The power of teacher-assigned grades in outcome-based education

Abstract

In arguing for alternatives to test-based accountability, researchers have suggested that teacher-assigned student grades could be used for high-stakes purposes. In this study, Sweden serves as an example of a school system in which teacher-assigned grades have a major role in performance management and accountability. We study how politicians view and legitimise the strengths of grading in an outcome-based accountability system. Based on two-part analysis, we show how grades, through complex processes of legitimation, have acquired and retained a central position in governing the overall quality of the educational system in Sweden. We argue that in the Swedish system, grades used in an administrative rather than a pedagogical way function as a quick language that effectively reduces the complexity of communication between various actors with regard to what students learn and accomplish in education. As such, grades are legitimate in terms of their communicative rationality. However, their use in communicating student learning has not been sufficient to meet the needs of government. We conclude that in order to turn grading into an instrument that can moderate some of the downsides of testing regimes, a broader view of what constitute outcomes in education needs to follow.

Consequences of school grading systems on adolescent health: evidence from a Swedish school reform

“…While accountability reforms in many education systems have focused on standardized high-stakes testing (Lingard, Martino, and Rezai-Rashti 2013), the Swedish public debate has been uniquely focused on grading, largely because teacher-assigned grades are the primary instrument used to sort pupils into different schools and programmes in upper secondary school, and subsequently for tertiary education (Lundahl, Hultén, and Tveit 2017). Until year 9, grades are primarily used to track progress, although many pupils perceive grades as high-stakes already well in advance of year 9 (Swedish National Agency for Education 2017; Låftman, Almquist, and Östberg 2013).…”

“…Formally, grades in Sweden are primarily high stakesin the sense that they have important institutionalised consequencesfor pupils, not schools. However, in school systems based on competition between schools, such as in Sweden, the grade point average of a school is used to attract pupils to the school, and grades are considered high stakes for teachers as they are used to hold teachers accountable for the performance of their pupils (Lundahl, Hultén, and Tveit 2017;Silfver, Sjöberg, and Bagger 2016). Thus, in a Swedish context, grades, in combination with the extensive use of national standardised tests, can be seen as a functional equivalent to high-stakes testing, implying an emphasis on summative assessment, goal attainment, standardization and monitoring.…”

“…Thus, in a Swedish context, grades, in combination with the extensive use of national standardised tests, can be seen as a functional equivalent to high-stakes testing, implying an emphasis on summative assessment, goal attainment, standardization and monitoring. Accordingly, the Swedish grading reform has been described as intensifying the trend towards an 'outcome-based accountability system' in Swedish schools (Lundahl, Hultén, and Tveit 2017).…”

“…The extension of grades and national testing to year 6 must be understood in the context of the overall direction of the reform agenda, in particular the new curriculum that was implemented in 2011. As stated, the new curriculum introduced stronger elements of accountability and assessment for individual pupils, as well as schools, with a focus on goal attainment and measurement of performance (Lundahl, Hultén, and Tveit 2017). The reform thereby intensified the tendency in the Swedish school system to exhaustively use tests and other assessments of pupils (Lundahl, Hultén, and Tveit 2017).…”

Investigative modes in research on data use in education

“…For example, accountability in the USA is described as high-stakes owing to use of incentives and sanctions related to student performance data, while European and Scandinavian countries are often recognized as low-stakes and 'half way accountability' or 'soft accountability' owing to a lack of such incentives and sanctions (Hatch, 2013;Easley & Tulowitzki, 2016). Moreover, it can be argued that manifestations of decentralization and agency differ between the Scandinavian countries and countries in Northern Europe and the USA (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013;Gunter et al, 2016;Prøitz & Aasen, 2017), and traditions for assessment and grading even vary considerably across the Scandinavian countries (Lundahl, Hulten, & Tveit, 2017). Variations in curriculum development between countries have been described as reflecting long-standing traditions in approaches to schooling in terms of curriculum versus didaktik (Hopmann, 2015;Lundgren, 2006;Karseth & Sivesind, 2010).…”