a globalised job market. The only way we can know is by comparing performance internationally. It also tells us to stop obsessing over the moving goalposts of grade inflation and to stop looking at spending in absolute, national terms – it's what you do with the money that counts.