AU Reactions to the government's proposal for a new grading scale

Last week, the government presented its proposal for a new grading scale. The government wants to replace the current 7-point grading scale with a new 8-point grading scale without negative grades, with more nuanced middle grades, with a new option to award 12 with a star for exceptional performance, and where the focus of assessment will be on what raises the grade rather than on what lowers it.

The government proposes a new grading scale without minuses and with a starred top mark

At Aarhus University, there is general support for replacing the current scale – both among students and among Vice-Rector Berit Eika and Professor of Political Science Simon Calmar Andersen, who, as a member of the Welfare Commission, has special insight into young people's well-being and has been involved in recommending that the current scale be changed. However, there is no consensus on what the new scale should ideally look like.  

STUDENTS: YES TO 6 AND 8, BUT 12* CREATES UNNECESSARY PRESSURE

In the basement beneath the Royal Library, Omnibus meets a group of students who are studying international business communication in English in their first semester. The students are in the middle of a project where they are to create a business plan for a new product or service that they believe will be a success in the international market. When asked what their immediate reaction is to the government's proposal for a new grading scale, Silke Johnson replies:

“I didn't mind the old grading scale.” However, she quickly elaborates that she understands the reasoning behind abolishing -03. The grade pulls down one's average grade disproportionately, which may well be a disadvantage for some.

The students are also positive about the idea of replacing grade 7 with grades 6 and 8.

"It's great. 7 has gradually become a bit of a default grade," says William Poulsen, and Silke Johnsen agrees: "You don't know if it's good or bad," she points out, referring to getting a grade of 7.

When asked whether the grade 12 with a star is a good idea or not, the students' response is clear:

"It puts unnecessary pressure on some people," says Kathrine Klokker, with the group agreeing that 12 with a star will become the new grade that some pupils and students will now strive for.

Conservative Students: 12* ISN’T AMBITIOUS ENOUGH

At Conservative Students, chair Søren Schrøder Rischel takes a predominantly positive view of the government's proposal. 

"There has been too much of a gap between the grades 4, 7 and 10, so the greater spread in the middle of the scale is positive," he points out, before turning to the shortcomings that he believes the proposal has, despite his generally positive attitude. 

Introducing a grade of 12 with a star is too unambitious. The number 13 should be reintroduced. It should be virtually impossible to get 13, but extraordinary efforts should be rewarded."

Søren Schrøder Rischel believes that this measure could take the pressure off many students. 

"We need to change the top so that it's harder to get top grades. If everyone gets 12, it hits harder when you don't get that grade yourself. We must therefore raise the requirements for top grades so that the requirements are so high that you don’t strive for the top, at least not in all subjects and assignments. It should feel out of reach, so that there is broader acceptance that a grade lower than the top is truly great to obtain. In other words, as a student, you are free from having to reach the top," he explains.

That said, Søren Schrøder Rischel emphasises that the pressure experienced by many students will not be alleviated simply by introducing a new scale. 

"It is positive what’s being done now, but it will not solve the performance culture right away. We also bear a great responsibility at the educational institutions, where I see a problem with too many people getting grades that are too high. But there’s also something to be said for the fact that we as students feel that our personalities are being assessed, but it’s our efforts and performance that are being graded.”

The Student Council: It rings hollow to say that you’ll ease the pressure after having removed the sixth year of ‘SU’ 

For the Student Council at Aarhus University, it’s important that the new grading scale is transparent for students and easy to convert in an international context, says chair Daniel Hjort. 

The new 8-point scale will be much more similar to the common European scale in terms of weighting. It provides a more even weighting, is more transparent, gives more accurate average grades and is more competitive for Danish students abroad," he says.

However, Daniel Hjort is critical of the government's decision to maintain two failing grades.

It’s positive that it’s no longer possible to receive a negative grade, but what is valuable if you fail is feedback from the teacher, so you gain an understanding of what it takes to pass. By retaining two failing grades, the scale is also not internationally convertible.”

When asked whether the new scale can alleviate the pressure on students to achieve high grades, Daniel Hjort replies:

A grading system is far from enough to eliminate that pressure. It comes from many different places – it's the feeling that you have to do well to someday become something: You need good grades to get into university, you need good grades to get a student job, and you need good grades to get a job. This has consequences that require targeted efforts," says Daniel Hjort, continuing:

"And it rings a bit hollow when the government say they’ll ease the pressure with a new grading scale, and they have just removed the sixth year of SU (Education Grant and Loan Scheme in Denmark), which puts pressure on students to make the right choice the first time around, while at the same time universities are imposing requirements on how long you can fall behind in your studies."

He can immediately see both the advantages and disadvantages of the number 12 with a star: 

"It’s good to recognise students for their extraordinary efforts, but we must be careful about the discourse and rhetoric we choose to use around this opportunity, so that it doesn’t become a new source of pressure."

PRO-RECTOR: An important shift in focus, but 12* is difficult to see the point of

According to Berit Eika, Vice-Rector at Aarhus University, there are several positive elements in the government's proposal for a new grading scale. Among other things, the Vice-Chancellor highlights the shift in focus that the government is proposing with the new scale.

"You shift your focus from what pulls you down to what pulls you up. It fits well with a university mindset, but I doubt it will make any difference in terms of pressure to get good grades. It’s an important shift, but many other factors play a role in relation to the pressure young people feel," the pro-rector says.

