How universities are turning the corner on grade inflation

Universities implemented the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment’s (UKSCQA) statement of intent from 2019. The higher education sector has delivered on all four commitments with high engagement.

Over 118 universities have published degree outcomes statements in England and Wales. These public documents scrutinise degree outcome levels. We've published the list of statements in full.

University policies are now much more transparent to students. Universities are explaining how they calculate the classification of awards, what the different degree classifications mean and how external examiners ensure consistency between institutions.

We are seeing a more strategic focus on quality and standards. Universities are investing in data analytics and refocusing governance to strengthen standards.

Protecting standards will always be an ongoing process. We know there is more to do. Throughout 2023, we are working with Advance HE and GuildHE to improve training for governing bodies.

Academics are continually improving their teaching as encouraged by the Teaching Excellence Framework, enhancement-led institutional reviews and quality enhancement reviews.

Internally, university strategies also drive improved outcomes across their student body. To support this, universities are investing in digital infrastructure and professional training for teaching and learning. And of course, each year, students continue to bring hard work and dedication to their studies.

In this time, universities have put considerable resources into work to close awarding gaps – such as by working to create more inclusive learning environments. Progress here does not compromise standards, but may alter the proportion of upper awards.

• The gap between women and men achieving upper awards reduced from 3.5pp in 2018–19 to 1.9pp in 2020–21. 
• The gap in upper awards between students with a disability and those without reduced from 2.2pp in 2018–19 to 1pp in 2020–21. 
• The gap between white students and Black students awarded an upper award reduced by 4.2 pp, from 20.7% in 2018–19 to 16.5% in 2020–21. 

In the last few years, the pandemic has made progress more difficult. There was a 6pp increase in upper awards between 2018–19 and 2019–20. This happened following temporary but necessary measures to ensure students were not unfairly disadvantaged by the disruption.

Degree classification descriptors are not a strict criteria. Imposing something top down would stifle the freedom of higher education providers to innovate their assessment practice.

Instead, they are a common blueprint to help with transparency and consistency. When talking about a 2:1, for example, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the higher education sector to be referring to the same level of achievement.

Encouragingly, 97% of institutions that responded to our survey are integrating and aligning the descriptors into their academic rules.

But their use goes beyond this – for example:

• mapping sector-level descriptors to ensure alignment with institution-level or subject-level ones
• supporting the training and development of academics and external examiners, which enables the descriptors to support consistent marking judgements
• guiding the course approval process and assessment design
• supporting students to understand their academic progress and achievement

These are short public documents signed off by governing boards that:

1. review trends over several years
2. bring together regulations and policies that protect degree standards
3. outline actions and progress 

Institutions have now published over 118 degree outcomes statements. They are impressive and supply a huge evidence base for the sector.

• Increasing focus on quality and standards
  • Degree outcomes statements go beyond describing processes. They act as a forum to show how degree standards complement other priorities, like reducing the awarding gap and updating teaching and learning strategies.
  • Crucially, the statements have encouraged higher education providers to free more space within governing bodies to interrogate quality and standards.
• Generating action and change
  • ​​​​​​​Universities are producing meaningful degree outcomes statements. For example, they are identifying areas that may need more focus, and then convening task and finish groups to have searching conversations and start addressing challenges right across the institution.
  • 83% of our survey respondents had set actions or intended to do so because of their degree outcomes statements. It’s clear this is not a tick box exercise.

• Using data to intervene quickly

  • ​​​​​​​There’s been a drive for improved statistical information for exam boards and programme teams. Hosting data on dashboards allows universities to adopt a more proactive approach to degree standards.

  • During the pandemic, we saw how quickly academic rules can adapt without compromising their integrity. We are seeing examples of leaner governance processes, allowing for prompt interventions to protect standards.

• Improving transparency for students and staff

  • ​​​​​​​Students are receiving clearer information about how classifications are calculated and what they mean. Staff also benefit from more transparency. Programme teams are taking greater ownership to understand how their practice compares with others. But we know to ensure the statements are relevant they need to be regularly updated.

  • 87% of universities that responded to our survey have already revisited their statement at least once since it was introduced, with updates to data, policies, and actions.

To ensure fairness across university courses, we published six fundamental principles for effective degree algorithm design.

We know these principles are having an impact, with 93% of universities responding to our survey already reviewing their policies against the principles or intending to at their next regular review cycle for academic policies. With these principles, the dial has now shifted, and higher education providers are undertaking more frequent reviews.

A taster of what this looks like for universities includes:

• Interrogating the combined impact of an algorithm. This is to remove the cumulative and inflationary potential within an algorithm design.
• Ending the use of academic discretion at exam boards to ensure fairness for all students.
• Minimising the use of discounting, particularly at the final level of study or for core modules. This ensures the final classification is a genuine reflection of student achievement.
• Greater consistency in how algorithms weight levels of study. For example, drawing from the four weighting proportions the sector now widely uses, as appropriate for specific course types.
• Stricter borderline policies to ensure practice does not rewrite grade boundaries. For example, ensuring that a 2:1 is typically a mark of 60–69, or a 2:2 is typically a mark of 50–59.
• Giving students simple explanations of how algorithms work. For example, using online calculators to help students track their achievement.

The principles make sure degree standards and comparability are at the core of the external examiner role. They’re uncompromising on the need for external examiners’ independence and clear escalation processes when an external examiner has identified a potential concern. Despite the fact they were only published last year, we know that almost all our survey respondents plan to review their compliance.

Universities are evolving their external examiner practice by:

• Helping departments across a university work together through appointing chief external examiners to provide a university-wide view. These individuals also have an active role in reviewing degree outcomes statements.
• Developing a risk-based approach to external examiner workload and allocation. This involves changing the area of focus year on year to help more in depth reviews on a topic take place.
• Professionalising the role of the external examiner. Practically, this means more standardised working relationships between external examiners and programme teams. Since 2016, Advance HE’s degree standards project has been supporting training of external examiners across the UK. Universities are also taking a greater interest in who their examiners are and increasingly monitor the diversity of their examiner cohort.
• Creating more consistent opportunities for external examiner reports to be available to students. This may include improving visibility on virtual learning portals or setting aside dedicated time for student representatives to actively discuss the reports.

We said: We would publish an annual review of progress against the UKSCQA statement of intent.

We did: As with our previous annual reviews of progress, this publication demonstrates the significant strides the higher education sector has taken in the last few years to tackle long term increases in upper awards.

We said: Our members in England would publish degree outcomes statements by the end of 2022. These statements would describe how they will return to pre-pandemic levels.

We did: We've published a list of 118 degree outcomes statements by universities in England and Wales. The latest data shows the higher education sector is on track to return to pre-pandemic levels.

We've also continued to support higher education providers to reengage with commitments and activities paused during the pandemic. This has included running workshops, visiting institutions, and promoting our work in this area.

We said: We would work to support governing bodies to strengthen their scrutiny of degree classification trends.

We did: We're taking forward work to strengthen governance processes around degree standards. With Advance HE and GuildHE, we launched a series of roundtables to improve the training given to governors.

This includes nominated roles for governors to attend academic board meetings, and convening joint meetings between the governing body and academic board. Universities are also establishing academic sub-committees to their board focused on academic assurance.

This means recruiting governors from inside or outside the higher education sector. Some governors have a link role related to quality, where they will have more involved responsibilities.

This includes specific sessions delivered by institutional leads on quality and standards. Universities are being clearer with governors at the point of recruitment about their responsibilities for academic assurance.