Publishing Top Achievers’ Examination Results on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review of Educational, Ethical, and Cultural Implications

Abstract

Schools increasingly publish lists and photographs of “top achievers” on social media after high-stakes examinations such as the Cambridge O Levels. While such practices are intended to celebrate academic success and enhance institutional reputation, they raise questions about motivation, equity, privacy, and cultural values. This systematic literature review synthesizes 34 studies and policy documents (2010–2025) across educational psychology, child-rights frameworks, and Islamic educational philosophy. Findings indicate that recognition can support motivation when framed around mastery and effort, but rapid public announcements amplify social comparison, marginalize the majority of learners, and create risks to children’s privacy. Policy guidance stresses consent and data minimization, while Islamic philosophy emphasizes humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and the common good (maslahah). The review concludes that public, early top achievers’ posts are not best practice. Instead, inclusive, cohort-based recognition and consent-driven processes better align with educational and ethical responsibilities. Recommendations include a decision matrix for schools and a policy checklist for safer recognition.

Keywords: Social media; academic achievement; recognition; adolescent well-being; privacy; child rights; Islamic education; systematic review

1. Introduction

Public recognition of academic success has long been embedded in educational traditions, most often expressed through prize-giving ceremonies, certificates, and official celebrations. In recent years, the growth of digital platforms has transformed recognition practices. Schools now increasingly publish lists and images of their “top achievers” on social media within hours of high-stakes examination results being released, particularly in contexts such as the Maldives where Cambridge O Levels serve as a benchmark of school performance.

Although these practices aim to celebrate student success and showcase institutional excellence, they also raise important concerns. From an educational psychology perspective, recognition may foster motivation but can also intensify unhealthy competition and exclusion. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) found that motivational beliefs strongly shape how students interpret achievement, while Ryan and Deci (2020) emphasized that recognition promotes sustained learning when linked to intrinsic goals rather than external comparisons. Nesi and Prinstein (2015) demonstrated that adolescents exposed to achievement-based social comparison on social media report higher levels of depressive symptoms and reduced self-esteem. Thus, recognition that is framed competitively, especially in online spaces, can be detrimental for many learners.

From a digital rights perspective, the publication of names, grades, and images of minors raises immediate safeguarding concerns. International policy guidance has become increasingly explicit: the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (OHCHR, 2021) urges that children’s data must only be shared with informed consent, UNESCO (2022) warns of long-term digital footprints, and UNICEF (2021) encourages schools to foster digital civic responsibility. Bessant (2024) adds that the use of school social media platforms for publicity may undermine children’s rights to privacy and autonomy, creating tensions between institutional marketing and ethical responsibility.

From an Islamic educational philosophy perspective, recognition must align with values of humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and communal well-being (maslahah). In’ami and Wekke (2025) argue that education should nurture dignity and justice rather than boastfulness. Qur’anic guidance (31:18; 53:32) cautions against arrogance and praises humility. In this light, immediate competitive postings may conflict with ethical principles by prioritizing institutional prestige over the collective flourishing of students.

It is also essential to distinguish between formal recognition ceremonies and immediate social media postings. The former—such as prize-giving days or graduation events—have long served as valuable opportunities for community celebration, often inclusive of multiple forms of achievement. By contrast, immediate social media postings occur within hours of exam results, functioning less as student-centered recognition and more as institutional public relations. This distinction matters because the risks of exclusion, privacy violations, and ostentation are amplified when recognition is expressed competitively and publicly.

Despite ongoing debates, no systematic review has yet synthesized insights from psychology, rights, and philosophy to evaluate whether this recognition practice is educationally and ethically sound. This study addresses this gap by drawing together evidence and offering recommendations relevant to the Maldivian context and comparable small-island states.

Aims and Research Questions

The aim of this review is to evaluate the educational, ethical, and cultural implications of publishing top achievers’ examination results on social media and to propose evidence-informed recommendations for schools.

