The Ministry of Education launched in public consultation the project aimed at approving the “National Curriculum Reference Framework from Romania” (CRCNR), which, among other things, tries to standardize students’ grades.
Specifically, the little ones would receive only standardized tests, so that a student could get the same grades in any school, eliminating the differences between educational units.
Reactions in the system were not slow to appear. Georgiana Măniloiu, a teacher at a general school in Argeș county, told “Adevărul” that she sees the differences between the meaning of the same grade between different schools as something natural, not as a problem that needs to be solved:
“Yes, there are differences, but they are not necessarily a problem. Each school has its own context, its own students, its own challenges. A student from a rural school, which comes with many shortcomings, and a student from an elite, urban high school, cannot be evaluated by the same standard. The grade reflects the effort, progress and specificity of that class, so differences are natural.”
Ionela Neagu, a teacher at a high school in Bucharest, says that these differences are considerable and represent a reality that she frequently faces:
“The same grade on a paper or in the catalog can mean very different things from one school to another, from one teacher to another. I have also noticed this in joint assessments at school level or in wider projects, where I have corrected papers from several educational units. The gaps come from different expectations, from the class level, from the degree of demand of each teacher”.
As the discussion progresses towards solutions, the perspectives of the two teachers become divergent.
Regarding the ability of national assessment standards to solve this problem, Georgiana Măniloiu categorically rejects the idea:
“Uniform national standards will ignore the real differences between students or schools. Those who propose this system, like Mr. Dragoș Iliescu, who comes from the private sector and has an evaluation company, have a clear interest in selling standardized tests. I do not think that the Ministry should turn the school into a factory of measurements. The grade is not a product, and children are not lots of goods to be compared on a conveyor belt.”
Ionela Neagu has a more nuanced position: “It may reduce the problem, but it won’t eliminate it completely. Obviously it helps to know that we’re all held to the same benchmark, but grading is still a human act, and two teachers can interpret the same standards slightly differently. The current gap, which can be 2-3 points for the same paper, would be drastically reduced.”
Asked if the grade could become a more relevant indicator of the student’s real level of preparation, the two teachers give diametrically opposed answers.
Georgiana Măniloiu believes that the grade will become less relevant:
“You can’t force all teachers to grade the same, you’ll miss out on the very nuances that matter: creativity, critical thinking, how a student has pushed his or her own limits. A standardized grade can only capture mechanical, reproducible knowledge. Plus, there’s a risk that teachers are teaching students for the test, not for life. We’ve seen what happened with national assessments, it led to artificial preparation, stress and dumbing down. The same will happen on a larger scale.”
The new salary law divides Education in two: spectacular increases of 10,000 lei for bosses, crumbs for teachers
On the other hand, Ionela Neagu is less categorical: “Yes, grades could become more relevant under the new system, provided the standards are accompanied by adequate tools and thorough teacher training.”
As for the training of teachers to work with national assessment standards and with more complex analysis tools, Georgiana Măniloiu is firm:
“Teachers aren’t prepared, but they shouldn’t be. The current system is already choked with bureaucracy. We have blueprints, curriculum, reports, assessments. Adding another layer of standards and analysis tools only turns us into accountants, not educators. Many of my colleagues with decades of experience don’t need to be told from the center how to grade. Real preparation isn’t instruction from some so-called experts who haven’t sat in a classroom for years.”
Also, Ionela Neagu admits that, in general, teachers are not yet sufficiently prepared, but she sees an opening for learning:
“Many colleagues feel overwhelmed when they hear about ‘standards’. Therefore, success depends crucially on providing practical courses, simple guides and working models. If the ministry provides applied training and resources, teachers will adapt. Without these, we cannot expect anything good.”
Perhaps the most sensitive theme of the debate concerns teachers’ autonomy in the evaluation process. Georgiana Măniloiu warns that its loss is not only a risk, but a certainty, in the context of the proposal submitted by the Ministry of Education:
“Not only that there is a risk, it is almost certain. This is actually the real stake of this reform: the centralization of assessment and control over what we do in the classroom. If an inspector or a standardized test will tell me that I gave too high or too low marks, then what does it mean to be a teacher? Professional autonomy is the essence of our job. We are now gradually losing it, and this new framework is one more step towards transforming us into mere executors of orders from Bucharest.”
Ionela Neagu confirms that the risk is real, but adds more nuances:
“Some colleagues will perceive the standards as excessive uniformity and as a lack of confidence in their expertise. We will remain free, I hope, to choose the methods, pace, examples and didactic strategies. If this delimitation is clearly communicated, and teachers are consulted and involved in building the standards, then the risk decreases. Otherwise, there is a danger of rejecting the reform for reasons of professional prestige.”
