GCSE grading - how does it work?

[Phillipeflopp]

I’ve always assumed that there are percentage pass rates for GSCEs - if you get above that % you get a specific grade (eg above 50% get a four etc). However I’ve recently read something that said it’s based on how other kids perform that year - ie top % get a 9 etc, more like competing against each other nationally? Is that true? Or is it a combination of factors that decide a grade?

I think it’s percentage based but the percentage changes year on year, depending on the distribution of grades.

My DC tells me that this year is a particularly hard year with the expectations and there is a proposal to make it a bit easier going forward. I guess that means there won’t be as many high marks, but that will reflect how difficult it was, so the boundaries will be lower in comparison to previous years. Not sure if DC is fibbing like 😂 but the concept will still apply.

I’m no expert but agree with @Pinkandcake

As an example, for maths you can check the grade boundaries on the website below (for the screenshot, I ticked board=AQA; year=all; month=June; tier=higher; raw mark; percentage)

mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries

40ish% of all kids are destined to fail. Such a stupid system.

They're benchmarked nationally.

The new grades are tied to the old in that approx the same % of children will get 4s and 7s as used to get Cs and As in the old system.

So PP are right, 40% of children are not expected to pass. It's built into the system.

Grade boundaries are amended to try and make sure that happens.

Why would they do that though? Surely it’s in everyone interest for as many children to pass as possible!

To be fair, a grade 1-2-3 Is still a pass, just at a lower level.

Last year roughly two thirds of students gained 4+ in English language so more than 60% (or the 50% I saw mentioned in another thread).

In general tho yes, the % required for each grade will vary across subjects and (less so tbh) across years. That’s fine imho, and standard 50% pass mark would be unworkable.

If there is a test which everyone can “pass” then having that qualification would be meaningless, surely you can see that.

And I speak as the parent of a Dc with EEE in English - eventually succeeding at FS2. What we need imho is to offer more accessible qualifications to those who can’t get close to a 4 at GCSE.

I’ll start by saying I know nothing about this subject!

What if, though I know it’s unlikely, all the entrants for a particular subject did well. Say they all got 50% or over. Would the lowest 40% still “fail”? Does the current system mean that two entrants get exactly the same mark over two years but one could end up with a 5 but the one the following year could get a 2?

i f do don’t understand how this works. Please explain!

Last year roughly two thirds of students gained 4+ in English language so more than 60% (or the 50% I saw mentioned in another thread).

71.2% if we are only looking at 16 year olds in England. (The percentages for English and maths often include students resitting in college which drags the grade 4 rate down substantially.)

Yes I see that but for it to be set up for 40% to fail, that’s counterproductive. Especially as it’s the first step to go on to higher education. Perhaps 20%.

I agree that we need a much better alternative to help those that don’t achieve the GCSE pass mark. They need to bring back many more vocational and on the job training and fund that, instead of putting so much focus on academic grades, if 40% of kids don’t pass.

No i don’t see that, though. Employer wants to know if a candidate has a decent understanding of maths. They have 100 candidates. They all got GCSE grade 5 and above. Great!
They have another 100 candidates. They have the same maths ability as the first lot but grade boundaries mean half of them didn’t get a grade 5 in maths. Their applications go in the bin.
Who does that benefit?

The grade boundaries changing is to account for the tests not being exactly the same level of difficulty each year. Imagine the exam papers being a bit harder one year or a poorly worded question that means many get it wrong. And the pass mark is fixed. Suddenly the kids who sat exams is 2025 can never get a job compared to older and younger kids, as their grades are so much lower.

Yes that's exactly how it works, unfortunately.

Grade boundaries can be really narrow sometimes, less than 10 marks across all the papers. They will change year to year depending on the overall spread of results across the cohort in order to achieve similar pass rates year on year.

It really doesn’t work like that and this is why - the exam papers are not written at random. They are carefully written and checked to make sure they are of the same standard, year on year. That’s one reason why similar questions come up.

And the range of student ability, over so many students, does not vary that much. So this just wouldn’t happen. And that’s why grade boundaries within a subject don’t vary that much, year on year.

@Pinkandcake as noble notes, less than 30% don’t get a 4 so closer to your 20%.

That wouldn’t happen tho. If they had grade 5 ability in maths, they would get grade 5. Or grade 4 in a bad day, or grade 6 on a good.

Im not saying that errors don’t occur, they do. But overall it’s a reliable system.