This review was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the educational psychology impacts of publishing top achievers’ results on social media (motivation, social comparison, equity)?
2. What are the digital rights and ethical implications of publicly sharing minors’ exam outcomes online?
3. How can Islamic educational philosophy (adab, niyyah, maslahah) inform ethical best practices for student recognition?
4. What evidence-informed recommendations can guide schools toward inclusive and responsible recognition practices?

2. Method

2.1 Databases Searched

To ensure both breadth and depth, searches were conducted across multiple international and educational databases, including ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, JSTOR, the UNESCO Repository, and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). These databases were selected for their comprehensive coverage of educational psychology, policy, and child-rights literature, ensuring relevance to the study’s focus.

2.2 Search Terms

The search process was conducted in two stages to balance breadth and specificity.

• Stage 1 – Broad Boolean Search
  (“academic achievement” OR “exam results” OR “student performance”) AND (“social media” OR “school publicity” OR “online publication”) AND (“student motivation” OR “social comparison” OR “privacy” OR “child rights”)
• Stage 2 – Refined Search Terms
  (“school social media” OR “publication of exam results” OR “top achievers”) AND (“motivation” OR “equity” OR “privacy” OR “Islamic education”)

Filters Applied

• Language: English
• Publication years: 2010–2025
• Document types: Peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, policy documents
• Search fields: Titles and abstracts

2.3 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

• Inclusion: Peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and policy documents; published in English between 2010–2025; addressing recognition, motivation, social comparison, privacy/data protection, or Islamic educational philosophy.
• Exclusion: Anecdotal blogs, corporate promotional material, non-school contexts, and non-English sources.

2.4 Data Analysis

Data were extracted on authorship, country, research design, thematic focus, and key findings. A thematic synthesis approach was used to categorize findings into three domains: (i) educational psychology, (ii) digital rights and policy, and (iii) Islamic educational philosophy.

2.5 PRISMA Flow and Search Results

The PRISMA framework guided the identification and screening process. The detailed counts for each database and round are provided below (click to expand):

Table 1. Search results by resource and screening stage (click to expand) ▸

Resource	Results of Round 1	Results of Round 2	Eligible after Screening
ERIC	4,200	95	21
Google Scholar	14,300	123	5
JSTOR	2,000	37	3
Scopus	3,800	42	6
Web of Science	2,600	29	4
UNESCO Repository	800	16	6
EASNIE	150	11	4
Total	27,850	353	49

Table 1. Search results by resource across two rounds, with items eligible after screening.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and screening process (click to expand) ▸

Open the diagram in a new tab

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and screening process. Note: All 34 included sources are listed in References; Table 2 presents a selected subset of 13 central studies and policy documents.

Out of 27,850 initial results, 353 records were identified through refined searches, and 49 articles were deemed eligible after screening. Following full-text review, 34 sources were included in the synthesis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Overview of Included Articles

The 34 included sources comprised peer-reviewed studies, UN and government policy documents, and conceptual works in Islamic philosophy. Most psychology-oriented studies were empirical, while policy and rights literature was largely normative or legal. Only a few works addressed small-island contexts directly, underscoring the importance of contextualizing insights for the Maldives. For clarity, Table 2 presents a selected subset of key sources (n = 13) that were most central to the analysis, while the full set of 34 included sources is captured in the PRISMA flow and listed in the References.

Table 2. Selected included sources (n = 13) (click to expand) ▸

Author(s) & Year	Country/Context	Method/Type	Focus/Findings
Eccles & Wigfield (2002)	USA	Theoretical review	Motivational beliefs shape learning goals
Deci, Koestner & Ryan (1999)	Multiple (Meta-analysis)	Meta-analysis	Extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation
Ryan & Deci (2020)	Global	Conceptual review	Self-determination theory in education
Nesi & Prinstein (2015)	USA	Survey study	Social media comparison linked to depressive symptoms
Harlen (2014)	UK	Policy review	Equity and fairness in assessment
Bessant (2024)	UK	Policy research	Social media and children’s rights to privacy/autonomy
OHCHR (2021)	UN (Global)	Legal/policy framework	Digital rights of children online
UK DfE (2023)	UK	Gov. policy guidance	Consent and data protection in schools
UNESCO (2022)	UNESCO (Global)	Policy report	Data protection and children’s digital footprint
UNICEF (2021)	UNICEF (Global)	Policy guidance	Digital civic responsibility in schools
Hattie (2012)	Global	Meta-synthesis	Visible learning – evidence on achievement drivers
Ball (2003)	UK	Critical policy analysis	Performativity and pressures in education
In’ami & Wekke (2025)	Indonesia/Malaysia	Conceptual/philosophical	Adab, humility, and justice in Islamic education

Table 2. Selected included sources (n = 13), with country/context, method, and focus of findings.

