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

@Newbutoldfather so your preference would be that anything below a 4 simply got awarded a U?

The issue with saying someine is bad at maths, and I agree it probably isn't someone's strong point, is we need exams to demonstrate what people can do. They are used as a gateway to next steps and employment.

Pupils who are not at a level of a 4, can generally still do some useful maths and they need to demonstrate this.

I have one son who has SEN and he sat Level 1 functional skills. Its still employment worthy maths. He can add, follow a recipe and adjust it etc.

@noblegiraffe ,

I have not looked at where the grade boundaries come in in Maths recently. But under 20% say should probably be a U.

The reality is that we should have a Maths competency certificate where people are taught life skills, and those neither good or interested in mathematics take that. There is no point in teaching or examining trigonometry or algebraic equations to those struggling with basic arithmetic and logic.

It is cruel to the pupils. I have taught physics to students who just try to learn the words. Neither of us get anything out of the experience!

Your O levels were 3hrs? Mine weren't. Anyway O levels were aimed at the top 20% or so. GCSEs are meant to be suitable for all.

My degree maths papers were 3hrs each. (4 papers over 2 consecutive days.)

20% would get you a mid grade 1 currently. So not that far off what you are expecting.

Agree that maths GCSE is not fit for purpose at the lower end, but suggesting that anything below a grade 4 is a fail is ignoring how the GCSE actually works. It's not a fail, it's a level 1 pass. It replaces CSE maths. Grade 4 and above replaces O-level maths.

If you want those who get below a grade 4 to sit a different exam instead, then we're back to O-levels and CSEs.

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

Some kids do better than expected at GCSE based on their KS2 SATS but others don’t follow their expected trajectory because adolescence and life stuff.

@ParentOfOne - I am not being nasty or aggressive. 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.
People on MN tend to panic about the education system when they are going through the 11 plus, KS2 SATS, GCSEs, A level and clearing. 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.

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

And in real life I have plenty of friends who are extremely high achieving academically including in Maths, who have failed to do proper and savvy financial long term planning. So I am not convinced top grades go hand in hand with being financially savvy or investment savvy whatsoever.

To think that 30 to 40% of our country's kids fail that is shocking.

Not really. These days all children sit GCSEs when they are 15/16. There is bound to be a difference in achievement.

No allowance is made for whether you only arrived in the country last year or that you have been in hospital for a month or 100 other reasons you might underperform.

IMHO some children should not be put in for GCSEs or should sit a smaller number of subjects with more teaching.

But I don't make the policy.

What frustrates me the most (20+ years secondary teaching) is when the govt says they want to increase pass rates. But then set that rates of 4+ are norm referenced. Before this, rates did steadily increase but then there were annual complaints about grade inflation.

@Bobbybobbins But then set that rates of 4+ are norm referenced.

Why do you say they are? They are not. That's the myth that refuses to die.
As per previous links and quotes above, the Ofqual chief has clarified this very explicitly: what you say is not true.

@sashh No allowance is made for whether you only arrived in the country last year or that you have been in hospital for a month or 100 other reasons you might underperform.

Sure, but how many such cases are there? How much of the 30-40% fail rate do they account for? It's already been pointed out that there is much more attention on special needs and neurodivergence, with kids given extra allowances if warranted.

Also, English as a second language can mean very different things. It can mean children of humble, ignorant immigrants who have just arrived in the country and are not very literate, but it can also mean bilingual or trilingual children of highly successful and educated foreign professionals. E.g. in many London schools, kids with English as a second language outperform the others.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

There are no national or provincial exams in Canada.

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).

@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

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.

@McSpoot looks like things have changed.

@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?

@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.

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.

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.

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.