Although this analysis has resonated widely since it first appeared in 1988, grades do not seem to have come down from their pedestal in schools and universities. They continue to play an essential role, both in exams—such as the baccalaureate—and in college admissions and placement processes, such as Parcoursup and Affelnet.
Should we conclude from this persistence that grading is an unavoidable necessity when it comes to testing students’ knowledge and determining what they have learned? Should we view it as a necessary evil, since we lack better ways to assess them? Or are there alternatives?
We owe André Antibi, who passed away in May 2022, a debt of gratitude for a twofold contribution that was as instructive as it was useful. First and foremost, we owe him the identification of what he termed—using the phrase cited above, which made a lasting impression—the “macabre constant.” He defined it as “the roughly constant percentage of failure that must be present in any assessment for it to appear credible.”
It is as if the evaluators were assuming that, in any distribution of grades—regardless of the group’s overall level—there must be “a sort of constant: the proportion of low grades.” This results in a consistent division of students into three roughly balanced groups—with the first group scoring higher than the others, the second group scoring around the class average, and the third group scoring below the class average—each containing about one-third of the students assessed. This artificially creates failure for students placed in the bottom third, who thus become victimsof “a form of violence.”
According to Antibi, it is “society” that has “established this norm,” forcing “teachers to play the role of selectors against their will.” The social pressure in favor of “covert selection” forces teachers/evaluators to play the “unpleasant role” of social selectors. The solution, then, would be simple: restore “the teacher’s true role: to educate (not to select).”
[More than 80,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletter to better understand the world's major issues. Subscribe today]
This explains Antibi’s second decisive contribution: an approach to assessment that is more in line with this true role—in other words, “formative” assessment—known as Assessment by Contract of Trust (EPCC). This would make it possible to begin replacing the “implicit contract” of selection “dictated by society” with an explicit contract for an assessment that serves the students, a contract dictated by their primary need: to learn.
Assessment Through a Contract of Trust is based on the idea that the goal is not to trap the student, but rather to encourage them. This can be achieved through an assessment conducted in a “climate of trust,” designed more to evaluate knowledge than to rank students: “The principle is simple: the student has a list of exercises covered in class, and knows that the bulk of the exam will consist of exercises from that list.”
It should be noted, on the one hand, that this assessment practice can only apply to “tests” administered in the classroom during the learning process. And, on the other hand, that Antibi’s criticism pertains solely to a questionable use of graded assessment, and not to the principle of grading itself. For the “macabre constant”—which represents nothing more than a “dysfunction”—is not inevitable. One could very well imagine—and consider it desirable—a distribution consisting entirely of good grades!
By limiting the scope of assessment to what has actually been studied and learned, the EPCC makes it possible to reward effort and avoid turning every test into a competition that ranks students. However, while it appears to meet certain social and pedagogical conditions for better recognition of learning outcomes, it in no way guarantees, on the one hand, a relevant assessment of students’ achievements; in and of itself, it does not ensure that the grades assigned are objective and fair.
On the other hand, it does not call into question the relevance of grading, nor does it ask whether a grade can truly reflect the reality of learning. Isn’t there a better alternative to grading? If we must reject a grading system that unfairly labels students as poor performers, should we accept grading as a valid means of assessment?
The real issue lies in the assignment of the grade—or rather, in the evaluative judgment that the grade is supposed to convey—a judgment that could be expressed in other ways. For the judgment that, in assessment, reflects the evaluation of students’ learning outcomes is subject to a dual constraint. First, it must reflect as objectively and accurately as possible the reality of a state or level of competence (the problem of capturing reality). And second, it must convey this reality in a clear and practical manner (the problem of communicating the results of that assessment).
However, because the grade appears to be the result of a measurement, it seems to satisfy the second constraint. But it makes us overlook the first, which we assume is automatically met (what could be more immediately objective than a measurement?). The main difficulty is that evaluation is not a measurement in the strict sense, and that the grade gives a false impression of rigor.
Assessment involves making a judgment about the acceptability of a situation based on expectations. The school assessor seeks useful information to support a defensible judgment about students’ proficiency levels. We can thus distinguish between two main types of situations.
Or he will need insightful information on each student’s progress in learning, in order to help them improve. Assuming, then, that he finds (as the EPCC attempts to do) relevant assessment methods and tests that meet the first requirement, the grade—due to its dryness and limited informative value—is far from being the best way for him to express his judgment.
For example, they may prefer communication tools such as analytical observation grids, based on concrete descriptors of activities that reveal (or fail to reveal!) the targeted knowledge or skills. A “formative” assessment, conducted during the learning process, has little need for grades. And it is entirely appropriate to ask teachers and assessors here to“assess without grading.”
However, in another major scenario, it may require “ranking” information—that is, information that allows individuals to be compared based on their “performance” in specific areas—in order to sort or make selections for the purpose of certification or, more broadly, selection.
It must be acknowledged that the closer one gets to a certification threshold—such as the baccalaureate—or a decision-making point—such as choosing a track after middle school—or a screening process for admission to higher education, the more decision-makers (juries, committees working within the placement systems) need information that allows for “ranking,” information that is easy—if not to interpret (what does a score of 11.5/20 mean?), then at least to process! Because, ultimately, students must be distributed along a vertical scale and sorted—even if only into two categories: passed/failed; met/did not meet the requirements.
So as long as we need, in a sense, to feed the “algorithmic ogre”—in its role as an aid to choice and decision-making—the apparent clarity and objectivity of the rating make it a very convenient information tool that we find (and will continue to find) very difficult to do without.
But does ease of use justify ignoring ambiguities and difficulties? Can we continue to act “as if” grades were a reliable and indisputable measure of academic performance? Antibi was right on this point: it is the pressure society exerts in favor of selection that causes “dysfunctions” such as the “macabre constant.”
But whenever a selection is necessary, the temptation to assign grades becomes almost irresistible. In such cases, can we do without grades? We would need to replace them with other simple and meaningful benchmarks… which have yet to be invented! Good luck to whoever comes up with them!