3.2 Characteristics of Included Studies

Educational psychology studies included meta-analyses (Deci et al., 1999), survey-based adolescent research (Nesi & Prinstein, 2015), and theoretical syntheses (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Policy sources were primarily international (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021), with limited local Maldivian contributions.

Table 3. Best practice framework: recommendations linked to psychology, policy, and Islamic bases (click to expand) ▸

Recommendation	Psychology Basis	Policy Basis	Islamic Basis
Cohort-level summaries	Limits harmful comparisons; emphasizes collective progress	UNICEF & UNESCO guidance on inclusive recognition	Maslahah (public good)
Delay named recognition	Preserves dignity; reduces immediate social comparison	UK DfE & ICO consent expectations	Adab (dignity, propriety)
Broaden recognition (academic, arts, service)	Motivates more students; values diverse strengths	Equity in assessment (Harlen, 2014)	ʿAdl (justice)
Ensure consent	Protects autonomy; respects student/parent choice	OHCHR General Comment No. 25	Niyyah (sincerity of intention)
Humble framing	Supports intrinsic motivation; avoids performative metrics	Safeguarding & privacy principles	Humility; avoidance of arrogance

Table 3. Best practice framework mapping recommendations to psychological, policy, and Islamic rationales.

Islamic philosophy sources emphasized textual and conceptual analysis (In’ami & Wekke, 2025). This uneven distribution highlights a lack of localized empirical research and underscores the need to interpret findings with contextual sensitivity for small-island settings.

Across these sources, consistent best practices emerged, including cohort-level recognition, delayed or private celebration, informed consent, and humility in framing achievements. These practices are synthesized in Table 3 (Best Practice Framework), which maps each recommendation to psychological, policy, and Islamic rationales.

3.3 Risk–Benefit Comparison

While schools may achieve reputational benefits and some students may feel pride from recognition, risks include exclusion, harmful social comparison, equity concerns, and potential breaches of privacy rights. These contrasts are summarized in Table 4, which highlights the tension between institutional gains and potential harms to learner well-being and rights.

Table 4. Risk–benefit comparison of recognition practices in schools’ social media use (click to expand) ▸

Dimension	Potential Benefits	Risks / Challenges
Motivation	Recognition inspires effort among some students	Undermines intrinsic motivation for non-featured students
Equity	Highlights academic excellence	Marginalizes majority of students
Well-being	Top achievers gain pride & validation	Upward social comparison harms self-esteem
Privacy & Rights	Transparency of outcomes	Exposure of minors’ data & images
Institutional Reputation	Boosts school branding & parental trust	May lead to competitive boasting among schools

Table 4. Risk–benefit comparison of recognition practices in schools’ social media use.

4. Discussion (Aligned with RQs)

4.1 Educational Psychology and Student Motivation (RQ1)

Recognition has long been shown to influence student motivation. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) and Ryan and Deci (2020) emphasize that recognition is most effective when it highlights effort, mastery, and growth rather than comparative ranking. However, when schools publish only a small subset of “top achievers’ posts” on social media, the context changes. Social comparison is intensified, as many students are excluded from recognition and perceive themselves as less capable. Nesi and Prinstein (2015) demonstrate that adolescents exposed to online academic rankings are more vulnerable to depressive symptoms and reduced self-esteem.

This distinction is critical: ceremonial recognition provides community and context that can support motivation, while social media postings amplify competitive pressures, risk humiliation for non-featured students, and shift the meaning of recognition from encouragement to comparison.

