Assessment of student performance is essentially the process of determining how a student is progressing in a course (and, incidentally, how a teacher is performing with respect to the teaching process). The first step in assessment is, of course, testing—either through a pencil-and-paper objective test or a performance-based testing procedure—followed by the decision to grade the student’s performance. Grading, therefore, is the next step after testing. Over the course of several years, grading systems have evolved in different school systems all over the world. In the American system, for instance, grades are expressed in letters—A, B+, B, B-, C, C-, D—or what is referred to as a seven-point system.

In Philippine colleges and universities, the letters are replaced with numerical values: 1.0, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0, or an eight-point system. In basic education, grades are expressed as percentages (of accomplishment), such as 80% or 75%. With the implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum, however, student performance is expressed in terms of levels of proficiency. Whatever grading system is adopted, it is clear that there is a need to convert raw scores into the corresponding standard grading system.

Norm-Referenced Grading

The most commonly used grading system falls under the category of norm-referenced grading. Norm-referenced grading refers to a system wherein a student’s grade is interpreted in relation to the performance of a group. Thus, in this system, a grade of 80 means that the student performed better than or the same as 80% of the class (or group). At first glance, there appears to be no problem with this type of grading system, as it simply describes the performance of a student relative to a particular group of learners. However, the following example illustrates some of the difficulties associated with norm-referenced grading:

Example: Consider the following two sets of scores in an English 1 class for two sections of ten students each:

A = {30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85}
B = {60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 90, 95, 100}

In the first class, the student who obtains a raw score of 75 would get a grade of 80%, while in the second class, the same grade of 80% would correspond to a raw score of 90. If the same test was used for both classes, such a practice would result in a rather unfair grading system. A wise student would opt to enroll in Class A since it is easier to get higher grades there than in Class B.

This example illustrates a major difficulty with norm-referenced grading—the problem of equivalency. Does a grade of 80 in one class represent the same achievement level as a grade of 80 in another class of the same subject? This is similar to the problem of comparing a valedictorian from a remote rural high school with a valedictorian from a prestigious university in an urban area. Does one expect the same level of competence from these two valedictorians?

As observed, norm-referenced grading systems are based on a pre-established formula regarding the percentage of students within a class who will be assigned each grade or mark. It is therefore known in advance what percentage of students will pass or fail a course. For this reason, many opponents of norm-referenced grading argue that such a system does not advance the cause of education and contradicts the principle of individual differences.

In norm-referenced grading, students, while they may work individually, are actually in competition with one another to achieve a performance level that will classify them into the desired grade range. It essentially promotes competition among students in the same class. A student who enrolls in a class of gifted students in Mathematics may find norm-referenced grading worrisome. For example, a teacher may establish a grading policy whereby the top 15 percent of students will receive a mark of excellent or outstanding. In a class of 100 students, this would apply to only 15 individuals. Such a grading policy might be illustrated as follows:

1.0 (Excellent) = Top 15% of Class
1.50 (Good) = Next 15% of Class
2.0 (Average/Fair) = Next 45% of Class
3.0 (Poor/Pass) = Next 15% of Class
5.0 (Failure) = Bottom 10% of Class

The underlying assumption in norm-referenced grading is that students have abilities (as reflected in their raw scores) that follow a normal distribution. The objective is to identify the best performers in the group. Norm-referenced systems are often used for screening selected student populations in situations where not all students can advance due to limitations such as available slots, job opportunities, or other controlling factors. For example, in the Philippine setting, since not all high school students can advance to college due to financial constraints, a norm-referenced grading system may be applied.

Example: In a class of 100 students, the mean score in a test is 70 with a standard deviation of 5. Construct a norm-referenced grading table with seven grade scales such that students scoring between plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean receive an average grade.

Only a few teachers who use norm-referenced grading apply it with complete consistency. When faced with a particularly bright class, most teachers do not penalize good students for having the misfortune of enrolling with other highly capable students—even if the grading system dictates that a certain percentage must fail. On the other hand, teachers are also unlikely to reduce the mean grade for a class simply because a large proportion of students perform poorly. A serious problem with norm-referenced grading is that, regardless of the class’s actual level of knowledge and ability, a predictable proportion of students will receive each grade. Since its essential purpose is to sort students into categories based on relative performance, norm-referenced grading is often used to weed out students when only limited slots exist for selective programs.

Have you ever wondered what goes into that final grade on your report card? It’s more than just a number or a letter. Student assessment is the crucial process of tracking how you’re growing in a course—and, let’s be honest, it’s also a reflection of how well the teaching is landing!

The process starts with testing, whether it’s a classic pencil-and-paper quiz or a hands-on performance task. But the real fun begins with the next step: grading.

A World of Grading Systems

Grading isn’t a one-size-fits-all process. Systems have evolved differently across the globe:

• The American System: Grades are typically expressed in letters (A, B+, B, C, etc.), often referred to as a seven-point system.
• Philippine Higher Education: You’ll usually see numerical values like 1.0, 1.25, up to 4.0.
• Philippine Basic Education (K-12): Now, performance is often described in terms of levels of proficiency rather than simple percentages.

No matter the system, there’s always a need to convert your raw test scores into a standardized final grade. And this is where things get interesting, and sometimes, a little controversial.

The Most Common (and Problematic) Approach: Norm-Referenced Grading

The grading system you’ve most likely experienced is Norm-Referenced Grading (NRG).

What is it?

Simply put, your grade is interpreted in relation to the performance of your classmates. If you get an 80% in an NRG system, it might mean you performed better than or the same as 80% of the students in your class.

At first glance, this sounds fair enough—it just describes your ranking within a specific group. But let’s look at a critical flaw.

The Fairness Trap: An Example

Imagine two sections of the same English class taking the exact same test:

• In Class A, a raw score of 75 might earn a final grade of 80%.
• In Class B, to get that same 80% grade, a student might need a raw score of 90!

If you were a student, which class would you choose? Class A, of course! This highlights the problem of equivalency. Does an 80% in one class truly represent the same level of achievement as an 80% in another? It’s like comparing the valedictorian from a tiny rural school to one from a highly selective urban university—the title is the same, but the skills might be vastly different.

The Competition Conundrum

NRG is based on a pre-established formula, meaning the teacher knows in advance roughly what percentage of the class will get an A, a B, or a failing mark.

This system inherently promotes competition. Students aren’t just trying to learn; they’re trying to outperform their peers to secure one of the limited spots in the desired grade range.

Consider a class of gifted students: under NRG, a truly brilliant student could get a lower mark just because they had the “misfortune” of being in a class full of other brilliant students. They might even be discouraged from helping classmates, as raising the class average could make it harder for them to personally secure a top grade.

This can look like:

• 1.0 (Excellent): Top 15% of Class
• 3.0 (Poor/Pass): Next 15% of Class
• 5.0 (Failure): Bottom 10% of Class

The entire purpose of NRG is to sort students, making it the system of choice when slots are limited, such as for entry into selective programs or job opportunities (a common practice in settings like the Philippines, where college access is a challenge for many).

The Search for a Better Way

Few teachers use norm-referenced grading perfectly. Most will hesitate to penalize a bright class for performing well or fail an entire class just because the curve dictates it.

But the core issues remain: NRG can be an unfair measure of individual growth, it fosters competition over collaboration, and it doesn’t always align with the actual learning goals of the course.

Since norm-referenced grading is fraught with these issues, the big question is: What alternatives exist for grading students?