Rethinking the BECE Grading System: A Call for Fairness

Recently, not only parents but also teachers are deeply worried about the grades their children obtained in the recently released BECE results.

Teachers and parents who have shown keen interest in their wards’ education developed certain expectations by matching each child’s ability with the grades they were likely to obtain. However, these expectations were shattered by the surprising grades some supposedly “good students” came out with.

For example, a relatively brilliant student at Yarigabisi JHS, who was expected to score an aggregate of 15 or better, ended up with an aggregate of 35. Shocking, right? This does not necessarily mean the student performed below his capability in the examination, but rather that his performance was compared with other candidates elsewhere—particularly in urban areas—who also took part in the same exam.

In other words, if a candidate scores 80% in Mathematics, it is not a guarantee that he or she will be given grade 1 or 2. A candidate who scores 80% in all six subjects—Mathematics, English Language, Science, Social Studies, Computing, and BDT—may still end up with grade 4s or 5s in all subjects, depending on the number of other brilliant candidates who scored 81% and above in each subject. This type of grading system, adopted by WAEC, is known as the Stanine Grading System.

Understanding the Stanine System

BECE has moved from being a Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) to a Norm-Referenced Test (NRT) in recent years.

A Criterion-Referenced Test assesses candidates against predetermined curriculum standards. For example, curriculum standards may set 80% and above as grade 1, 75–79% as grade 2, and so on.

In contrast, a Norm-Referenced Test assesses candidates by comparing their performance with others who took the same test. For instance, if 2,500 candidates sat for the same paper, they would be graded based on how each performed relative to the rest.

The BECE grading system, therefore, uses what is called the Stanine System (short for “Standard Nine”). Under this system, scores are compared and scaled to one another using a range from 1 to 9. It must be noted that Stanine scores are based on a group’s performance and cannot be used to scale a single score in isolation.

For example, when grading English Language, all candidates’ scores are compared with each other, much like in a norm-referenced test. The grading starts from the candidate with the highest score. So, if Solomon Kankan scored 95%—the highest among all candidates—he would receive grade 1. The next highest scorers would follow until 4% of all candidates (representing the top performers) are reached. Thus, a candidate could score 89% or even 90% but still not receive grade 1.

PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN FOR THE VARIOUS GRADES

4% of the total candidature = Grade 1

7% of the total candidature = Grade 2

12% of the total candidature = Grade 3

17% of the total candidature = Grade 4

20% of the total candidature = Grade 5

17% of the total candidature = Grade 6

12% of the total candidature = Grade 7

7% of the total candidature = Grade 8

4% of the total candidature = Grade 9.

Why This System Is Unfair

With this system, it is not necessarily how “good” a student is that determines the grade obtained, but rather how other candidates performed on the same paper.

This kind of grading system is making average students—especially those studying under deprived conditions—appear weak, even when they have performed creditably well by general standards. Many rural basic schools, particularly in the northern parts of Ghana, are producing results that do not reflect the true abilities of their learners. It has, therefore, become increasingly difficult to compare standards fairly between urban and rural schools.

A Call for Review

It is, therefore, necessary for the Ministry of Education, the Ghana Education Service (GES), and the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) to take a second look at this grading system.

The current norm-referenced approach does not provide a true reflection of learning outcomes and unfairly disadvantages students from less-endowed schools and communities. A fair, criterion-based system that rewards individual mastery of the curriculum, rather than relative comparison, will bring equity and restore confidence in our educational assessment.

Writer: Ania Moses Asaaba

A teacher and examiner, BECE