Page 4 | GCSE: is it true they're graded so that ca 1/3 must fail? How are boundaries decided?

ParentOfOne · 2025-09-12T13:04:20+00:00

I understand that grade boundaries can change from year to year and from exam board to exam board. E.g. a 4 in Maths can be 40 points out of 240 one year and 45 out of 240 another year. That I get. What I don't understand is: - what, exactly, is the statistical methodology to adjust the boundaries from year to year? Is it even publicly disclosed? How much of a subjective, qualitative assessment is it? - Is it true that the exams are graded on a curve in such a way that, by design, ca. 1/3 of the kids will fail? On the last point, there are many mumsnetters who hold very strong opinions that it's true, but I have not found official confirmation. If it were true, it would mean that the bottom third would fail regardless of score; e.g. one year the bottom third could score 40% of the points, another year 55%. If we look at Maths Grade boundaries for Edexcel, we see that a 4 has ranged from 51% to 60% of the total points in the foundation paper, and from 17% to 22% of the higher paper. These are not percentiles, but percentages of the total point. [[https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries]] This doesn't seem to me like a system that's designed to fail 1/3 of the students regardless of score. If you get less than 50-60% of the questions right in the easier version of the exam, and less than 20% in the harder version, it seems pretty clear to me that you have not even mastered the basics of the subjects. In many countries 60% or thereabout tends to be the threshold for passing. This is also why I don't understand those who say that 1 to 3 are also passes. You pass if you get 10% of the points? What is the definition of failing then? Or am I missing something? TES explained that in the first year the % of grade 9 was set equal to a certain % of those achieving >=7, but how it changed after the first year is unclear [[https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/secondary/gcse-and-a-level-grade-boundaries https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/secondary/gcse-and-a-level-grade-boundaries]]

Fearfulsaints · 13/09/2025 18:46

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 18:41

@noblegiraffe if you get a 2 or below you don’t have to resit GCSE, you can take functional maths instead.

Have you ever seen the past papers for functional maths? A 10-year old studying for the 11+ does more complex exercises. https://passfunctionalskills.co.uk/functional-skills-maths-level-1-past-papers/edexcel-functional-skills-maths-level-1-past-papers/#past-papers

This is not about being classist. This is not about saying that Tom in the council estate must speak Latin and learn partial differential equations like Reginald at Eaton. This is about practical life skills with real-world implications.

Some of the questions are things like:
is 15% of 860 more or less than 100?
convert kilograms into grams
is three quarters of a million more or less than 600,000
sort 5 decimal numbers

And, even so, the overall pass rate is still 36% (although that will include resits and mature candidates) https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/work/insights-and-events/training-providers-insights/2024/09/functional-skills-pass-rates-2023-24-.html

It's very sad.

That is the level 1 paper.

The level 2 functional skills is a gcse 4 equivilent.

A lot of people sitting level 1 will be sitting it as prep for level 2 and for building condidence. Many will have have special needs and actually that sort of basic maths is enough for a lot of jobs.

TeenToTwenties · 13/09/2025 18:46

@ParentOfOne You linked to level 1 FS. The students would be aiming to get to level 2, only using level 1 as a stepping stone if needed.

Araminta1003 · 13/09/2025 18:45

@flawlessflipper - well done to your DS1, that is an amazing achievement. I would be incredibly proud!

The risk is not whether Level 1 or Level 2. The main problem is NEET - not in employment, education or training.

The other real problem is as highlighted by UCL and Leeds that behind at age 4/5 and not school ready is much more likely to lead to NEET.

“Children who were behind in their development at age 4-5 were almost three times as likely to have been out of education, employment, or training at age 16-17, analysis of pupil data has found.”

All this chat about secondary schools seems pointless. Intervention has to be done right at the start via high quality free nursery. But if you cannot staff the nurseries with high quality nursery staff and preschool teacher in deprived areas, what then? A lot of the Scandis understand that. Free nursery places for all is not enough. They have to be trained and educated to a high level for the intervention to make a substantial difference.

