I don't really get the new GCSE grading....

[AuntieMatters]

Everyone keeps saying that 7 is an A and 8 an A star and 9 A double star?

But then there is this other narrative sometimes, in posts on here and conversations elsewhere, that treats anything less than a 7 like it would be a really poor grade....

Certainly for my son's chosen subjects at 6th form he needs " at least a 7" and he and his teachers feel he should aim for 9s across the board

I don't mind him having high aspirations but I just feel like there's mixed messaging about what the grades really mean?

Wow! I really feel your nephew!
I can't really understand making a child feel like that. I try and instill a love of learning for its own sake not primarily for grades

9 is for exceptional performance. If a vast swathe of students in a school are getting them, then that is a highly selective school. For A level a 7 or above will be required to be able to tackle the course without too much difficulty and in order to be looking at getting a C grade or above at A level. 5 is a solid pass at GCSE as opposed to a low pass (grade 4).

About needing a 7 to do A level Maths.

(I’ve been out of mainstream teaching for about 10 years and now just tutor A level Maths, so accept that limitation in my understanding.)

I’ve seen academic research about this. In 2000 it was generally accepted that A level Maths was half a grade harder than most other A. Levels. The Curriculum 2000 reforms deliberately made it harder.

One argument in favour of this at the time was the need for a post-A level population which was better at Matts.

The current specifications have made things harder again because all the papers for a final A grade have to be taken in the same sitting, rather than at four (or, formerly, six) sessions with the possibility of resitting papers if you thought you could do better by trying again. A student’s best result would count.

Also, for A level it’s no longer possible to take Decision Maths, which some thought was the soft option. (It can be part of Further Maths.)
Both Mechanics and Statistics are now compulsory, where before lots of students chose the one (or ones) they found easier.

All this contributes to why it’s difficult to get a good understanding of the course (and high grades) if you don’t get a 7 or better at GCSE.

Makes the whole change seem a bit pointless

Changing from letters to numbers seemed really pointless- everyone knew an 'A' was good!

Someone mentioned up thread that only 1200 pupils got straight 9s which is around 0.2% of those taking GCSEs so it's really very few. 5.5% of those taking 9 GCSEs in 2025 got 7 or above, which rises quite a bit to 15.5% of those taking 10 GCSEs. But still a lot less than it seems like on here.

Our comprehensive is 57% at 7 and above so it can be the average

Grades 1-3 are seen as a fail by most, they aren’t, they are level 1 qualifications.

Grades 4-6 are what the majority fall in, 4 being the lowest grade for a level 2 qualification but is seen as a standard pass.
5 being a strong pass.

grades 7-9 are variations of As. They changed to the number system so they could add greater bands at the higher end as the lower end is less important as the courses that children move onto at that level are less competitive than the most desirable courses at the best colleges and universities. Changing to the number system prevented people from getting the old and new grades mixed up, we’d never believe a C was an A and a E was a C.

We're looking at post 16 options at the moment and the 6th form college requires 5s in relevant GCSE subjects (plus English and maths if not already included) to go there and do A levels, 4s for vocational courses. The FE college offers courses from entry level right up to level 3 and you can get something to go on to there with almost any grades but typically a relevant 4 is needed to go straight to level 3.

It may be comprehensive for your area, but it must have a significantly above average ability intake. That really is an outlier in terms of comprehensive schools.

I've just seen that it is a 6 for A level maths now.

I think the idea was to reward the truly bright children with a proper grade - as so many were getting A's you had no idea who the bright one actually were. In my day (dinosaur era, early GCSE's) something like only 6-8% of those sitting an exam got an A grade. Early 2000's we used to joke that every kid who worked for us (retail) got straight A's in their GCSES. They were definitely not 'A' calibre kids that I'd gone to school with.

It's their own fault for making an A worthless in the first place.

As it stands now, they're not devalueing a 7 and making kids feel like they've not done well enough. No wonder we have a mental health crisis.

Progression data was in this thread but COVID affected grades .https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5345830-new-data-2021-2023-progression-from-gcse-to-a-level

Approx 23% of grades overall are 7+. In maths under 4% are grade 9.