4.2 Digital Rights and Ethical Considerations (RQ2)

From a policy perspective, the evidence is consistent and cautionary. International standards (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021) emphasize that children’s personal data must be handled with strict safeguards, requiring informed consent and minimization of exposure. Rapid postings with names and images of minors rarely secure informed consent, and often prioritize institutional reputation over child protection. Bessant (2024) further documents how such practices undermine children’s digital autonomy.

This can also be situated within the broader culture of performativity in education. Ball (2003) argued that schools are under increasing pressure to publicly demonstrate success through metrics, league tables, and visibility. Immediate social media postings of exam results extend this performative logic: they act less as recognition for students and more as institutional marketing. By contrast, policy guidance such as that from the UK Department for Education (2023) provides explicit guardrails, requiring schools to ensure compliance with data protection law when publishing exam results.

4.3 Islamic Educational Philosophy (RQ3)

Islamic philosophy provides a distinct moral lens for evaluating recognition practices. Core concepts such as adab (dignity), niyyah (sincerity of intention), and maslahah (public good) establish ethical criteria for educational practice (In’ami & Wekke, 2025). Public boasting (riya’) is discouraged, and humility is consistently emphasized.

Qur’anic guidance reinforces this principle: “Do not turn your face away from people in arrogance, nor walk upon the earth exultantly” (Qur’an 31:18), and “Do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him” (Qur’an 53:32). These verses caution against arrogance and self-praise. Applied to education, immediate competitive postings risk crossing into ostentation, where institutional prestige is prioritized over the collective flourishing of students. By contrast, ceremonial recognition that values diverse achievements may be more consistent with Islamic educational ethics.

4.4 Implications for Practice (RQ4)

The synthesis of evidence points to clear implications for schools. Recognition practices should prioritize inclusivity, consent, and humility. Best practices include:

• Using cohort-level announcements (e.g., overall pass rates, group achievements) rather than publishing individual rankings.
• Recognizing diverse achievements beyond academics, such as service, creativity, and personal improvement.
• Ensuring opt-in consent for any named or visual recognition.
• Framing recognition in language that emphasizes effort, collective progress, and humility.

These implications align with Table 3 (Best Practice Framework) and illustrate how insights from psychology, digital rights, and Islamic philosophy converge on similar principles of fairness and protection. Harlen (2014) and Hattie (2012) both show that recognition which emphasizes effort and inclusivity has far stronger long-term educational value than narrow comparative rankings.

4.5 Overall Synthesis

Recognition itself is not inherently problematic; its form and timing determine its impact. Ceremonial recognition, framed inclusively, can foster community pride and align with educational psychology, rights frameworks, and Islamic ethics. Immediate social media postings of top achievers’ results, however, often function primarily as institutional public relations. This reframes recognition as competition, intensifies social comparison, undermines equity, and risks children’s rights violations.

This dynamic can be further understood through Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), which holds that motivation is supported when recognition enhances autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Ceremonial recognition tends to support competence and relatedness, while social media postings undermine autonomy and often erode relatedness. In addition, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory situates recognition within multiple layers of influence: while ceremonies are grounded in the microsystem of school and family, online postings escalate to the exosystem of public opinion and macrosystem of competitive policy culture, amplifying pressures on students.

An integrated reading of these theories, combined with psychology, rights, and Islamic philosophy, points toward recognition practices that balance excellence with equity, safeguard dignity, and promote collective well-being.

5. Conclusion

This review finds that while recognition can be a powerful motivator, the practice of publishing top achievers’ posts on social media carries significant risks. Evidence from educational psychology shows that recognition framed around mastery and effort supports motivation, whereas competitive online postings intensify social comparison and exclusion. Digital rights frameworks highlight the ethical and legal risks of exposing minors’ names and images without consent, often prioritizing institutional publicity over child protection. Islamic educational philosophy further cautions against ostentation, emphasizing humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and the collective good (maslahah).

Taken together, the evidence suggests that ceremonial recognition remains valuable when it is inclusive and contextually grounded, while immediate social media postings of top achievers’ results are ethically and educationally problematic. Schools should therefore transition toward recognition models that highlight collective achievement, safeguard dignity, and balance institutional and student interests.