Lougle · 13/09/2025 18:43

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 18:32

@flawlessflipper He is on track for five GCSEs at grade 8-9 next year, but that won’t include GCSE or IGCSE English Language or Literature because his complex needs mean they are both inaccessible to him. That doesn’t make him functionally illiterate.

And how representative do you honestly think this case is?
Of the 30 to 40% who fail to get a 4 in English and Maths, how many do you honestly think have such complex needs that they score 8-9 in one but not even a 4 in the other?

My point is not that every single individual who fails at both is functionally illiterate. But that, when so many do, there is a broader problem.

A function where 1/3 of the population or thereabout struggles to understand fractions and percentages, or lacks basic text comprehension skills, is not a functioning society.

@Lougle I coached a young relative through GCSE maths and I had to tell him that no matter what the name said, he had to use Tom, Dick or Harry, because otherwise he was completely flummoxed before he'd even grasped the question

Interesting. But what does this mean in terms of life skills and real-world implications? Would people like this struggle to process an invoice if they have to give a 5% discount or add 20% VAT to the invoice of a customer with a name they cannot pronounce?

I don't think so because those tasks can be taught discretely. This young person was getting fixated on trying to say the name correctly, so couldn't move past it to tackle the rest of the question.

They deliberately word questions obliquely. Instead of asking:

"A box can hold 12 pens. There are 240 pens. How many boxes can be filled?"

They ask:

"Janice has 240 pens. A box can hold 12 pens. Janice says 'I can fill 11 boxes with pens' Is she correct? Justify your answer."

Instead of a simple sum, the student has to calculate the division, compare it to the number of boxes stated, write that Janice is wrong, and write some sort of explanation for why they know she is wrong.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 18:41

@noblegiraffe if you get a 2 or below you don’t have to resit GCSE, you can take functional maths instead.

Have you ever seen the past papers for functional maths? A 10-year old studying for the 11+ does more complex exercises. https://passfunctionalskills.co.uk/functional-skills-maths-level-1-past-papers/edexcel-functional-skills-maths-level-1-past-papers/#past-papers

This is not about being classist. This is not about saying that Tom in the council estate must speak Latin and learn partial differential equations like Reginald at Eaton. This is about practical life skills with real-world implications.

Some of the questions are things like:
is 15% of 860 more or less than 100?
convert kilograms into grams
is three quarters of a million more or less than 600,000
sort 5 decimal numbers

And, even so, the overall pass rate is still 36% (although that will include resits and mature candidates) https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/work/insights-and-events/training-providers-insights/2024/09/functional-skills-pass-rates-2023-24-.html

It's very sad.

Functional Skills Pass Rates 2023/24

https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/work/insights-and-events/training-providers-insights/2024/09/functional-skills-pass-rates-2023-24-.html

OP posts:

flawlessflipper · 13/09/2025 18:35

Having such spiky profiles really isn’t rare for DC with SEN. No, not 30-40% of candidates, but not an insignificant number either.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 18:32

@flawlessflipper He is on track for five GCSEs at grade 8-9 next year, but that won’t include GCSE or IGCSE English Language or Literature because his complex needs mean they are both inaccessible to him. That doesn’t make him functionally illiterate.

And how representative do you honestly think this case is?
Of the 30 to 40% who fail to get a 4 in English and Maths, how many do you honestly think have such complex needs that they score 8-9 in one but not even a 4 in the other?

My point is not that every single individual who fails at both is functionally illiterate. But that, when so many do, there is a broader problem.

A function where 1/3 of the population or thereabout struggles to understand fractions and percentages, or lacks basic text comprehension skills, is not a functioning society.

@Lougle I coached a young relative through GCSE maths and I had to tell him that no matter what the name said, he had to use Tom, Dick or Harry, because otherwise he was completely flummoxed before he'd even grasped the question

Interesting. But what does this mean in terms of life skills and real-world implications? Would people like this struggle to process an invoice if they have to give a 5% discount or add 20% VAT to the invoice of a customer with a name they cannot pronounce?