Government infographic from last year here:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/infographics-level-12-and-gcse-results-2025/infographics-level-12-and-gcse-results-2025-image-version

A 6 in maths would certainly be a big issue for someone who intends to take FM at A levelm

My daughter told me that afterwards all the exams are marked only the top so many percent get a grade 9 then the next so many get a grade 8 etc.
I hadn't really understood until then but that does make sense to me now.

A level maths teacher here. We require a 7+ to do A level maths. On the odd occasion we take someone with a 6 (for various reasons) they virtually always scrape Es at best, and often do considerably better in their other subjects. Our local college requires a 6 but they have to sit AS level at the end of year 12 and can't continue into year 13 if they don't get their target grade. They also have a lot of drop outs.

I feel like it was just Michael gove who had to tinker with every single thing. I did my GCSE’s early 2000s but we had A* by then and they were pretty hard to get! I was a straight A kinda person but only got 2. And most of my friends did not get all As. Only those of us in top sets did. Most people were getting a real mix of B&Cs etc
They surely could have just adjusted grade boundaries or something. Changing them to numbers and then every adult having to use a table to compare them seems like a right mess 🤣

Changing to numbers made a 'clean break' between the 'coursework-including' GCSEs and the 'new overly academic, not general, hopeless for less academic' GCSEs.
As far as I can see 9s exist for parent/school boasting rights and to stress out high achieving kids. No one needs 9s to exist as such. Highly academic kids can go on to A levels and get all A-stars if they want to. It just makes 4,5,6s look less good.

I think it'salways been subject dependent. I got an A in gcse maths, did A level maths and nearly failed in year 12 so dropped it. They told me at school when I selected it that even with an A in gcse it would be really tough to excel at A level (I ignored them because I assumed an A was good), they were right and really I think it was for A star students (8/9 now), I'm not gonna advise my kids to select it unless they get an 8/9 at gcse. Other subjects I think it's a bit less rigid and a 7 maybe even a 6 they'd cope ok, but unlikely to achieve a high grade at A level. I only got As in the A levels that I'd got an A star in at GCSE

So I think they probably always had a view that certain subjects really were tricky at A Level and you needed to be really strong at gcse to move up (this was in the 00s).

Also schools and colleges progress, so they probably do want higher grades now, and kids need to keep up.

My school gave us a aptitude test for doing A level Maths. It was actually (part of?) The P1 paper.

I think this is really what is is all about. Used to be that kids did A Levels and most went on into training schemes, jobs etc but now - since Blair - everyone is expected to go to university so the A levels are almost solely part of that pathway. And then there is the fact that you need a degree to do pretty much anything now so A Level - and therefore GCSE grades - form part of the profile AI engines screen.

I personally hate it as so many children are just not mature enough to understand at 14-16 just how significant their GCSE grades will be and that if they mess them up (in my DS’s case just get 6s) it is potentially life-limiting.

If I were PM, I’d remove GCSEs entirely, replace with annual school-based monitoring, and just formally assess at 18 in a mixture of exams and school-based [externally moderated] assessments - a bit like Access Courses and the IB is done. And pretty much like every school system around the world. It would mean they don’t lose 6-9m in Y11 just ‘revising’ and practicing for exams, but could actually be learning new topics. Would save billions on exam fees that could be put into teachers pay…

BTECs are much underrated.
And you can still go on to university with them.

My DC school is a state comprehensive. Its high achieving and very competitive with other schools in the town. DS is in top-set maths, the teacher is expecting/hoping/insisting most of the class get 9s.
With a fair wind i think that would be possible for DS, but hes definitely feeling the pressure every lesson

If I were PM, I’d remove GCSEs entirely, replace with annual school-based monitoring, and just formally assess at 18 in a mixture of exams and school-based [externally moderated] assessments -

I think that would be a dreadful idea. It would mean a whole lot of young people who don't go onto 6th form would not have any formal academic qualifications. There is too much bias in the school system with teachers making assumptions about the capability of certain students.

My son for example in one subject consistently got Grade 5 in formal assessments and in his mock GCSE exam but because he had other challenges (autistic) and didn't hand in homework, was assessed as getting a Grade 3 in the covid teacher assessed grades. Research shows that some teachers consistently under predict students from certain ethnic backgrounds or social classes.

Yes, that's what worries me. That it's fine from "exceptional" to "expected" in some cohorts