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

[ParentOfOne]

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

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

I would answer this but after what your other thread descended into I'm not going to

Boundaries are done based on overall performance. They change because a cohort won't do the exact same each year. What they change for is to ensure that's it's no harder or easier each year to get each specific grade. So even though questions are different, it's not harder to an 8 in one year compared to another. Now some candidates may have preferences for questions and say I think the 2023 paper was easy, but grade boundaries are adjusted based on how well or badly a cohort has done. So a smarter cohort likely has higher grade boundaries but then we need to consider the paper ans whether on the whole it's 'nicer' or 'easier', taking that into consideration adjustments are made to the marks. It aims to ensure fairness and consistency.

A GCSE is a level 2 qualification, anything below a 4 is a fail on the level 2. However a 1-3 grade is a level one qualification but obviously shows a lack of grasp of the basics of a subject but nonetheless is a level qualification you can use to perhaps get onto a level 2 at college etc. Only a U is a complete fail. In terms of failure, it's not just GCSEs, every exam whether in other countries, univeristy etc dictates that some people will fail, it's sort of expected. Exams are placing people into tiers, of skills, knowledge, understanding etc and just by the numbers it doesn't make sense that everyone would get a 4 and above leaving nobody in the grades below that. It's not like they are purposefully setting it so people fail, just that in all exams people will.

The TES article you linked gave a pretty good description of the different things the examining boards try to take into account when setting grade boundaries. This read to me that they balance cohort ability with absolute “this is the standard we accept for eg a grade 4, or a grade 6, based on the quality of answers across years”, they attempt to correct for misleading questions that threw too many people off (ie a badly worded question) or a more challenging exam than it would normally be. I don’t think it’s that easy to describe an exact quotable statistical methodology when it depends to some extent on examiners agreeing that “yes, this is a top grade 5 answer”, comparing it to previous years. I don’t think anyone here is going to provide a weighted equation, given the nuances described.

Why do you ask? What was your experience of GCSEs?

When people say “a certain percentage will fail, this is built into the system” it doesn’t mean that precisely the bottom 30% will fail. It means that for a typical cohort, when you ask certain questions on a paper of a particular difficulty level, there are always going to be some kids who can’t answer them. And because the ability of cohorts doesn’t change dramatically across the population from one year to the next, it’s probably a similar percentage year on year. But that’s not because exam boards say “cut off the bottom 30%”. It’s because every time it’s about that many who can’t answer that level of question well.

There are slight changes in cohort ability year on year, and as mentioned in the TES article, there are randomised basic English and maths tests across the cohort to measure this. So I think this means that if a cohort do genuinely show themselves to be stronger in maths this year at a population level, by a small amount, this would be reflected in slightly improved grades. i.e. they properly reflect a real effect

@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).

Are you going to turn this into another thread about religious schools before I bother answering in good faith?

@Talipesmum I ask because I want to understand how GCSEs work, and how to interpret school stats when I see schools where half the kids cannot get a 4 in English and maths. I didn't know the % of kids failing to get a 4 in English and Maths ranged from 30 to 40% depending on the year, I find it shocking.

GCSE is not advanced calculus that only scientists will need and apply. It's life skills. People who fail to get a GCSE 4 are unlikely to understand how their mortgage works, or how to convert the doses of a recipe for 6 people if they want to cook for 4. To think that 30 to 40% of our country's kids fail that is shocking.

@BreakingBroken I don't think Canada has a % that fail just to satisfy a bell curve.
But neither does the UK, despite many people thinking just that

@Talipesmum that’s not because exam boards say “cut off the bottom 30%”
But that's exactly what many people think. There are many posts of angry mumsnetters very convinced of exactly this

@TheLivelyViper A GCSE is a level 2 qualification, anything below a 4 is a fail on the level 2. However a 1-3 grade is a level one qualification but obviously shows a lack of grasp of the basics of a subject but nonetheless is a level qualification you can use to perhaps get onto a level 2 at college etc

This much wasn't clear to me, so thanks for clarifying. Obtaining a 1 can mean getting something like 10-15% of the total marks.

