Even in times of crisis, high educational standards are crucial - Cecilia Adekoya
Across the UK, several universities have adopted a Safety Net policy-also known as the no detriment policy- for their students. First introduced in early 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the policy worked as a way to mitigate any detrimental effect the pandemic would have on grades. It meant that a graduating student would not be awarded a mark lower than their previous academic years.
As we are well over a year into the pandemic, universities have chosen to extend this policy, from Sheffield to Cardiff and beyond. However, despite the overwhelming support for Safety Net policies, it is worth discussing the impact they have on the integrity of degrees.
The general consensus amongst university students who demand a Safety Net, is that the pandemic has not only worsened mental health, but it has caused students to adjust to environments that may not be helpful in their learning. An open letter by Cambridge SU states: “the reality is that the anxieties, stresses, and pains of living through a pandemic are still affecting students.” This is true. Doing remote learning effectively is no easy feat, the closing down of society and the normalisation of isolation can negatively affect one’s mental health. Yet it is possible to acknowledge this whilst also realising that it should not affect the responsibility that higher education institutions (HEIs) have to provide rigorous instruction and assessment. We must look at the bigger picture here, away from student grievances, as genuine as they are.
A Safety Net Policy does not account for a student’s academic capability in challenging circumstances. For example, one university’s provisional policy will lower the grade boundary for a 2:1, down to 59 from 60. HEIs ought to be willing to expect the same of all students and believe they are able of rising to the challenge that this pandemic has brought. Individuals to whom the no detriment policy may apply are not graded according to the same standards as their fellow course-mates.
Russell Group universities released a joint statement stating that they will not be extending the Safety Net policy on January 7th 2021. In it they said:
“Russell Group universities have a duty to all students to protect academic standards and uphold the integrity of our degrees”. A university which implements the policy, whether Russell Group or not, has categorically failed in their duty to protect academic principles for all students. It is partial, unfair, and demeaning in its assumption that not all students are capable of meeting their expectations.
Not only does a no detriment policy betray academic standards but it also absolves a student of personal responsibility. As I said earlier, adjusting to a complete lifestyle change is not something to be overlooked, but surely resilience and conscientiousness are admirable qualities. What advantage does it bring if we seek evasion in the face of difficulty and in the name of safety? Does it benefit anyone to place blame on a virus that possesses no prejudice? Imagine for a moment a final year university student; he has been cruising through his degree and does the minimum required of him. Halfway through his final year, in March 2020, his university rolls out a Safety Net policy. He has an average mark of 65, a mid-2:1, allowing him to graduate university with that grade. This means that even if he later happens to be graded 58, a high 2:2, on an assignment, the Safety Net reels him in nicely. Note that I am not, in any way, painting students in a broad stroke to assume that they are all like this. The reason I am giving this example is to highlight how idle students like the one imagined may take advantage of a no detriment policy.
Or take another student, for example, who excuses herself of self-discipline in the age of remote learning, and refuses to act in that regard. Her low grade, contrasted with an average of 68, will not be seen for what is truly is: a fault on her part. How can HEIs regulate personal responsibility with a no detriment policy?
Finally, a Safety Net is a kind of differentiation which helps no one. HEIs want to support their students, and I commend them for that. However, personalising results leads us in the opposite direction. It does not work because, as Katie Ashford said, ‘labels inevitably colour our view of the [student].’ There are several other factors I have not discussed, granted. Though, just because a student’s circumstances are different from others does not necessarily mean that they should be assessed differently. On the other hand, Tom Sherrington, in the same debate, considers personalised learning to be good, because it offers elements of choice. However, he agrees that aiming low is a bad form of personalised learning. In the words of Ashford, ‘is it unreasonable to ask that every [student] is pushed as far as possible every single lesson, every single day?’
How, then, can HEIs fairly mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic? The defining principle that must guide universities is impartiality. Instead of differentiating or personalising, HEIs can scaffold. How is this different? I would suggest that rather than moving the goalposts, we should support the journey a student takes to reach the goal.
The Glossary of Education Reform defines it as:
“a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively towards stronger understanding and, ultimately, greater independence in the learning process.” Rather than providing entirely different goals, break up the learning experiences to aid understanding for all. This can be supported by more explicit instruction.Tell students exactly what they need to do in their corresponding courses. This is not in anyway overindulging students - it actually equips them with the knowledge they need to succeed even in the most difficult circumstances.
In a chapter titled ‘How Direct Instruction can improve affective factors’, Sarah Barker lays out the case for explicit teaching. Affective factors refer to “the emotional factors that impact on human behaviour. These may include, but are not limited to, factors such as motivation and self-concept”. Research shows that students’ positive perceptions of their own competence within a domain are “motivational precursors of achievement outcomes”’. In other words, the more confident a student feels of their academic ability, the more likely they are to succeed. What does scaffolding and explicit instruction have to do with affective factors? They can greatly improve a student’s perception of their competence. In reality, this can look like a breakdown of the success criteria or essay workshops. Model excellence, and students will follow.
As hard as universities may try, and as much as students may demand, achieving equal outcomes is a fallacy. Thomas Sowell cleverly says: “If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected–or assumed –when conditions are not nearly so comparable?” It should also be noted that the Safety Net policy is not applied to courses that include external professional accreditation requirements, such as medicine or psychology. Students must continue meeting the standards of these awarding bodies. Why then are universities not seen in the same way? Are they not also centres of academic excellence?
By Cecilia Adekoya