Recently I made a suggestion on how to reverse or control grade inflation at my local college. I thought it might interest the group. Whether it will work or not, I do not know. Ron Blue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Faculty From: Ron Blue Subject: Suggestion for new Academic Standards policy Date: May 12, 2000 Policy for Review of Instructor’s Academic Standards: The average student is frequently poorly prepared for college level work. While it is desirable that students be developed to perform at the college level, this does not mean that inflating grades to create the illusion of college success is reasonable. Grade distributions vary considerably over different subject materials. The goal in reviewing instructor’s academic standards is to reduce or control grade inflation. It is the total grade distribution of an instructor that should be considered. In order to establish reasonable review of instructor’s academic standards the following guidelines are established: 1. No more than ten percent of the instructors shall be academically reviewed for quality per year regardless of review points generated from the below procedures. 2. The F grade category is defined for the purpose of review as the sum of the F, W, and Y grades. 3. Only classes having more that 14 students will be quality reviewed. 4. Night students have consistently out performed day students in classes taught by the same instructor using the same procedures. This higher level of performance does not mean the grades are inflated. Classes under this category would be assigned five negative review points. 5. Certain academic programs have highly selected student based on ability. These students could logically be expected to perform at higher standards. This higher level of performance does not mean the grades are inflated. Classes under this category with enrollment program restrictions would be assigned five negative review points. 6. Possible grade inflation suggesting academic review is defined as the following grade distribution: A > 15%, B > 25%, C > 45%, D < 15%, F < 5%. One positive review point is generated by each percentage grade deviation from the above standard. Example: Instructor A's grade distribution for class 1 was A=16%, B=27%, C=48%, D=4%, F=4%. Review points generated then would be A(16-15), B(27-25), C(48-45), D(15-4), F(5-4) or A=1, B=2, C=3, D=11, F=1 or 18 review points. 7. Adjustments suggesting no academic review is defined as the following grade distribution: D > 20%, F > 10%. One negative review point is generated by each percentage grade deviation from the above standard. Example: Instructor A's grade distribution for class 2 was D=30%, F=16%. Review points generated then would be D(20-30), F(10-16) or D= -10, F= -6 or - 16 review points. 8. The total number of review points generated for an instructor using the above procedures shall be added together and divided by the number of grade distributions or classes for an instructor. Example: class 1 = 18, class 2 = -16. Total Rp = 18 + (-16) = 2. Final Ri = Rp/2 = 1 9. Instructors’ review points are sorted by value. ® (review) is defined as the number generated by multiplying 10% of all instructors teaching during a academic year. Academic review shall not exceed this ® number of instructors. 10. In the event that the review points do not result in an automatic selection of review candidates, those candidates that are in the undetermined data range shall be randomly selected for ® review. 11. A committee of elected faculty shall review these instructor’s academic standards and make recommendations. Annually, the committee shall review this policy and make recommendations to the faculty for changes. DISCUSSION: It is likely that legislative pressure will mandate corrective accountability if the academic community does not act responsibly. This suggested policy is a reasonable step in self regulation and responsibility. Academic freedom is maintained in that the grade is determined by the instructor. A grade is a free speech statement made by an instructor at the request of the college and student by prior agreement. A review committee’s recommendations will also be free speech made by prior agreement between the college and instructor as a condition of employment. Reasonable self regulation and review is a legal standard that is a long recognized principle.
