Grade inflation and grade alteration take place in our schools.

Whenever we compute for

our marks in each term, it seems like it is an accepted practice to account for other non-aca-
demic dimensions like effort, attitude, participation, and deportment usually in the 10% par-
ticipation component, which some teachers call the “teacher factor” component, or some
other convenient component like homework and seatwork. Aside from grade inflation, we
also practice grade alteration especially when we make end-of-year decisions on our students.
We alter the marks of students who do not make it for promotion so they will at least qualify
for summer school. Likewise, for graduating students, we usually raise their mark to allow
them to graduate and move on to university.
While we are able to identify meritorious and humanitarian reasons to support these grad-
ing practices, the question remains: are these ethical practices? Two ethical issues that de-
mand out attention are those of the issue of fairness and grade integrity. Thus, before we ac-
tually delve into a re-examination of our grading practices, it would be good for us to clarify
and define our understanding of fairness and grade integrity. Afterwards, we can then pro-
ceed to a re-evaluation of our practice of grade inflation and grade alteration. The end goal of
all this is for us to identify, key grading principles that we shall allow to guide as we frame
and re-frame our grading policies.

Fairness
What is fair? What consists fairness? First of all, Daryl Close (2019) reminds us that the
issue of fairness in grading is important because grades, he says, perform the function of “ac-
ademic currency” (p.362) that grants a student access to good universities, scholarships, pro-
grams of choice, and other academic benefits. Thus, he emphasizes that “our grading systems
should be fair and we should administer them in a fair way.” Having highlighted the why of
grading, he then proceeds to define a fair grade as a “summary mark of an accurate, expert
evaluation of student academic work” (p.363). This definition highlights three important
components of a fair mark (p.365): (1) it is given by one who is knowledgeable in the course,
(2) it evaluates the student’s achievement in terms of knowledge and skills in the given sub-
ject area, (3) it is permanently recorded in the student’s academic records.
Taking the point of view of the students, Murillo and Hidalgo (2017), did a phenomeno-
graphic study of 32 primary and secondary students who were selected via a non-probability
quota sampling according to three selection criteria – educational level (primary or second-
ary), type of school (private or public), and the context of the school (favorable or challeng-
ing) – making sure that a fair mix of each is present. Based on their phenomenographic stud-
ies, Murillo and Hidalgo noted that the students have basically two conceptions of fairness –
the egalitarian fair assessment and the equitable fair assessment.
The egalitarian fair assessment upholds that, “For an assessment to be fair all students
must be assessed equally” (Murillo & Hidalgo, p. 13). Essentially, egalitarian fair assessment
(p. 13) aims at utmost objectivity by being transparent with the content of the test and the cri-
teria for evaluation including their relative weights and that teachers leave out subjective ele-
ments (like behavior, effort, or attitude) in assessing achievement. Since the exam is seen as
the most important instrument of objectivity, the students believe that this exam must be ad-
ministered with the same conditions (time allotment, type of test, or everyone. Moreover,
there must be transparency in the assessment process.
The researchers have also noted that there are students who subscribe to fair assessment
as being equitable: “A fair assessment must be at the level of students, must be continuous,
and use several types of tests or instruments” (p. 13) In essence, equitable fair assessment
(pp. 13-14) prioritizes the subjectivity of the test-taker. Students want to be active partici-
pants in both the learning & assessment processes, with the teacher taking into consideration
their inputs that may impact decisions on teaching & assessment. Also, students believe that
the essence of the assessment is to acknowledge the effort that they put into their learning and
their consequent progress in knowledge and skills. The process for them is much more im-
portant than the end result. They also believe that it is through the different assessments that
teachers get to know their students. Thus, assessments must be varied, using alternative forms
of assessment, and continuous, that is giving two or three tests in a term. Also, students desire
that their teacher be present to them by being more involved in the assessment procees by
giving feedback on what they do well, on their areas of growth, and what they need to do to
be able to get there. And most importantly, students wish that their teachers pay more atten-
tion to their holistic development. Aside from what they actually learn about the subject mat-
ter, they would like their teacher to acknowledge the different ways that they have grown in
terms of attitude, dealing and working with one another, empathy for the other and respect
for their peers.
The foregoing discussion highlights the fact that assessment has both the objective and
subjective dimensions. Fairness after all may be understood in two ways: as legal justice
where equal (the same treatment) is accorded to all or as social justice where one receives ac-
cording to his or her needs. The former upholds objectivity to ensure fairness while the other
believes subjectivity must be considered for one to be fair. For now, we

Close, D. (2009). Fair grades. Teaching Philosophy, 32(4), pp. 361-398.

Murillo, F. J. and Hidalgo, N. (2017). Students’ conceptions about a fair assessment of their
learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53(1), pp. 10-16.