Using School Positions or Rankings as a Measure of Academic Performance: how this affects AGYW 

“Wow, she took 1st again this term and you went down to 13th position – you’re not serious with your education!” 
But what if these two children have almost the same grades? 

This common reaction in many African homes reflects a deeply rooted educational culture that equates class position with intelligence, effort, and future success. Yet, in many cases, two students may differ by only one or two percentage points or even share the same overall average and still be placed far apart in ranking because of how the rest of the class performed. This paper argues that using school positions or rankings as a primary measure of academic performance creates unnecessary psychological pressure, fuels unhealthy competition, and undermines holistic development, particularly in Cameroon and other African countries. Drawing on research and regional realities, it proposes a transition toward grading-based systems that prioritize mastery, equity, and student well-being. 

Introduction 

In Cameroon and many Sub-Saharan African countries, report cards often display not only a student’s average score but also their exact class position (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). This practice, inherited largely from colonial education structures, reflects a norm-referenced assessment model in which students are evaluated relative to their peers rather than against defined learning standards. While ranking systems were historically designed to reward excellence and promote competition, growing educational research shows that such systems can negatively affect adolescents’ mental health, motivation, and peer relationships. 

The question is not whether students should be assessed, but whether comparing children against one another is the most equitable and development-focused way to do so. 

Literature Review: Ranking vs. Grading Systems 

Expanded Literature Review: Ranking vs. Grading Systems 

The ranking system represents a norm-referenced assessment model, where a student’s achievement is interpreted relative to peers. In contrast, grading systems are criterion-referenced, meaning performance is measured against predetermined learning standards rather than against other students. 

Educational psychology research consistently shows that norm-referenced systems intensify competition and stress. The American Psychological Association (APA) reports that adolescents in highly competitive academic settings exhibit significantly higher levels of cortisol the stress hormone particularly during examination and result periods. Chronic exposure to such stress has been linked to sleep disturbances, decreased concentration, and emotional withdrawal. 

A 2018 study in the Journal of Educational Psychology found that students assessed under norm-referenced conditions experienced approximately 30% higher performance anxiety compared to students assessed under mastery-based systems. Importantly, the study noted that anxiety did not correlate with improved long-term learning retention. 

Further, research from the National Education Policy Center (U.S.) shows that competitive ranking environments reduce intrinsic motivation and increase fear-based learning behaviors. Students focus more on avoiding failure than on mastering content. 

The UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report (2021) emphasizes that formative and criterion-based assessment systems improve student retention and foster inclusive learning environments. Countries that emphasize mastery-based grading report lower dropout rates and higher classroom engagement. 

The OECD Education at a Glance data indicates that systems prioritizing growth and feedback rather than ranking demonstrate stronger student resilience and higher levels of reported academic satisfaction. In PISA surveys, students in lower-competition systems report significantly lower levels of test anxiety. 

Comparative Western Context 

Several Western countries have minimized or eliminated class ranking, particularly in early and lower secondary education: 

• Finland does not rank students in basic education. Assessment focuses on narrative feedback and criterion-based grading. Finnish students consistently perform above the OECD average in PISA assessments while reporting comparatively lower academic stress levels. 

• Canada largely avoids class position reporting, emphasizing achievement levels and descriptive feedback. Canadian provinces implementing formative assessment models report improved literacy outcomes and higher student engagement scores. 

• In parts of the United States, many high schools have eliminated class ranking due to concerns about mental health, competitiveness, and inequity. Studies show that schools that removed ranking saw improved collaboration and reduced academic pressure. 

• Norway and Sweden emphasize competency-based progression rather than class position. Research from Scandinavian education systems links reduced academic comparison to higher student life satisfaction. 

These models demonstrate that high academic performance does not require rigid ranking structures. On the contrary, reducing comparative assessment appears compatible with both academic excellence and psychological well-being. 

Why Ranking Persists in Cameroon and Other African Countries 

In Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, and several Francophone and Anglophone African countries, ranking remains widespread due to colonial legacies, cultural emphasis on academic prestige, and systemic pressures. Historically, British and French educational models emphasized competition as a pathway to identifying scholarship recipients and civil service candidates. 

Large class sizes in Cameroon  often exceeding 60 students per classroom in public schools also make ranking a convenient administrative tool. It allows teachers and administrators to quickly identify “top performers” in resource-limited contexts. Moreover, many parents associate first position with family honor and future success, reinforcing societal expectations. However, convenience does not necessarily translate into educational effectiveness. 

Impact of Ranking on Adolescents 

Within school environments, ranking systems reshape peer relationships and classroom culture. When positions are publicly announced, students internalize hierarchical labels  “first,” “average,” “last.” Over time, these labels influence self-concept. 