I found a Linkedin post where someone working at the National Foundation for Education Research debunks the myth that the GCSE is designed to fail the bottom 30% regardless of score: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alex-cutbill_message-to-school-and-college-leaders-understanding-activity-7345942469982756864-awaK/

He references a letter written by the then Ofqual chief https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/39051/documents/191996/default/

GCSEs are not norm-referenced, and never have been. If they were, there would be fixed proportions of students awarded each grade for every specification, regardless of how well students performed. That is not the case.

He also points to a letter written to the Guardian by a Professor of Education, who still peddles this falsehood, to indicate how widespread this myth is: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jun/16/gcses-are-outdated-its-time-to-ditch-them

If miraculously one year a cohort were very able then this would be noticed in the y6 sats and the national standardisation tests, and then the boundaries would be set differently so 30% or whatever wouldn't fail.

However there isn't going to be such an anomalous year. So yes around 1/3rd (including the resit cohort) will fail the maths/eng lang.

It is what it is, not too hard to understand. More important / easier to change other issues in education.

@ParentOfOne have you looked at what the GCSE maths circulum entails. The maths is actually quite high brow. It doesn't mean those who get lover grades wouldn't be able to understand basic life skill maths. Life skills maths have very little input in the GCSE, I would argue that those who find it difficult would benefit from doing a different qualification same with English. When they changed the circulum a while ago now it was made very academic and I do believe there should be another option for those weaker students who just need English and maths for life skills rather then to progress in academics.

I don’t know the answer to this and I taught for years!

I know it isn’t keeping the percentages at each grade the same. Many many years ago (when I sat my O levels!) this was the case. But then they lifted this requirement in order to take ‘progress in teaching’ into account and the great grade inflation started.

The most egregious example of this is uni grades where a 2/1 means nothing these days but fully 20% of grades used to be thirds in the 1980s.

The other thing to remember is that examination boards are competitive profit making organisations and compete with one another to get students to sit the paper. One example I know of is that when the new A A level grade was introduced, boards were told to make it ‘rare’. In Physics, most boards kept this at 5-6%. AQA shamelessly went for a full 12% being awarded A, and consequently many schools shifted to AQA. I think the boards have gradually equalised this now.

So, it is an amorphous process which the boards will claim is in some way objective, but I doubt really is. They need to maintain credibility with the unis at the same time as pushing themselves as best for the pupils.

And now they are under pressure from the government to keep GCSEs more rigorous and not award too many top grades.

A star grade*

Previious post bolded it instead of adding the star

Schools aren't fit for purpose. We are putting children into exams we know a percentage will fail.
However, that %is decided isn't really relevant..every year a % fail. I can't see a situation where they all pass because IF that happened the bar would be raised.
It's a system to scare some of the population to revise that bit harder so they aren't one of the failures.
It's a system that if every one got As and decided to be accountants then society won't work we need people to do every type of job. What we should be doing in valuing the variety of skill and aptitudes. Understand that all people are important and not dismiss some work as less than others. But currently we do. Who heard in school if you don't work hard your have to work in a shop or pick up rubbish? And yet where would society be without people doing this work?

But most importantly if the powers of be actually wanted to get the best skills and knowledge and development out of young people they would make sure education worked for all. They wouldn't be forcing those of whom exams don't work to sit exams they know they will fail. They would teach them in a way that they can learn.

We have so many children with SEN not even having a appropriate environment. So many unable to even attend school. And these won't even show up on the data as they aren't doing exams.
Capable of learning if only they had the chance

Only 62% passed all elements of KS2 SATs. So hardly a surprise that of the remaining 38% plenty won’t pass both Maths and English language GCSEs.
Not sure why the GCSE statistics would come as a surprise? Do you have a problem with the KS2 statistics too and how it is done there?

