Why SSC rankings need a better yardstick
Every year, SSC results generate celebrations, headlines and rankings of the “best” educational institutions. But behind those rankings lies a fundamental question: what exactly makes a school the best?
Consider two schools. The first had only 16 SSC candidates. Fifteen passed, giving it a 93.75 per cent pass rate, but none achieved GPA-5. The second had 497 candidates, of whom 338 passed, producing a pass rate of approximately 67.99 per cent. Yet it produced 14 GPA-5 achievers.
If pass rate alone determines the ranking, the first school will naturally appear superior. But does a 93.75 per cent pass rate necessarily mean better educational performance than a 67.99 per cent rate?
The mathematics is correct. The interpretation may not be.
A percentage is a useful indicator, but it does not tell the entire story. Fifteen students passing out of 16 is undoubtedly an achievement.
Yet helping 338 students pass out of 497 is also a substantial accomplishment. Behind those 338 successful candidates are hundreds of students, families and teachers whose collective efforts cannot simply be reduced to a percentage.
The problem becomes more apparent when we consider cohort size. In a group of 16, one student can change the pass rate by more than six percentage points. In a group of nearly 500, the impact of one or two students is far smaller. A small cohort can therefore produce a very high percentage without necessarily demonstrating greater overall institutional performance.
This does not mean small schools should be penalised. It means rate and scale should be considered together.
GPA-5 achievements also deserve attention. If one school with 16 candidates ranks first because 15 students passed, despite having no GPA-5 achievers, while another with nearly 500 candidates produces 14 GPA-5 students and hundreds of successful candidates, a pass-rate-only ranking leaves an important part of the picture invisible
Education is not simply about preventing failure. A good institution should help weaker students improve, enable average students to perform better and help high achievers reach their potential.
A better way to rank schools
Bangladesh needs a more comprehensive approach to institutional rankings. A possible 100-mark framework could consider:
# Pass rate – 25
# GPA-5 rate – 20
# Number of successful candidates – 15
# Average GPA or marks – 15
# Performance in core subjects – 10
# Consistency over three years – 10
# Improvement in student performance – 5
This is not an existing formula, but a policy proposal intended to illustrate how multiple indicators could produce a fairer assessment.
Neither GPA-5 nor the number of successful candidates should be considered in isolation. Twenty GPA-5 achievers among 100 students and 20 among 500 represent different levels of institutional performance. Both proportion and absolute numbers matter.
Schools with very small cohorts could also be recognised separately under a “Small Cohort Excellence” category, while larger institutions could be assessed for “Large Cohort Excellence”.
This would recognise different forms of achievement without placing them in an unfair statistical contest.
One year is not enough
A school should not be judged by a single examination year. Results can vary because of the strength of a particular student cohort, changes in teaching staff, admission patterns and other circumstances.
Ideally, institutional performance should be assessed over at least three years, with longer-term trends providing an even stronger basis.
Context matters too.
Can a school serving an economically disadvantaged rural community always be judged by exactly the same yardstick as a school whose students enter with stronger academic preparation and greater support at home?
This is where value-added assessment becomes important. We should ask not only, “Where did the student finish?” but also, “Where did the student begin, and how far did the school help the student progress?”
The real issue is the yardstick
Whenever a newspaper, organisation or authority publishes a “Top 20 Schools” list, it should clearly disclose its methodology: pass rate, GPA-5 rate, cohort size, average performance and the number of years considered.
Official examination results are data. Declaring a “best school” is an interpretation of that data.
Education is not a cricket match decided by a single score. It is a multidimensional process involving quality, scale, equity, consistency and progress.
The question, therefore, should not simply be, “Who is number one?”
It should be: Who is performing well, in what way, under what circumstances, and how effectively is the institution helping its students move forward?
The wrong yardstick can make us judge the right institutions wrongly. Bangladesh must therefore move beyond a competition of percentages towards a more transparent, contextual and meaningful assessment of the true quality of education.
(The write is a teacher, poet and columnist)