Random check to sort of prove my point - AQA GCSE in French - GB for a 7 layer - 150; in 2019 - 159. This is out of 240 so the % is 66.25 vs 62.5. Pretty close. And remember GBs are really only now getting back to post covid normal.

There’s an exam regulator that checks that the exam is “acceptable” If there wasn’t then there would be the temptation for an exam board to write easy exams so more schools sign up for their exam. There’s 100,000+ kids who do GCSEs. In theory you could have one mark between grades but the exam regulator should have checked the exam so that doesn’t happen. The current style GCSEs have been used for a few years now so there should be less cause for concern for that kind of anomaly.

Some kids have to “fail” an exam so unis and sixth forms know if the child is suitable for further studying of the subject. Tbh I think that our education system is designed so that qualifications are the stepping stone to the next stage rather than being relevant. So GCSEs identify those suitable for A-levels and A-levels identify those suitable for uni.

I think that there should be qualifications that people destined for grades 1/2/3 should be able to access. It won’t be GCSE level but they’d be able to demonstrate some English or maths skills. I also support BTEC and other qualifications for kids who get 4/5/6 at GCSE so unsuitable for A-levels. I grew up with the impression that BTECs were totally less able students but the different approach of coursework and multiple exams throughout the course worked much better for my child and he learned much better and achieved well.

Back to the original question - your grade is relative to the other year 11s who sit that exam that year not the percentage that you achieve on the paper like at uni so I used to tell my kids that if everybody found it hard then that’s a good thing.

As a mum of a child that’s always had very low academic attainment this feels worse to me than it being a set mark, like other kid’s success are based on his failure.

In general grading works one of two ways.

either it’s whether you can do something - an example if this would be music exams. If you can play the scales and the pieces then you pass.

gcses are not like this. They are graded on a curve and so a certain percentage will fail. This is built into the system.

certainly for maths the exam boards try hard to write papers that are broadly comparable but the grade boundaries do change a bit each year as some papers the students find harder than others.

The system isn’t fair on the low attainers and there should be more alternative qualifications that they can access. For example I think it’s crazy that everyone sits the same English exams and that they got rid of intermediate exams for kids that are in between foundation and higher in ability.

I see that it looks like that but honestly it is not. Let's take English language – in 2019 (which is the last year not affected by Covid) a grade 4 was 76/160 = 48%; in 2024 it was 73/160 = 46%. Really not that much difference. And IMHO Covid is still having an impact.

The grade he achieves is his grade and you and he should be proud of it (as I am sure you will be), especially if he had to work hard. My DS1 got a C (a while ago) at his first go at maths and we were so so proud of him – much more tbh than his younger brother's grade 8.

I do agree tho as posted earlier that there should be more options offered, and offered at KS4, to those who will struggle to achieve a 3/4 in English and maths.

Grades 1-3 are not considered passes by employers, or anyone else for that matter.

Additionally, 4's are fairly useless. Particularly in English and Maths. And if you do get 4, in English and Maths, not only will you not be considered to not have a good enough grade, you're also not allowed to resit, because technically, you have passed.

The system sets a lot of kids up to fail.

I don't think they use a bell curve do they? just grade boundaries based on how relatively hard/easy the exam was that year. So it is still technically possible for no kids to get 1/2/3 if they all did pretty well that year, but grade boundaries would be paricularly high. Statistically that would never happen though, as some kids will come in, write their name and leave etc.

I agree that employers are looking for “a pass” grade which has been defined as a grade 4. That is a pass at Level 2; grades 1-2-3 are passes at Level 1. They still have value – plenty of post-16 courses will accept these grades as evidence of achievement. A student may then need to take a L2 course rather than L3, hopefully progressing to L3.

I would dispute that grade 4s are useless. If you have a grade 4 in English and maths, that ticks a lot of boxes for employers, apprenticeships and yes, even universities, a lot of which only ask for a 4 in maths and English as a basic requirement (obvs with A levels or other post-16 quals on top). Not sure who is considering that “not a good enough grade”?

I am not a fan of everything about the current system as I have said repeatedly; but I would stand by the point that an exam that absolutely everyone "passes" at age 16 has no value, as it will not offer any kind of tool to differentiate, and I suspect no student will value it either.

My DS has not got a grade 4/C in English (tho has has FS L2) and incidentally went to college with CCDDDEEF in his GCSEs; he has a job that is valuable, useful and earns him money. I don't think he has failed.