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?

Grade 4s are not useless!! This is what my DD2 is working hard for in English, and if successful she’ll be able to stay at 6th form with her friends and do 3 BTECS that she’s very keen on. She’s predicted higher in other subjects but it’s the 4 in English that will allow her to study what she wishes. Without it, she’ll go to college and do a vocational course (nothing wrong with that either, but not her first choice)

They do. The system is called Comparable Outcomes and the percentage of students attaining each grade in each subject is fixed to the same percentage as the previous year. This is to avoid grade inflation.

We know in advance that roughly 30% of students will get a grade 3 or below in English this year. I say roughly because they have a random sample of Y11s sit the National Reference Tests and depending on whether they are cleverer or less clever than the year before, that 30% will be slightly adjusted.

If you're aiming for 4's or below, of course that's fine. But if you need 5's to do A levels, degrees or other courses that require them, but get 4's, you hit a wall.

Grade 4's in English and maths are a not considered good enough for lots of things, but you are not allowed to resit.

If you get a 1,2 or 3, you are pretty much forced to resit. As you are considered to have failed.

It makes no sense.

I'm only talking about English and maths GCSE here.

The problem is that there are two kinds of tests: criterion referenced (like a driving test) where if you get things right you can reliably pass, and norm referenced, like GCSEs, where the grade boundaries are shifted each year to prevent' grade inflation'.

What makes this annoying for those of us working in schools is that it makes it very hard to get real school improvement. We genuinely don't know if students now are better or worse than say ten years ago because of the way the system works; it will conceal both failure and success.

I'd be a lot happier if exams were criterion referenced (as they used to be) but the trouble was people started being able to tell students exactly how to pass the exams. I remember in 2012 there was a massive 15 mark boundary shift in English... devastating for lots of schools.

The whole thing is crazy, because school by school comparisons such as progress eight (which isn't around at the moment because of lack of KS2 tests in covid years) also rely on this kind of metric: a school can only improve if another school goes down the league table to compensate.

Of course you can resit if you get a 4. You may have to pay rather than the school, but there is nothing stopping you resitting. Where are you getting this info from? There are also plenty of places that let you do A levels with a 4 in English, especially if you are doing STEM A levels. Same goes for Uni, even at Russell Group.

That was our experience 2 years ago.

Of course, unis are dropping their offers like hot cakes this year just to get bums on seats. So it may not matter after all.

You don’t hit a wall at all with grade 4 English or Maths. YOU may have hit a wall, but plenty of kids do Level 3 courses and go to uni with grade 4 in E and/or M.

I'm sorry (well actually I am glad) but this just is not true.

Firstly most schools IME want at least a 6 in the subject to take A level. And no one is suggesting taking maths A level with a 4. So that's a bit of a red herring.

But if you have 4 in maths and English and (say) 6/7 in MFL or history or biology and want to take those at A level, then the 4s won't be an issue IME. I guess some post-16 destinations ask for 5s, maybe some ask for 6s, but plenty do not.

Most universities do not require more than a 4 in maths and English. I said it upthread but I am saying it again. Yes, some require a 6 – but IME that is mostly when the degree subject is related to maths or English.

You want to do a degree in history and German at Warwick uni - grade 4 in maths and English is all you need (as well as relevant A levels or equivalent obvs – but in GCSE terms that's all you need).

Obviously if you need a higher grade for a specific course and you don't have it, you cannot do the course. But that's true for everything. If you got a 4 in maths GCSE and you need a 7 to take A level, when then you need a plan B. But the same would be true if you got a 5 or a 6. It makes sense to me tbh.

@clary I'm really glad to hear this wasn't your experience but it certainly was ours.
All school 6th forms (mostly Grammars) would not admit without grade average of 7 and must have at least 6 in maths and English. There are limited places.

Local 6th form college would not allow any A levels without a 5 in English (exceptions made for maths/science if GCSE grades in maths/science were very high), and would not facilitate a resit as a 4 is a pass.

Non A level options are poor here.

The drop out rate from education rate post-GCSE in this area is high.

I think your experience is very unusual. After all the vast majority of people do not live in a grammar area. It's poor indeed that no post-16 option is offered for those who don't achieve at least grade 5. After all that us a good chunk of YP.

But you badly stated that "grade 4s are fairly useless". Perhaps you might have qualified that by saying "in my grammar school area". For most 16yos a grade 4 is what they need going forward.