She points out that a scale must be transparent and easy to understand for those who are to be assessed and for those who are to assess according to it. That’s why she also welcomes the two new average grades, 6 and 8, as they help to nuance the middle of the scale. However, given the need for an easily understandable scale, she finds it surprising that the government is sticking to two failing grades, where the gap is also smaller than in the rest of the scale.

"The important thing is whether you are on one side or the other of the failing grade," says the pro-rector, who nevertheless acknowledges that it may be reasonable to distinguish between whether a student has actually tried or simply handed in a blank paper. This could also have been achieved by setting the dump limit at 4 instead of 2, she adds. 

However, Berit Eika finds it difficult to see the point of the government's proposal to introduce a grade of 12 with a star to recognise exceptionally good performance:

"I understand the need to reward extraordinary effort, but I find it difficult to see what use the star will be if it’s not converted into a number or letter on the certificate. It seems like a compromise that will not be particularly viable in practice. A straight 12 can do it," says Berit Eika, who also hopes that the new scale will have a longer lifespan than the current scale, which has been in use for less than 20 years. 

"There are many transaction costs associated with changing the grading scale, so it shouldn’t be done too often," says the pro-rector, who helped implement the current scale in 2007. At that time, she was head of the educational unit at the then Faculty of Health Sciences at AU. 

"It took a lot of energy to introduce, and even though we probably have better digital support for implementation today, a long implementation period is necessary," she says.

When asked how the new scale – without the grade -3 and with more middle grades – might affect average grades and the minimum average grade, she replies:

It will be difficult to isolate what is due to the new scale and what is due to other measures, such as rightsizing. We expect that the rightsizing alone will result in higher grade requirements for the programmes."

PROFESSOR: The new scale will not make a decisive difference to young people's well-being

Simon Calmar Andersen is a professor of political science at Aarhus University and a member of the Welfare Commission. Earlier this year, the Commission published its report with 35 recommendations (in Danish) for improving the well-being of children and young people, including changing the grading scale to focus less on shortcomings and to reduce the gaps between grades on the scale. Despite both elements being part of the government's proposal for a new grading scale, Simon Calmar Andersen, like the pro-rector, doesn’t believe the new scale will make a significant difference to young people's well-being and experience of pressure to achieve good grades.

"It may seem paradoxical in light of our recommendation, but in relation to the overall challenge of children and young people's well-being, a new structure for the grading scale alone will probably not make much difference. I base this on the fact that we see similar well-being challenges in many countries with different grading scales. However, there may still be good reasons to change it," Simon Calmar Andersen says, emphasising that it must be supplemented by educational solutions to the challenges of well-being. 

He acknowledges that the new scale is more even in its gradation and provides a better incentive structure. However, where he truly sees potential in the new scale is in relation to setting requirements that demand independence, critical thinking and creative problem solving.

"This is important in a world that is increasingly characterised by artificial intelligence, which is incredibly good at fulfilling predefined requirements, whereas artificial intelligence probably finds it more difficult to write an assignment that demonstrates independence, critical thinking and creativity – and that’s what we need to educate our young people to be able to do." 

Here, Simon Calmar Andersen sees an opportunity to award a grade of 12 with a star. 

"The star can be awarded for extra-good efforts that demonstrate independent and creative problem solving and critical thinking, but which aren’t so sharply defined that artificial intelligence can easily achieve them." 

However, as a teacher and assessor, Simon Calmar Andersen can see a dilemma in setting less specific requirements for students:

"On the one hand, setting clear and precise requirements for what must be achieved in each subject is an advantage for young people from educationally disadvantaged homes. On the other hand, however, this presents a disadvantage in terms of educating young people to think independently and critically. Personally, I would be happy to move towards less defined requirements," he says.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: THE POWER OF NUMBERS MEANS A LOT

Kristine Bagge Kousholt is an associate professor in educational psychology at DPU, where her research focuses on evaluation practices and testing in the education sector. She agrees with the others that changing the grading scale is not enough if you want to increase well-being and ease the pressure to perform among children and young people. However, she believes that there are several positive elements in the government's proposal for a new scale, highlighting the removal of negative grades, more steps in the middle of the scale and, not least, the changed focus in the descriptions.

“It's a good idea to change the focus of the grade descriptions so that students and pupils are no longer assessed from a deficiency perspective," she says, adding that improving well-being requires more than, for example, adjusting the grading scale. 

"What we know about well-being is that it’s, among other things, about relationships, strong communities, opportunities for influence and involvement. Well-being is always about more than just the individual. Among other things, it’s about creating good relationships between students and teachers and ensuring an evaluation practice that supports these aspects. Grading tends to promote individualisation, whereby we can lose sight of the interaction between the individual and what the individual is part of," Kristine Bagge Kousholt says. Therefore, grading at the university level could also be supplemented by more feedback and more descriptive or alternative assessment methods, which, however, must also be continuously examined and discussed.

Kristine Bagge Kousholt calls grading one of the most powerful ways to evaluate. 

"We describe performance with a single number, and we sometimes see that in the perception of a grade, there is a shift from performance to identity, as evidenced, for example, in the discourse on ‘straight A girls’," she says, adding: 

“The power of numbers means a lot. It can become quite defining for your self-image if you are used to getting high or low grades.” 

"But numbers aren't particularly good feedback," she says, which is why Kristine Bagge Kousholt also advocates that there should only be one failing grade, because the important thing for students is to know what it takes to pass, rather than whether they are one or two grades away from passing. She also points out that grading can hinder children's and young people's creativity in solving tasks.

"If you focus too much on grades, it can inhibit creativity, as you then tend to play it safe," she says.

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Lisa Enevoldsen