subject: Grading System in India [print this page] Grading System in India Grading System in India
Assessments are aimed at understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a student. Reporting on student learning remains one of the important challenges for educators today. In schools all three levels, primary, middle and high school, require different representations of evaluation, because the representation system depends on the areas being assessed. An efficient reporting system is led by clear thinking, effective communication skills and concern for students' welfare. No single system of grading serves all purposes effectively.
Grades assigned in letters (for example, A, B, C, D, or F), or descriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement), indicating a band would be most ideal for students who are just beginning their journey into the world of formal education.
Formative assessments speak about those aspects of learning which cannot be precisely quantified but are equally important in the holistic assessment of a student, like for example how confident or motivated a learner is, the degree of involvement and ownership for learning etc. Summative assessments including end-of-unit or chapter tests, end-of-term or semester exams and other such tools are used for evaluation in higher classes where evaluation representation can be numeric and aimed specifically defined target outcomes.
While it has been acceptable to have the grading or a descriptive system for the pre-primary levels since a long time, in primary school an assessment format which is majorly summative and its representation in percentile system has been the most preferred evaluation process until recently.
If assessments indicate the learning outcomes achieved, representation of the evaluation should support the aim of assessments. It should then try as far as possible to steer clear of a system which portrays results in a manner which pits one student against another. In India where the most predominant form of assessment has been the percentage system, results are almost seen as a warring zone where this competition for a position on the merit list is creating burnouts in students to say the least. Young children of our country bear the burden of undue pressure of scoring high marks and 'of performing'.
Competition is really no good unless it is entwined with harmony and collective wellbeing. Learning happens best when we teach. But percentile competition makes learners see helping another student as a threat to his own success. If scholastic comparison is the reason why a student would strive to learn, and then the very intent of education is defeated as education must be driven towards and results in the joy of learning. Yet since most of us translate higher marks as a sign of success, it results in a lot of students working hard to avoid the consequences of lower marks.
So while percentile representation of evaluation based on exams and tests are useful to a certain extent, it does not provide a complete picture of student learning. Ninety nine marks out of 100 are of little use if they have been scored because of cramming. Work habits, class participation, achievements compared to efforts, though cannot be quantified in exact proportion; collectively they provide a more holistic picture of the student's growth as a learner and must be reflected in the portrayal of a student's success.