Baldly stated, no badly! Stupid autocorrect

Lots of sought after 6th forms set high bars because they are sought after and need to use grade tariffs to deal with over subscription.

But there are other 6th forms that won't be at all worried by 4 in Maths or English unless the student wants to study either of those.

Universities are more interested in A levels (or even BTEC results). I know people at Oxford who only ever took 6 GCSEs. The idea that you can't do anything without 10 at grades 6-9 is happily a myth.

Some of the most prestigious courses and universities are also understanding that some students may have SEN and don't automatically reject the Maths whizz that is never going to pass English, or the brilliant historian who just cannot get to grips with quadratic equations.

It is not true that 40% of students have to fail their GCSEs, its just roughly 40% of children each year are below the expected standard for the subject.

The exams are written in such a way that the pass mark is an indication of the level of knowledge needed in order to "pass" GCSE in that subject and be suitable to step up to the next level of learning e.g. BTEC, T-levels or A-levels

If you look at the raw marks, versus the normalized marks the distribution is pretty much the same. The numbers are just different.

Can you really say that getting 46% on your English GCSE paper means you are proficient enough in English to go onto higher learning?

I think the grade boundaries are way too generous, and this is the government trying to fail fewer people even if it means compromising educational standards. According to the National Literacy Trust 1 in 6 adults are functionally illiterate in the UK, a country with compulsory free education. The failure rates at GCSE are just a symptom of our education problems.

"Can you really say that getting 46% on your English GCSE paper means you are proficient enough in English to go onto higher learning?"

Given that 47% in Biology gets you a grade 7, and 66% gets you a 9 (and you only need 24% for a grade 4) then yep, you probably can!

https://www.my-gcsescience.com/content/uploads/2018/09/Grade-Boundaries-AQA-Combined-Science.pdf

That’s the higher tier science paper. English doesn’t have tiers.

Business federations pointed out years ago that a C in English or Maths GCSE was no guarantee of literacy or numeracy.

The general ability of students is similar year to year.
Exam results need to be meaningful and allow comparisons between candidates who took exams years apart so employers can use them. In order to stop grade inflation which means it becomes impossible to compare grades year to year, the rough figures getting different grades does need to be very similar. There is a slight adjustment process to allow for some year cohorts being marginally stronger or weaker than usual ….but this will be very marginal as we are talking hundreds of thousands of students who have pretty similar spread of abilities each year.

Different grades can be useful for students in different ways - and often they are looking to get through different doors. The 4 in Maths won’t allow that student to do A Level Maths, but along with similar grades in other subjects too, will provide access to Btecs and maybe then to some unis. That 4 in maths, alongside some 6s in other subjects will let them access non-maths subjects at Alevel. Their 4 at GCSE will meet the minimum criteria for lots of degrees but probably not thii of we like Business with mathematical content, where A Level Margs might not be needed but a 7 at GCSE maths might be needed. The 4 in Maths will open the door to some apprenticeships and mean competence is evidenced.

For those who don’t get 4 in Eng and Maths, well in one level they simply haven’t reached the standard. If students became more able, boundaries would be shifted so more got 4s…..but basic ability over a full cohort just doesn’t change that much year to year.

For some things, having that minimum 4 or 5 probably is a sensible benchmark. But as others have said, the closed doors that a 3 or below can result in, means alternative, recognised qualifications are needed to show competence for those who are competent but just not good at the GCSE specification.
THISE who didn’t get the 4 shouldn’t automatically be re/taking GCSE - we know most don’t get the 4 again and again. A better, functional maths or English exam which shows basic skills in these subjects and proves competence would be better. It might not open the door to A Levels in those subjects or all degrees, but it could open the door to lots of jobs that actually don’t need lots of academic qualifications, or further training.

Of course there will always be some who can’t achieve that qualification either. The reality is that there are school leavers who are not fu tonality literate or numerate. To pretend they are or give qualifications to say they are when they’re not doesn’t help anyone really. But then there also needs to be more thought about what those young adults will do next.

I actually think the system which is set so exam grades mean the same thing year to year, to stop grade inflation is right. But it’s also the case trr if at there needs to be better provision of access to a recognised qualification to evidence competence in English and numeracy for those who are competent or can become so, for whom GCSE doesn’t work.