OP posts:

TeenToTwenties · 13/09/2025 17:56

Grade 3 maths and English is often a gateway for a level 2 course at college.

Lougle · 13/09/2025 17:40

It's not necessarily the maths that is difficult for kids that fail. It's the wording. The insistence on using names in questions that lower ability just can't pronounce - I coached a young relative through GCSE maths and I had to tell him that no matter what the name said, he had to use Tom, Dick or Harry, because otherwise he was completely flummoxed before he'd even grasped the question. A lot of these kids would pass a straight set of sums. Telling them that Nancy wants to plant her garden with 35 tulips... Not so much.

flawlessflipper · 13/09/2025 17:16

Of course there is a point to a level 1 pass. GCSEs are not just level 2 passes. For some DC, a level 1 pass will be a huge achievement. Do you think there is no point in entry level qualifications too?

EAA do not remove the barriers completely. Rest breaks do not stop some candidates finding exams too long, exhausting, and overwhelming. Particularly if the candidate also has extra time and especially if they have more than 25% extra time.

DS1 has complex needs. This summer he got two 9s in maths and statistics GCSEs with a host of EAA. He is on track for five GCSEs at grade 8-9 next year, but that won’t include GCSE or IGCSE English Language or Literature because his complex needs mean they are both inaccessible to him. That doesn’t make him functionally illiterate. It is because the GCSEs/IGCSEs are the perfect storm for his complex SEN and highlight all the difficulties he has with some elements of education. FS doesn’t work for him either.

KimTheresPeopleThatAreDying · 13/09/2025 17:15

I can answer this as I’ve been involved in the process.

After the papers are marked, the exam boards hold awarding meetings. The chief examiners for each subject will review a selection of papers at various marks to determine where the grade boundaries are. As part of that, they will run a statistical analysis: “if we set the boundary for X grade at 65, that’ll mean Y% of students get this mark or above. If we set it at 63, then Z% of students will get it” and so on.

They’ll compare those percentages with the proportions from the previous year. They’re looking for broad consistency across the years. It doesn’t look good if in one year 20% get an A and the next year only 10% do, for example.

So it isn’t the case that a certain percentage “have to fail”, it’s more that when deciding the grade boundaries the exam boards will consider the effect of a choosing particular mark on the proportion getting a grade.

noblegiraffe · 13/09/2025 17:07

Newbutoldfather · 13/09/2025 16:45

@noblegiraffe ,

I am not sure.

I admire your enthusiasm and positivity, but I don’t think many care whether they get a 1 or a 3, because the qualification means absolutely nothing.

You can’t go on to further study in any kind of a mathematical subject (obviously!) and most professional jobs will require some kind of a resit to apply. So, it is a de facto fail.

The fact that you are told that some people actually did even worse isn’t going to make you very happy!

I don’t want to belabour the point as I don’t think maths is for everyone and forcing some to study it is close to torture (I once taught a student who had no idea of place value, so 5,000 and 50,000 looked identical to her, and I was trying to teach her standard form). But I do think most will know a 3 is a de facto fail, regardless of what the certificate says.

Physics doesn’t have compulsory resits so you’re possibly not aware but actually getting close to a 4 in maths does matter because it means a 4 in the resit is more achievable.

Also, there were students in my class who needed 3s to get onto their college courses. That was the requirement, not a 4.

It does make a difference to what you can do.

In addition, if you get a 2 or below you don’t have to resit GCSE, you can take functional maths instead.

titchy · 13/09/2025 16:54

It’s only M and E where a grade 3 requires a resit. Get a 3 in Geography and Double Science and there’s no need to resit those, and you have met the requirements for your one year level 2 trade course at college, which is then followed by your two year trade course or a plumbing apprenticeship. Level 1 grades are not fails. They are passes at level 1.

Newbutoldfather · 13/09/2025 16:45

@noblegiraffe ,

I am not sure.

I admire your enthusiasm and positivity, but I don’t think many care whether they get a 1 or a 3, because the qualification means absolutely nothing.