6. Policy Recommendations

To translate these findings into practice, schools and policymakers should adopt a structured framework for recognition:

• Consent-first principle: Ministries of Education should issue explicit guidelines requiring opt-in consent before publishing names or photographs of students.
• Cohort-level announcements: Schools should emphasize cohort performance (e.g., overall pass rates, group achievements) rather than publishing individual rankings.
• Broadened recognition frameworks: Recognition should include diverse categories such as service, creativity, and personal improvement, not solely exam results.
• Ethical framing: Language used in recognition should emphasize humility and inclusivity, aligning with adab and maslahah.
• Decision tools: Schools should apply a structured decision matrix (see Table 5) to assess the purpose, risks, and safeguards before posting any exam-related content online.

Table 5. Decision matrix for school use when considering social media posts (click to expand) ▸

Test	Question	Proceed if…
Purpose (Niyyah)	Is student flourishing the primary intent (not PR)?	Yes, and purpose is documented.
Benefit vs Risk	Does benefit outweigh comparison/privacy risks?	Yes, after review.
Data Minimization	Can names/faces be avoided or made opt-in?	Yes, with opt-in/opt-out.
Inclusivity	Is the message cohort-centred?	Yes, avoids ranks/league tables.
Rights & Consent	Have families been informed/able to object?	Yes, with records kept.
Channel Safety	Is audience limited and removal route clear?	Yes, platform controls in place.

Table 5. Decision matrix guiding schools’ choices about publishing exam-related content on social media.

These recommendations align with international policy guidance (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021) and are reinforced by Islamic ethical principles, ensuring that recognition practices foster dignity, equity, and student well-being.

7. Future Research

Future research should focus on empirical studies in small-island developing states (SIDS), including the Maldives, to investigate the long-term effects of recognition practices on student well-being and equity. Longitudinal studies could examine whether social media exposure of exam results has measurable impacts on motivation, anxiety, and identity formation. Comparative research across cultural and policy contexts would also help refine guidelines that balance recognition with safeguarding. Such research would provide much-needed local evidence to complement the international literature synthesized in this review.

References (click to expand) ▸

• Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
• Bessant, C. (2024). School social media use and its impact upon children’s rights to privacy and autonomy. Computers & Education Open, 6, 100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100185
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
• Harlen, W. (2014). Assessment, standards and quality of learning in primary education. Cambridge Primary Review Trust. https://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FINAL-REPORT-ASSESSMENT.pdf
• Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522
• In’ami, M., & Wekke, I. S. (2025). Contextualising adab in Islamic education from the perspective of Al-Attas. Journal of Al-Tamaddun, 20(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.22452/JAT.vol20no1.11
• Nesi, J., & Prinstein, M. (2015). Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: Associations with depressive symptoms and self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(8), 1427–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9939-8
• OHCHR. (2021). General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3926974
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
• UK Department for Education. (2023). Data protection in schools: Publishing exam results. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/data-protection-in-schools
• UNESCO. (2022). Minding the data: protecting learners’ privacy and security. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381494 (ISBN: 978-92-3-100525-1)
• UNICEF. (2021). Digital civic responsibility: Guidance for schools. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/stories/digital-civic-responsibility-guidance-schools
• Qur’an 31:18. Available at https://quran.com/31/18
• Qur’an 53:32. Available at https://quran.com/53/32

Why 35 Marks Can Still Be a C: Understanding Exam Grade Thresholds

As an educator, I am writing this not for any other purpose than to share the truth with the public.

This article is not written on behalf of any authority or institution, but simply from my professional responsibility as someone who has worked in education for many years.

For the first time in Maldivian history, the grade thresholds (or grade boundaries) for the Secondary School Certificate Examination (SSCE) were published openly. This is a historic step towards transparency in assessment.

At the same time, it has also created confusion and concern among parents, students, and even some teachers — especially when they saw that a student with 35 marks could still be awarded a C grade.

Because this is new to the Maldivian context, it is natural for people to ask questions. My aim here is to explain what grade thresholds are, why they change, and why they are actually a fairness mechanism used all over the world, not a trick or weakness in the system.

