In a trend dubbed effort inflation, the more applicants competing in the college lottery, the more students pressure themselves to reach top rankings. However, when students can’t keep up with the rapid acceleration of the academic standard, they too often start to take easier ways to catch up, using shortcuts and violating academic integrity.

In fact, cheating is common in high-pressure Bay Area schools; a 2017 study showed that out of 1,561 Gunn High students, 84% of them reported instances of cheating. It’s safe to assume Saratoga High has similarly high levels of cheating.

I interviewed a dozen anonymous SHS students regarding their opinions on academic integrity. I asked questions based on a numerical scale and with free responses to ensure their confidentiality.

Of the 12, every participant rated their pressure to keep up with classmates a score of at least three out of five, with five being extremely pressured. Additionally, around two-thirds of applicants felt pressure to cheat before a deadline.

“It’s obviously going to be survival of the fittest when it comes to high school, but I just feel like there are some moments when I feel so tempted to use ChatGPT on an assignment just to boost my grade by a smidge,” one source said.

 Unsurprisingly, the prospect of college plays a role in these responses; 83% of all interviewees believe that getting into a “top” college guarantees success later in life. 

So what can teachers do to lower academic pressure while maintaining the individuality of students and academic integrity? Simply put, reduce the winner-takes-all mindset of major tests and assignments and instead focus grades more on growth and mastery.

The English department already uses a similar format with fall and spring writing assessments to measure growth in essay writing. This proposed model borrows that same logic: to start from a baseline and give students a chance to learn throughout the year and improve when the next assessment rolls around.

Extending that idea beyond English class, a schoolwide model could start with a short diagnostic test to set a baseline and review the knowledge of the prior curriculum. Grades would reflect two things: mastery at the end of a unit, but also growth from the start, with credit only for work that teachers can verify, such as a Google Doc draft logs and brief in-person check-ins, sometimes called oral exams. 

That differs from current point systems, where big tests carry most of the weight. 

To be fair, tests later in the semester can sometimes raise early low scores, but they can still hide the progress of learning when anxiety, a bad day or a narrow grading rubric keeps scores from moving. 

For that reason, this proposed model gives credit for proof of work, so progress shows up in the grade even when a single test doesn’t.

Take an example like this: Student A scores a 70% on their essay but scores an 83% on their next one. Taking the same exam, Student B scores a 90% on their essay and a 91% on their subsequent essay. 

Although the grade average of Student A is noticeably lower than that of Student B, Student A should be given growth credit for making a major percentage improvement between their essays — a reflection of their honest work and how well they performed later. 

Because this system rewards visible improvement, students can see a fair path forward even after a stumble. That steers the outcome from taking shortcuts in practice and keeps them on the path of academic integrity. 

A bad grade can definitely motivate, but it often motivates point-chasing rather than actual reflection and learning; a growth score directs effort into revision and improvement because only that earns credit. It also encourages a growth mindset: allowing students to look ahead, keep track of small gains and treat failure as an opportunity to do better, not an obstacle.

Additionally, to minimize academic pressure and the workload of students, teachers should try to coordinate with other teachers about major assessments across the week so tests don’t pile up on the same day. With fewer overlapping major assessments, more students can focus on their own development.

End-of-year work would stay the same under this model — finals, projects and portfolios. The only difference is the addition of a growth check where students revisit an old assignment and explain the mistakes they made and how they improved. Teachers score using a simple rubric and count it as a part of the grade, so improvement is visible and students can reflect on their own progress.

During the final months of high school, when seniors apply for colleges, transcripts will still list letter grades and teachers will still separately send a school-verified evaluation of each student’s effort and perseverance through letters of recommendation.

By emphasizing growth over test-taking success, teachers can help students learn skills that will stick throughout their whole life, decrease academic pressure and encourage students to be the best versions of themselves.