You can’t go on to further study in any kind of a mathematical subject (obviously!) and most professional jobs will require some kind of a resit to apply. So, it is a de facto fail.

The fact that you are told that some people actually did even worse isn’t going to make you very happy!

I don’t want to belabour the point as I don’t think maths is for everyone and forcing some to study it is close to torture (I once taught a student who had no idea of place value, so 5,000 and 50,000 looked identical to her, and I was trying to teach her standard form). But I do think most will know a 3 is a de facto fail, regardless of what the certificate says.

noblegiraffe · 13/09/2025 16:09

Newbutoldfather · 13/09/2025 15:35

@noblegiraffe ,

Do you honestly find it satisfying to teach someone who ends up with a 3?

I wonder how much of the little knowledge that they have they retain for the next 6 months.

I find it just isn’t rewarding or useful for anyone.

I don’t have a perfect solution but I know GCSEs aren’t for everyone.

I said that the GCSE isn’t fit for purpose at the bottom end. But that doesn’t mean that a 3 is a fail. It demonstrates a level of maths knowledge that is greater than those who get a two or a one. There may only be a mark or two between someone who gets a 4 and someone who gets a 3! Do they not deserve to have their closeness to the 4 recognised and not simply be lumped in as a U with people who couldn’t answer anything?

Newbutoldfather · 13/09/2025 15:35

@noblegiraffe ,

Do you honestly find it satisfying to teach someone who ends up with a 3?

I wonder how much of the little knowledge that they have they retain for the next 6 months.

I find it just isn’t rewarding or useful for anyone.

I don’t have a perfect solution but I know GCSEs aren’t for everyone.

BreakingBroken · 13/09/2025 13:46

@McSpoot looks like things have changed.

Bobbybobbins · 13/09/2025 13:08

It is hard for less able students to not have a foundation version of the papers for Language and Literature. I don’t think suggesting that ‘putting lipstick on a pig’ is the equivalent of praising a grade 3 or below is very pleasant, if that was your point below. I have students I teach with an EHCP who work incredibly hard, get a grade 2 or 3 and are rightly proud of their attainment.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 13:03

@noblegiraffe @Bobbybobbins I am less familiar with what has happened with English GCSE over the past few years. Maybe removing the foundation version of the English exam was a mistake.

But if you look at maths, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't some hidden conspiracy to fail a certain % of students no matter what, and it's not like deserving students are being failed unfairly because of the cruelty of the curve.

You can look at the boundaries here: https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries and at past papers on many websites, eg here https://revisionmaths.com/gcse-maths/gcse-maths-past-papers

I do not think that students getting less than half of the total scores in such basic papers as the foundation maths one, which are mostly about fractions and percentages, should have passed.

The guy in this video comes across as a bit of a clown, but does have a point: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nqKzayoDHZs

The link @noblegiraffe posted at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a801b58e5274a2e87db7e4a/Ofqual_letter_to_Pearson.pdf

is very interesting, thanks for that. If I have understood the letter correctly, there are two ways to look at it:

Ofqual wanted grade boundaries to be a function of the KS2 SATs. This would be a curve by the backdoor, so to speak, as it wouldn't give credit to students making more progress. Or
Ofqual felt that one exam board was being more generous than the other, and used the relationship between KS2 SATs and grade boundaries as an argument to prove it. This should be reasonably reliable when you have hundreds of thousands of data points. In other words, the point was not that Ofqual dictates a fixed relationship between SATs and grade boundaries, but that the criteria of one board were too different from those of the others.