How can a student who scored just 35 marks be awarded a C grade?

These questions are valid, but to answer them we need to understand how grade thresholds work, why they exist, and why they are essential for fairness.

Why do exam papers vary even if the syllabus is the same?

Even though students study the same syllabus, exam papers are never identical. Each year, exam boards must create new questions:

• Some years, questions are slightly harder (e.g., requiring deeper analysis).
• Other years, questions are more straightforward.

If raw mark cut-offs were fixed (like 70% = A every year), students sitting a harder paper would be unfairly penalized. Thresholds adjust for this variation, ensuring fairness across years (Ofqual, 2014; Cambridge Assessment, 2023).

What are grade thresholds and why do they matter?

Grade thresholds are the minimum marks required to earn a grade, like C, B, or A.

• They are not fixed percentages.
• They ensure a student of the same ability earns the same grade every year.

Minister’s Clarification
As the hon. minister highlighted, “student attainment is judged against standards, not raw marks.”

He further clarified that grade thresholds are not indicators of student weakness, but fairness mechanisms designed to ensure comparability across years. According to the Minister, thresholds are set through a combination of statistical equating (such as Z-scores and prior attainment models) and expert examiner judgment — not fixed raw mark cut-offs.

In short: thresholds ensure that a C in 2025 means the same as a C in 2020.

How do statistics (Z-scores) and examiner judgment work?

Statistical Equating (Z-scores):

• In Year A, the paper is relatively easy, and the average score is 65/100.
• In Year B, the paper is harder, and the average drops to 52/100.

If the grade cut-off for a “C” was fixed at 50 marks, students in Year A would have an unfair advantage, while students in Year B would be unfairly penalized. Z-scores resolve this by comparing how far each student’s performance is from the overall average, not just raw marks.

This way, a student slightly above average in both years still gets the same grade.

Expert Judgment:
Numbers alone aren’t enough. Senior examiners review scripts around grade boundaries. For example, they may check scripts scoring between 38–42 marks to decide if they genuinely reflect the quality of a Grade C standard. If the work shows the required skills, then the threshold for C may reasonably be set at 35 that year.

Together:
This balance of statistics and expert judgment ensures that grades reflect consistent standards across years (Newton, 2007).

DPE Clarification

Mr. Sulthan Ramiz, Head of the Department of Public Examinations (DPE), explained that the Maldives follows all required procedures to set thresholds, using both statistical models and examiner reviews. He confirmed that the process was also verified by Cambridge, who assured that this is the same standard they use internationally.

What would happen if there were no thresholds?

Without thresholds:

1. Students taking a harder paper could get unfairly low grades.
2. Students taking an easier paper could get inflated grades.
3. Grades would lose meaning — universities and employers couldn’t trust them.
4. Schools might focus only on raw marks instead of real understanding.

Thresholds are the safety mechanism that protects students.

Are thresholds used only in the Maldives?

No. Thresholds are a global best practice:

• Cambridge International (IGCSE & A Levels): grade boundaries change yearly.
• Ofqual, UK (GCSE & A Levels): thresholds adjusted to maintain standards.
• Singapore: some exams use bell-curve grading (Tan et al., 2020).
• India: moderation policies (CBSE, ICSE) ensure fairness.
• USA (SAT, GRE): Use equating so that a scaled score (e.g., 600) always represents the same level of ability across years, even if the raw marks needed to reach it change.
• Sri Lanka: Z-scores are used for university entrance (Aturupane, 2011).

These examples show thresholds are not arbitrary — they are global fairness practices.

Misconceptions about thresholds

• “Lower thresholds mean weaker students.” ❌ False. They reflect paper difficulty, not student ability.
• “High thresholds mean better students.” ❌ Not necessarily; the paper may be easier.
• “Thresholds are arbitrary.” ❌ Wrong. They are based on data + expert judgment.
• “Thresholds are fixed before the exam.” ❌ Incorrect. They are set after marking.

Why do thresholds matter for Maldivian students?

