GCSE results: the interpretation is wrong

The 1-9 system in itself may not be at fault, it's what is done with the results which is flawed.

I'll summarise the idea of the 1-9 system like this:

Overall grade distribution at GCSE 2025 (all subjects)

Students who have sat an exam in a subject can reflect on their results and decide what their next steps are. If they received a 2 in their language exams, maybe being a translator is not the right choice. If they received a 4 in their business exam, they may want to look at their misunderstandings before opening a business.

There are differences in the subjects, but some of these are to be expected. A student is unlikely to enter a Mandarin exam unless they are confident they will do well. A single science is usually only taken by students who are not confident with the sciences and are unlikely to do well.

However, for English and maths, everyone has to sit the exam and the results look like this:

Grade distribution for all students 2025 in English and Maths

Whether it is looking at the overall figures or the English and Maths figures, this is how the system is designed: every year the exam boards work to ensure that annual fluctuations remain small and that the most frequently rewarded results are between 4 and 6, a small group of students are awarded 7 to 9, and everyone else gets 1, 2 or 3, unless they failed to get a 1 and are Ungraded, or fail.

If it is considered like that, it seems fair. Whether you agree with exams or not, the idea that, if you take an exam, you get a result from 1-9 and you are judged as failing (about 2% of students), excellent (around 20% of students) and you can see where along that line your results lie.

I'll reiterate that the system was been built this way. However, year upon year, this has been ignored in preference of rhetoric that has resulted in unfairness, blame, anxiety and distrust and disaffectedness of those that have to sit these exams.

First off, the goal posts have been moved and it is no longer a fail and 1-9 system. It is now a fail, 4-9 system:

Grade distribution for 2025, but now with the interpretation that 1-3 is a 'fail'

By reinterpreting 1-3 as a 'fail'. now about 40% of students can be labelled failures. The course hasn't changed, the exam hasn't changed, the exam system hasn't changed. Outside of all that, it has been 'decided' that everyone needs to have a 4 in English and Maths.

So every year, 40% of students will be called failures, not because they failed, but because the goal posts were moved.

For some reason though, this is not enough 'failures'. The next set of students to go after are those with 4s. It has now been decided that it is not good enough to get a 5 in maths to not be a 'failure', you also have to get at least a 5 in English too. Similarly, if you get a 4 in maths and a 5 in English, you are being labelled a 'failure'.

Again, the system was set up so that around 50% of students got 4 or under and it hasn't changed, but this labelling system means that now nearly 60% of students can be called a 'failure':

The values for grades 5 and 6 have been interpolated by me as this data is not published. However, this graphic demonstrates why so many students are being called 'failures'.

Why is this an issue? Well, as mentioned above, the system is setup to allow 1-9 as grades. The made up "failure" label does not consider what the students know or what is in the curriculum. However, it can be used to keep students in education and off the unemployment figures and tell teachers and schools that they are 'failing'.

It does not help the students or the country. The system that was set up to let you know that if you got a 3 in maths, maybe don't become an accountant, is now being used to shout 'get better you failure' at you. And when you retake, the system will still label nearly 70% of students a failure, so already you know you are unlikely to pass, but get a chance to be told you are repeatedly a failure.

Students are aware that the could push their grade from a 2 to a 3 and be proud of that. Except that they will be labelled a failure. With the realisation that even if they could push it to a 4 or even a 5 they could still be labelled a failure, why bother? Not only that, why bother going to school at all? And those who are quickest to label students failures are also the quickest to wonder why they don't want to join in this unfair 'game'.

Also 'they' will wonder why students are so anxious. Well, those who were worried about getting a 4 and a 'pass' in a subject, now have to worry about how to get a 5 in both English AND maths or be labelled a failure.

So, there is no need in itself to change the 1-9 system. I believe that there is a lot wrong with the maths that is taught and examined, but leave it to those that know the skills difference between a 1 and a 9 and stop arbitrarily labeling people 'failures'..