I don't know enough to have a clear opinion on this

OP posts:

noblegiraffe · 13/09/2025 12:43

We know for a fact that in 2012 Ofqual were petitioned with evidence for a grade boundary that would increase the percentage getting a C in their GCSE and they would have rejected it on that basis in order to protect comparable outcomes.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/11/ofqual-chief-exam-board-gcse

We also have Ofqual rejecting a grade boundary in Maths that would have increased the proportion of C grades in 2016 because they had set out the expectation that grade proportions would match those made by KS2 predictions. (Point 6)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a801b58e5274a2e87db7e4a/Ofqual_letter_to_Pearson.pdf

So people can claim that the system allows for it, but in practice that means very little. (See also previous comment about this year's National Reference Tests not resulting in an increased proportion of good grades).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a801b58e5274a2e87db7e4a/Ofqual_letter_to_Pearson.pdf

McSpoot · 13/09/2025 12:41

BreakingBroken · 13/09/2025 00:46

@TheLivelyViper I don't think canada has a % that fail just to satisfy a bell curve. the provincial exams vary little canada wide or exam wise from year to year in theory everyone who takes it could pass there are 3 different choices foundation, pre calculus and calculus a student would be entered into one of the three courses based on their performance the years prior.
questions with a high % of wrong answers are discounted (like you say wrong numbers or ambiguous wording).

There are no national or provincial exams in Canada.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 13/09/2025 12:38

@Araminta1003 I am just pointing out that you are a hypocrite. Ranting on one thread about church schools and tangentially about grammar schools, and on another thread, admitting that you are putting your own DC forward for the Wandsworth Test which is an 11 plus test.

??? I would be a hypocrite if I had campaigned or done anything to preserve the status quo. I have not. I do not agree with the current system, but I cannot change it, so I must make the most of a system I disagree with. Such is life.

If I had, I don't know, voted in a hypothetical referendum or supported political candidates campaigning on a manifesto to preserve or increase selective state school places, sure, I'd be a hypocrite. But I have done nothing of the sort.

BTW, you should know that the Wandsworth test is necessary also to apply to certain schools which are not selective but use it for banding.

BTW, I didn't "rant tangentially", but had explicitly posted about the unfairness of the 11+ https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5250645-11-test-i-think-its-unfair-and-elitist

But quite often it is people who have high achieving kids who are going to be fine one way or another. So the whole thing comes across as disingenuous.

I have never said nor implied that I fear my child will end up functionally illiterate. Expressing shock at how many kids fail to achieve a grade 4 in English and maths is disingenuous? Why?
For the record, should our child end up in a failing school, we know we can compensate by tutoring them ourselves and/or paying for external tutors; yes, we know we are extremely privileged for being in this position.

This thread has explained clearly that a 3 is not a “fail” and the history surrounding O levels. Leave it at that.

You know the saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Call it what you will, for whatever historical reasons, the fact remains that those kinds of grades basically signal functional illiteracy, since they mean scoring ca. 20% in the higher paper and ca. 35% in the foundation paper (which is about fractions and percentages).

I am not convinced top grades go hand in hand with being financially savvy or investment savvy whatsoever

Of course. Which is why you'll notice I have never said nor implied anything of the sort. A maths genius with no social skills may well do much worse in life than someone who isn't a math genius but has social, commercial and people skills. That's never been the point. The point is that scores < 4 in GCSE maths mean failing at things like fractions and percentages, which are basic life skills.

OP posts:

Bobbybobbins · 13/09/2025 12:31

I’m not saying they have a formal set number that they have to stick to or aim for. So they can clearly say they don’t norm reference. But the annual changes in grade boundaries allow them to massage the outcomes. I don’t believe (barring events like covid!) that they would ever allow a significant increase or decrease in the numbers attaining 4+. This was not the case 20 years ago and there was more grade inflation, which can also be problematic. Hey ho.

noblegiraffe · 13/09/2025 12:29

It's remarkable how stable GCSE results are despite the claim that they aren't designed that way.

We also know that the National Reference Tests showed improved performance in English this year and yet exam boards weren't instructed to increase the proportion getting 5+ and actually it went down.

GCSE: is it true they're graded so that ca 1/3 must fail? How are boundaries decided?

Araminta1003 · 13/09/2025 12:29

I would prefer a system where a 4 in Combined Science is as recognised as a 4 in Maths by employers and a 4 in History or Geography recognised instead of a 4 in English language. I think it is important to keep the breadth of qualifications.