Grade Curve vs Grade Inflation

I have been wondering for some time whether NIE awards grades by criterion-referencing or norm-referencing. While in a certain class the other day we were told that the former is used, so that different tutorial groups in the same module are assessed with a consistent set of guidelines, I have also heard otherwise that NIE practices the grade curve.

NUS has been known to use a combination of absolute results and relative standing to derive a student's final grade. There is a moderation process that goes on behind the scene. It has been said far and wide that there is also a curve of some sort for EPMS, which means the bulk of grades given will have to be average, even though the grade descriptors for different bands are meant to correspond to how far the education officer exceeds or falls short of expectations. In other words, we can't have an entire school exceeding expectations on all counts? Of course, correct me, an untrained teacher, if I am wrong. It seems as though we cannot do well unless we also do better than everyone else, not just ourselves.

The kind of compensatory measures (read: norm-referencing on a parabola) practiced in our education/education employment system fly in the face of grade inflation in the United States, which some say are a result of professors guarding their tenured positions against negative student feedback.

To be on either the extreme of loyalty to a grade curve or to feel-good grade inflation would not conducive to learning, however. While using grades as extrinsic motivation/pressure is not ideal, it does seem to be the case with extreme practices. Nonetheless, grades need to be worked out properly so that assessment of learning/work can be executed for learning (QED520's A/P Chang distinguishes between assessment of & for learning).

All the more do we as educators and those being educated need to rethink the issue of grades.