Research cited by UNICEF on adolescent well-being highlights that frequent academic comparison significantly lowers self-esteem among lower-ranked students. Students placed repeatedly at the bottom of rankings often develop learned helplessness  a psychological condition where individuals believe effort will not change outcomes. 

Among peers, ranking fosters competition rather than cooperation. Students may avoid helping classmates to protect their relative standing. Group learning suffers because knowledge becomes a competitive advantage rather than a shared resource. 

Bullying can also emerge along academic lines. In some African schools, lower-ranked students report being mocked, while top-ranked students may face social isolation due to perceptions of favoritism. 

Impact on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) 

Ranking systems create a high-pressure, competitive environment that can indirectly affect adolescents’ SRHR in several ways: 

Reduced confidence and self-efficacy: Students consistently ranked lower may internalize failure, lowering their confidence to seek information or services related to SRHR. They may fear judgment from peers or adults, making them less likely to ask questions about contraception, menstrual health, or safe sexual practices. 

Fear of making mistakes: The emphasis on outperforming peers can lead students to avoid engaging in discussions about SRHR, fearing that asking questions or expressing curiosity might be seen as “distracting” or “irrelevant” to academic excellence. 

Stress and mental health: Chronic stress from ranking can contribute to anxiety, depression, or social withdrawal. Research shows that adolescents under high stress are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors and less likely to access SRHR services responsibly. 

Inequitable access to SRHR knowledge: High-ranking students may dominate discussions or school health programs, while lower-ranked students may feel excluded, creating unequal exposure to SRHR education. 

Impact on Participation in Leadership Spaces 

Class rankings can also limit students’ engagement in leadership opportunities: 

Competition over collaboration: Ranking fosters a culture of rivalry rather than teamwork. Students may avoid group roles, peer mentorship, or student council participation to protect their relative academic standing. 

Lower-ranked students feel marginalized: Those consistently at the bottom may perceive that leadership roles are reserved for “top students,” reducing their willingness to volunteer for responsibilities or take initiative. 

Reinforced stereotypes: Teachers and peers may associate academic ranking with capability, assuming that only high-ranking students are competent leaders. This bias can prevent capable lower-ranked students from being given leadership opportunities. 

Missed skill development: Leadership and decision-making skills critical for community engagement and advocacy, including SRHR advocacy may be underdeveloped among students who feel academically “inadequate” due to their rank. 

Summary: In short, ranking systems can create fear, low self-esteem, and social barriers that limit adolescents’ ability to access SRHR information confidently and participate in leadership spaces. By contrast, grading-based, mastery-focused assessment supports inclusion, confidence, and active engagement helping students both make informed SRHR choices and step into leadership roles 

Teacher-Student Relationships 

Ranking can unintentionally shape teacher expectations. Teachers may devote more attention to high-ranking students, reinforcing performance gaps. Lower-ranked students may perceive bias or reduced encouragement. Educational psychology research shows that teacher expectations significantly influence student outcomes (Pygmalion effect). When students are consistently labeled as low performers, their academic growth may stagnate. 

Effects at Home 

At home, ranking often intensifies parental pressure. In many Cameroonian households, academic success is closely tied to family pride and economic hope. A drop in position even with improved grades may trigger disappointment or disciplinary measures. 

Parents may compare siblings or neighbors’ children, equating rank with effort or moral discipline. This creates emotional strain and can damage parent-child communication. Adolescents may conceal struggles to avoid criticism. 

The psychological consequences include: 

• Fear of failure 

• Conditional self-worth 

• Anxiety before result days 

• Reduced intrinsic motivation 

In extreme cases, persistent academic comparison has been linked globally to depressive symptoms and withdrawal behaviors among adolescents 

The Often-Overlooked Case Study: Same Grades, Different Positions 

Consider two students in a secondary school in Buea. Both score an average of 78%. In one class, where the highest average is 79%, the student ranks 2nd. In another class, where several students score above 85%, the same 78% places a student in 10th position. The percentage remains identical; the ranking differs dramatically due to cohort performance. 

This discrepancy creates a perception of inequality where none truly exists. The student ranked 10th may be labeled “average” or “weak,” despite achieving the same measurable academic competence as the student ranked 2nd elsewhere. Such comparisons distort the true meaning of achievement and can foster discrimination, low self-esteem, and unnecessary parental pressure. 

This phenomenon is common in Cameroonian schools, where positions are displayed publicly and sometimes announced in assemblies, amplifying social comparison and embarrassment. 

How Grading Systems Better Support Student Performance 

Grading systems shift focus from “Who is better?” to “What has been mastered?” Instead of rewarding relative superiority, they encourage individual progress. According to OECD data, mastery-oriented systems enhance resilience and long-term academic performance. 

In schools that rely solely on grades, students are more likely to collaborate and support one another. The emphasis moves from outperforming peers to understanding content deeply. Research indicates that formative assessment providing feedback rather than rank improves academic achievement and self-regulation skills. 

