Achievement Evaluation System, Now Schools Need to Change

Starting from the 2025 academic year, the achievement evaluation system has been officially introduced for first-year high school students, but when looking closely at the actual evaluation results of general high schools in the Jeonju region, a clear gap between the purpose of the system and the operation at the school level is evident. The achievement evaluation system aims to assess how much students have reached the achievement standards of the curriculum rather than ranking students against each other, and to provide supplementary guidance to students who are lacking. However, the results of some general high schools in the Jeonju region still show a focus on securing discriminatory power in a relative evaluation style, indicating that within the same region, the distribution of students' achievements varies significantly depending on the school.

This analysis focuses on how the differences between schools that operate the achievement evaluation system relatively in line with its purpose and those that do not manifest in the Jeonju region. In particular, comparing the school with the highest and lowest averages in the Common Mathematics 1 and 2 subjects, and looking at the regional average alongside, the core issues of the evaluation operation in the Jeonju region become more clearly apparent.

**Why is this issue important - Leading to disadvantages in college admissions**
The distortion of the achievement evaluation system does not end as a mere issue of school test results. Its repercussions are directly linked to students' university admissions. Recently, university admissions processes have been rapidly shifting away from the traditional relative evaluation ranking towards directly reflecting achievement evaluation results. Jeonbuk University plans to reflect 80% rank grades and 20% achievement levels in the calculation of subject grades starting from the 2028 academic year, and major universities in the Seoul metropolitan area such as Kyung Hee University and Sungkyunkwan University plan to introduce a method of selecting grades that are advantageous to students in both early and regular admissions based on relative evaluation grades and achievement levels.

The problem is that this change acts as a disadvantage, rather than an opportunity, for students attending schools that do not properly implement the achievement evaluation system. For example, in schools that continue to set difficult exams centered on relative evaluation, like the school with the lowest average, and apply fixed cut-off scores regardless of the actual achievement level of students, the proportion of A grades is only 1.2%. Even if students study at the same level, their achievement grades can vary significantly depending on which school they attend. While the relative evaluation grades do not differ between schools, the achievement results are directly influenced by the school's evaluation operation method. Ultimately, students at schools that do not adapt to the changes may find themselves in a disadvantageous position not only in the student comprehensive evaluation but also in the relatively objective academic evaluation that has been considered.

This is not a problem that can be overcome by individual student efforts alone. No matter how hard a student studies and understands over 90% of the course content, if the school sets very difficult exams and does not flexibly adjust the achievement standards, their efforts may not be recorded as an achievement grade of A. As the admission system begins to reflect absolute achievement levels, schools not changing their evaluation methods can lead to depriving students of actual opportunities for advancement, extending beyond an educational issue to practically depriving students of their chances for further education. Schools that do not adapt to change are essentially passing on the burden to their enrolled students.

**Comparing with P region highlights the issue**
The problem in the Jeonju region becomes more evident when compared with other regions. In the first semester of Common Mathematics 1, the average score in Jeonju was 68.0 points, while in the P region it was 67.9 points, almost similar. However, the proportion of A grades was significantly lower in Jeonju at 17.1% compared to 25.09% in the P region, and the proportion of E grades was much higher in Jeonju at 17.0% compared to 6.2% in the P region. In the second semester of Common Mathematics 2, although the averages were similar with Jeonju at 66.6 points and the P region at 66.48 points, the A grade proportion was 16.5% in Jeonju compared to 23.77% in the P region, and the E grade proportion was 22.0% in Jeonju compared to 8.08% in the P region, showing a widening gap.

These figures do not simply mean "students in Jeonju study less than students in Busan." Instead, they raise questions about how the evaluation criteria, test difficulty, achievement standards restructuring, and supplementary guidance systems are functioning at the school level, despite similar average scores but fewer top achieving students and more bottom achieving students.

**Why is this issue important**
The distortion of the achievement evaluation system does not just end as an issue of school tests. Recent university admissions processes are expanding to include not only relative evaluation grades but also achievement levels, with Jeonbuk University planning to reflect 80% rank grades and 20% achievement levels in subject grades starting from the 2028 academic year. Some universities in the metropolitan area also plan to replace relative evaluation grades with absolute achievement levels and reflect superior grades.

In this changing landscape, if schools only formally implement the achievement evaluation system, students may end up recording lower achievement levels despite studying the same material, which can have negative effects in both academic and student comprehensive evaluations. What is needed now is not a vague pessimism about the entire region but a clear analysis of schools that implement the achievement evaluation system relatively in line with its purpose and those that do not, to publicly examine the differences and make actual changes in school practices.

**Achievement evaluation system, now schools need to change**
The solution presented by the data is clear. It is necessary to restructure achievement standards and evaluations to match students' actual achievement levels, introduce estimated cut-off scores if needed to reduce distorted achievement distribution, strengthen supplementary guidance for E grade students, and prevention guidance for those falling short, and systematize item analysis and achievement analysis of regular test results to increase the reliability of evaluations.

Ultimately, the success or failure of the achievement evaluation system is not in the name of the system itself. Even within the Jeonju region, some schools are trying to preserve the spirit of the system, while others remain stuck in the inertia of relative evaluation. What is needed now is not a vague diagnosis of "the problem of all general high schools in Jeonju" but a clear distinction between schools that implement the system properly and those that do not, publicly scrutinizing the differences and making actual changes in school practices.

This article is based on achievement evaluation data collected and analyzed directly by Kwon Hyeok-seon, the president of the National Association of Secondary School Teachers, and expresses gratitude for President Kwon's efforts in contributing to the public discourse on education in the Jeonju region through data transparency.