07/18/25
Like many of my peers, my assessment story takes place upon the shift from high school to University. In high school, I achieved fantastic grades, consistent straight As, and I was even the Valedictorian of my class. When I moved on to University, I was aware that my grades would probably not be the 100s I was used to, and I was alright with that. However, what I did not expect was to no longer get As because professors “did not believe in giving As.” Within my first year at UVic, I had professor after professor mark my essays, my research papers, as high Bs with no critiques. When I asked what I could’ve improved upon to get an A, they would respond “Oh, nothing, I don’t give As.” If I were to get an A, maybe an 80%, the professor would tell me it was “perfect” but a perfect mark is a 100%, and they “just don’t give those.” I’ve had professors complain about this, that the University doesn’t want their grade average to be so high. So professors are forced to undercut students’ grades.
This is the most frustrating part of University, being told my work was strong but being penalized by arbitrary ceilings. The idea that perfect work is 80% contradicts the very nature of formative assessment. I wasn’t being assessed on clear criteria, but against a moving target. As a future educator, this displeases me. Students are shooting for a target that doesn’t exist, leading to frustration and academic burnout. If you have no critiques, no way to improve an assignment, it should be 100%.
In contrast, the BC Curriculum is taking a much more student-centred approach. Moving away from percentage grades and toward a proficiency-based assessment. This allows educators to provide constructive and actionable feedback so students can clearly see how to improve. Assessment is an opportunity to grow, rather than a final judgement.
On paper, the proficiency scale seems like a great way to make learning about learning, instead of grades. However, this scale is brand-new, and I, and many others, still have concerns about it. The proficiency scale doesn’t map neatly onto percentage or GPA scales. A “proficient” could be a B, A, or A+ depending on the person. “Extending” is reserved for great work, but some educators may argue that “great work” is still proficient, because that’s what students are aiming for. When applying to Universities (especially international ones), the proficiency scale may undervalue student achievements, as universities will see “Proficient” as average.
I have 3 little sisters, and we have discussed the proficiency scale greatly. No matter the label, students are still referring to grades with letters, except now, an “A” is unattainable. One of my sisters is in Grade 8, and she has voiced her frustration on this time after time. She gets 100% on every math worksheet, on every math test. She brought her report card home, and had received a “Proficient” in Math. She felt lost, confused, because how does she improve from 100%? The goal of “Extending” (or “A”) is gone. If she had gone through school at the same time I did, she would’ve received an A.
So, while BC is trying to become more student-centred, this is creating the same disparity I feel in University. Being perfect gets you the same mark as a 70%. Fully understanding (and being able to show your understanding) is no longer marked as “complete understanding.”
In sum, while the proficiency scale supports deep learning and can reduce anxiety around grades, it can cause great disadvantage for students going into post-secondary. Moving forward, the Ministry of Education should provide clear supporting documents which can be used to translate the proficiency scale to a regular percentage or GPA scale for post-secondary institutions.