In African contexts where educational reform is ongoing, adopting grading-focused approaches aligns with inclusive education policies promoted by UNESCO and the African Union’s Continental Education Strategy for Africa (CESA 16–25). 

Why the Grading System Outperforms Ranking 

Grading systems reduce artificial scarcity. Instead of one “winner,” multiple students can achieve excellence if they meet established standards. This shifts focus from outperforming peers to achieving mastery. 

Research from the Brookings Institution indicates that mastery-based systems improve long-term retention and deeper learning. Students assessed through criterion-based grading demonstrate stronger metacognitive skills  the ability to evaluate and regulate their own learning. 

The OECD (2019) reports that students in lower-competition systems show higher collaborative problem-solving scores. Additionally, schools that emphasize formative feedback rather than ranking report improved classroom climate indicators. 

Grading systems allow students to track personal improvement. A student moving from 65% to 75% sees tangible progress. In ranking systems, that same improvement may not change position, discouraging effort. 

Importantly, high-achieving students also benefit. Without the constant pressure of maintaining first position, they experience reduced anxiety and healthier motivation patterns. 

Proposed Solution: Transitioning from Ranking to Grading 

Cameroon and similar African education systems could gradually remove class positions from report cards while strengthening criterion-based grading. Implementation would involve teacher training in formative assessment, clear national grading benchmarks, and public sensitization campaigns to educate parents on the benefits of mastery-based evaluation. 

How It Would Work 

1. Policy Reform: The Ministry of Education would remove mandatory class position reporting from report cards. 

2. Clear National Benchmarks: Establish standardized grading bands (e.g., A = 80–100%, B = 70–79%) aligned with curriculum competencies. 

3. Teacher Training: Equip teachers with skills in formative assessment, constructive feedback, and growth tracking. 

4. Progress Reports: Include narrative comments highlighting strengths, areas for improvement, and skill development. 

5. Parent Sensitization: Conduct awareness campaigns explaining why mastery-based grading supports better learning outcomes. 

What It Would Change 

Classroom culture would shift from competition to collaboration. Students would work together without fearing loss of position. Teachers would focus on helping every learner meet standards rather than producing a ranked list. 

Parents would evaluate progress based on skill acquisition rather than numerical hierarchy. This would reduce unhealthy comparison and encourage supportive engagement. 

Enhanced SRHR awareness and decision-making: Reduced stress and comparative pressure can improve students’ confidence and agency, enabling them to engage more openly in discussions about sexual and reproductive health, make informed choices, and seek guidance without fear of judgment. 

 Promotion of leadership opportunities: A mastery-based system encourages students to develop personal skills and take initiative without being constrained by hierarchical ranking, allowing more young people to pursue leadership roles in school clubs, community projects, or peer education initiatives 

Expected Effects 

• Lower academic anxiety levels. 

• Improved peer cooperation. 

• Stronger teacher-student trust. 

• Increased intrinsic motivation. 

• Greater focus on long-term competence rather than short-term competition. 

Over time, this could contribute to improved national learning outcomes, as students engage more deeply with content rather than studying primarily to secure positions. 

Small Interview Guide 

To understand lived experiences, the following questions may be explored: 

For current students: 

• How do you feel when your class position is announced? 

• Does ranking motivate or discourage you? 

• How do your parents respond to your position? 

For former students: 

• How did ranking affect your confidence? 

• Did it create pressure at home? 

• Would you prefer a grading-only system? 

Conclusion 

Ranking systems may appear objective, but they often mask inequities and create unnecessary psychological strain. In Cameroon and across Africa, where education is highly valued, reforming assessment methods is essential for protecting adolescent well-being and promoting equitable learning environments. 

A shift toward grading-based, mastery-focused assessment would not lower standards it would humanize them. By valuing growth over comparison, African education systems can nurture confident, collaborative, and resilient learners prepared not only to compete, but to contribute meaningfully to society. 

References 

American Psychological Association. (2014). Stress in America: Are teens adopting adults’ stress habits? American Psychological Association. 

Brookings Institution. (2018). Measuring mastery: Competency-based education and student outcomes. Brookings Institution Press. 

Journal of Educational Psychology. (2018). Performance anxiety in norm-referenced versus mastery-based assessment environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 765–780. 

National Education Policy Center. (2016). The effects of high-stakes testing and competitive school environments on student motivation. University of Colorado Boulder. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. 

UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021: Inclusive education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

UNICEF. (2019). The state of the world’s children 2019: Children, food and nutrition. United Nations Children’s Fund. 

UNICEF. (2021). Adolescent well-being framework. United Nations Children’s Fund. 

African Union. (2016). Continental education strategy for Africa (CESA 16–25). African Union Commission.