Many Maldivian students sit both local and international exams. When thresholds are misunderstood, it leads to confusion and frustration.

• A student scoring 65% this year and another scoring 65% next year might receive different grades.
• But in reality, both grades reflect the same level of achievement for their year.

Thresholds make sure grades stay fair and consistent, no matter how difficult the paper is.

Conclusion

Exams are not simply about percentage marks. They are about maintaining consistent standards across years.

Grade thresholds — determined by statistics and expert judgment, and verified internationally — ensure that an “A” in 2025 means the same as an “A” in 2020. For Maldivian parents and students, understanding this reduces anxiety and builds trust: the system is not designed to trick students, but to protect fairness and credibility.

Teacher FAQ on Grade Thresholds (click to expand)

Q1. If 35 marks can be a C, are marks meaningless?

No. Marks are the raw evidence of performance; thresholds interpret those marks in context so a Grade C represents the same achievement standard each year (Ofqual, 2014; Cambridge Assessment, 2023).

Q2. Can we compare students across different years?

Compare by grade, not raw marks. Thresholds are designed so that a C in 2025 means the same as a C in 2020 (Cresswell, 1996).

Q3. Isn’t it unfair if one year a C is 35 and another year 45?

It would be unfair not to adjust. Thresholds protect students from harder/easier papers so standards remain stable over time (Newton, 2007).

Q4. Is this new in Maldives?

Publishing thresholds is new and improves transparency. The underlying use of thresholds follows international practice (e.g., Cambridge) (Cambridge Assessment, 2023).

Q5. Who sets thresholds—statistics or people?

Both. Statistical equating (e.g., Z-scores) plus expert examiner review of borderline scripts ensure consistent standards (Z-score overview; Cresswell, 1996).

Q6. Isn’t examiner “judgment” subjective?

Judgment is guided by mark schemes and grade descriptors, serving as a quality check so numbers alone don’t distort meaning (Newton, 2007).

Q7. Should schools stop using fixed percentages in internal tests?

Fixed cut-offs can be practical for school quizzes. But high-stakes national/international exams use thresholds to keep results comparable over years (Ofqual, 2014).

Q8. Won’t thresholds make students think they can “pass” with low marks?

No. Thresholds don’t lower standards; they adjust the raw mark needed to reflect the same standard of achievement each year (Cambridge Assessment, 2023).

Q9. How can teachers explain thresholds to parents?

Use an analogy: some years the exam is a steeper climb; thresholds ensure reaching the same height earns the same grade. This helps reduce misconceptions (Tan et al., 2020).

Q10. Why do exam papers vary so much in difficulty if the syllabus is the same?

New papers must sample different skills and topics each year; some sessions lean more on analysis/problem-solving and feel harder. Thresholds compensate so grades remain comparable (Ofqual, 2014; Cambridge Assessment, 2023).

Q11. Are thresholds used globally?

Yes: Cambridge IGCSE/A Levels (annual boundaries), UK GCSE/A Levels (maintaining standards), SAT/GRE (equating scaled scores), Sri Lanka Z-scores for university entry (Cambridge; Ofqual; Aturupane, 2011).

References

Aturupane, H., & Wikramanayake, D. H. (2011). The promotion of social cohesion through education in Sri Lanka (South Asia Human Development Sector Discussion Paper Series No. 46). World Bank. Open Knowledge page | Direct PDF

Cambridge Assessment International Education. (2023). Grade threshold tables (IGCSE and A Levels). Cambridge International. https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and-qualifications/cambridge-upper-secondary/cambridge-igcse/grade-threshold-tables/

Cresswell, M. (1996). Defining, setting, and maintaining standards in curriculum-embedded examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 3(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594960030202

Newton, P. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701478321

Ofqual. (2014). Maintaining standards in qualifications over time. UK Government Publications. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fb4fc1ed3bf7f63d7075a39/Maintaining_Standards.pdf

Tan, L. Y. L., Yuen, B., Loo, W. L., Prinsloo, C., & Gan, M. (2020). Students’ conceptions of bell curve grading fairness in relation to goal orientation and motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2020.140107