On the other thread you said your DC is academic and higher attaining. Should your DC achieve Greater Depth at KS2 across all subjects, the secondary they end up at - their own trajectory will be fine! Perhaps focus on the link between KS2 and GCSE and stop panicking about the entire education and political system.

Your language is incorrect.

Grades 1-3 are a level 1 pass. This is not a fail!
Grades 4-9 are a level 2 pass.
Alevels (some Btecs, T- levels etc) are level 3
HNC - level 4
HNC - level 5
Honours degree - level 6
Masters degree - level 7
PhD - level 8

Not all students at 16 reach the standard for a level 2 qualification. There are then options to support them gain level 2s via different routes, BTECs, resits, apprentiships, which can suit some more than sitting in a classroom. It is not uncommon for them to go on and gain higher level qualifications after that.

Please stop saying a level 1 qualification is a fail.

@JamesWebbSpaceTelescope Please stop saying a level 1 qualification is a fail.

Come on, that is just semantics.
Depending on the year and the exam board, failing to get a 4 in Maths means something like scoring < 15-20% on the higher paper or less than 50-40% on the foundation one https://mathsbot.com/gcse/boundaries.

Do you want me to rephrase that this country considers scoring < 15-20% "technically not a fail but a level 1 pass" (while pretty much everywhere else in the world that would be a very bad fail)? Sure, let's clarify that, let's split that hair. What changes in practice? A "level 1 pass" remains not sufficient, kids achieving that still need to retake their GCSE, it still signals a terrible understanding of the subject.

A "true fail" would be what? Scoring 5%? Even answering completely at random, it is probably easier to get a "level 1 pass" than a fail.

@MigGirl The maths is actually quite high brow. It doesn't mean those who get lover grades wouldn't be able to understand basic life skill maths. Life skills maths have very little input in the GCSE

I disagree.
I agree that getting the very very top grades in some past papers may have been hard.
I do not agree that getting a 4 is.
As above, a 4 means something like 15-20% on the higher paper or 40-50% on the foundation one.

Foundation papers have questions like:

work out 120 - 89
simply 3xax4
convert litres to millilitres
If you need 200g of sugar for 20 cookies, how much sugar do you need for 60 cookies?
basic percentages
etc

See https://www.mathsgenie.co.uk/papers/1fnov2023.pdf

@Araminta1003 Only 62% passed all elements of KS2 SATs. So hardly a surprise that of the remaining 38% plenty won’t pass both Maths and English language GCSEs.
Not sure why the GCSE statistics would come as a surprise?

Good point. I hadn't looked into KS2 SATs but, sure, with that in mind, the results are hardly surprising.
I supposed I would have hoped that, since kids mature and develop at different paces, maybe it's less surprising for some kids to do less well when they are 10-11 than when they are 15-16

@Araminta1003
Do you have a problem with the KS2 statistics too and how it is done there?
Perhaps focus on the link between KS2 and GCSE and stop panicking about the entire education and political system.

Yes, we have had strong disagreements on some topics, but why be so nasty and aggressive? Why come at me like this for what I still dare consider is a perfectly legitimate question? If someone you hadn't disagreed with had asked a similar question, would you have reacted the same way? If I trigger you so much, please just ignore me.

@Leftrightmiddle They wouldn't be forcing those of whom exams don't work to sit exams they know they will fail. They would teach them in a way that they can learn.

I think the UK already does it better than other countries, because it doesn't force all kids to do the same maths exam, and it does differentiate between a foundation and a higher paper.

Where maybe we may disagree is that I think a 4 in GCSE maths is basic life skills that are useful in life regardless of your profession; as per the examples above, it's things like working out percentages, fractions, converting from metres to cms, rescaling the dose for a 4-people recipe to 6 people, etc.

We have so many children with SEN not even having a appropriate environment. So many unable to even attend school. And these won't even show up on the data as they aren't doing exams.
Capable of learning if only they had the chance

That's very true. It's also the dark side of having so much focus on exams and results, and giving schools (especially secondary academies) so much autonomy that they are practically unaccountable to anyone: they have an incentive to game the system, to create an environment which is hostile to special needs children and to anyone who'll lower their averages, etc.

It is also a testament to how unequal and fractured our society is, and how many kids sadly live in broken homes (I don't mean divorced parents but dysfunctional, sometimes outright dangerous family environments).

At the end of the day, many schools have improved massively when the area gentrified. Even the best teachers and headteachers cannot do miracles.

Yes a 1 is a very low grade, and obviously means a lot of the content is misunderstood as would the skills needed to write the essays or show working for a question etc. Many people if they score below a 4 for, for Maths and English will resit the exam. Obviously even for some part-time jobs etc they still want a number of grades at 4 or 5, so it can be a barrier to that, but can allow for them to get onto a Level 2 college course.

It is sort of built into every exam system, that some people won't have the knowledge or skill to meet x grade. A grade 4 has certain requirements across the board, and it makes sense that not everyone each year will meet that barrier. The levels you could say are too high as this year the amount that passed both Maths and English dropped a little more but it's around 67% I think, so you could say that having around 30% of people is too many but again as someone else mentioned it aligns with KS2 results.

The point of a level 1 pass, is in some circumstances it can let you progress to a level 2 course.

So with maths and English you are going to continue your studies anyway as we decided everyone needs a level 2 pass to function in society (although thsts clearly not true, plenty of people work having failed to achieve level 2)

But a lot of level 2 courses at sixth form colleges will set and entry requirement of 4 level 1 qualifications.

Before GCSEs we had O-levels and CSEs. O-levels represent the 'level 2 pass' grades, and CSEs the 'level 1 pass' grades.

No one, in the olden days, said that passing a CSE was 'failing an O-level'.

Which is why it is entirely correct to say that a level 1 pass is a pass. It's not a 'level 2 fail'.

I think people will always know where a pass and fail is, however you dress it up.

If someone gets a 3 or under in maths, they are really bad at maths! And if you change the nomenclature or grading system, people will still know what is good and what is bad.

Some competition and stress is a healthy thing and there do have to be winners and losers. In the animal kingdom the consequences of failing at running or fighting can be death or banishments. I think we can live with a low grade on a certificate.

The main positive change in education in the last 50 years is the recognition of process over outcome and the praise for effort and improvement.

But we will never (and nor should we) not recognise success of outcome and that comes with the corollary of failure.

@Newbutoldfather If someone gets a 3 it doesn't mean they are 'really bad' at maths or English.
It can just mean for example they don't have the stamina for the exams or confidence to have a go or linguistics to interpret.

@ParentOfOne Ofqual have a statutory role (lots of info on their website)

Following concerns that grade rises in the UK from 1980s to 2000s was a result of inflation rather than improvement in standards, some analysis was done which showed that literacy rates hadn’t improved in line with increased grades.

The conservative government’s education reforms from 2010 onwards introduced a more rigorous role for Ofqual in ensuring that the benchmarks and expectations for UK secondary education were in line with the best overseas education systems, and that there was consistency of standards year on year. There are tests given to Y11 students independently of GSCEs to check whether standards are improving or not and which help set grade boundaries to ensure consistency between cohorts in different year groups.

It is not the case that a quarter must fail, or any particular criterion like that. If you look at any comprehensive cohort, the progress 8 score demonstrates that it’s certainly not the case that a particular proportion will fail - it’s down to the teaching as well as the ability and motivation of the child.

@TeenToTwenties ,

I am afraid it really does!

Exams have reduced in length dramatically over the years. My O levels were 3 hours. Also, special needs now get access arrangements, so someone lacking stamina would get rest breaks.

If you get a 3, you are bad at Maths (or English). I could say that you have attained badly but might have great potential, but I would be lying! That might explain a 5 or a 6, but a 3, no.

(Of course, there are rare exceptions to what I have written, but they really are vanishingly rare)

Not everyone can be good at every everything and obfuscation doesn’t change this. Sometimes it is better to admit that something isn’t for you and find something that is.