AWARDING GCSE AND GCE-TIME TO REFORM THE CODE OF PRACTICE?

Oct 20, 2026

The paper argues that the current process used to award GCSE and GCE qualifications is no longer fit for purpose. Although it has changed little since 1951, its surrounding context has shifted through research findings, technology development, and access to mass candidate-level data. The approach is costly, opaque, and often grounded in weak theoretical assumptions, providing no reliable guarantee that standards align across awarding organisations or years. The author proposes substantial reform based on candidate-level statistical evidence and revised emphasis.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages24

Reading Time1 h 0 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract/Introduction

Current Practice

Current practice as dictated by the CoP

Some features of the CoP

AWARDING GCSE AND GCE-TIME TO REFORM THE CODE OF PRACTICE? 1. ABSTRACT/INTRODUCTION Ben Jones The theme of this paper is that the process by which national general qualifications – the GCSE and GCE in particular – are awarded is no longer fit for purpose. It is argued that, although the process has changed little since GCE A levels started in 1951, much of the context in which it is practised has changed substantially, and as such it should be reconstructed, perhaps quite radically. In particular, it is argued that the process has neither adequately kept pace with, nor adapted to, the findings of research projects, developments in technology, and the availability of mass, candidate-level data. Some of its implicit theoretical underpinnings are frequently exposed as ill-founded, it is expensive in terms of both time and money, and is opaque and not conducive to rigorous monitoring and evaluation. Perhaps most concerning of all is the evidence that strict adherence to the statutory GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice (CoP) (2009) not only provides no guarantee of the alignment of standards – whether between awarding organisations or years – it may actually serve to undermine that aim 1 . In short, it is argued that the process is in need of a substantial reform . In section 2 of the paper, the essential features of the awarding process, which are prescribed in part of §6 of the CoP: Awarding, marking review, maintaining an archive and issuing results, are described from AQA’s perspective; most details of how other awarding organisations interpret the CoP are not known. A brief description of how little the process has changed over at least twenty-five years is also included. Section 3 comprises a critique of the present arrangements’ prime emphasis on examiner judgement, by referring both to formal and informal research evidence which casts doubt on its reliability. In contrast, sections 4 and 5 identify the increasingly available, valid and reliable candidate-level statistical data which are currently used, albeit voluntarily and in a piecemeal way, by awarding organisations to inform their awards. The shortcomings of relying solely on such data are also identified. Section 6 notes some structural, procedural and political developments which would also argue for a change in emphasis in the approach to awarding, before the summary and discussion in section 7 which proposes how the system might be changed. KEYWORDS: Awarding; Standards; Code of Practice; Examiner Judgement; Statistical Predictions 1 The most obvious recent example of this phenomenon was the GCSE Science award in 2008, where each Awarding Body could justifiably claim to have complied with the requirements of the Code of Practice, yet before the Regulator’s late intervention, the standards between the awarding bodies were badly misaligned, and afterwards those between years were misaligned. 2 CURRENT PRACTICE 2.1. Current practice as dictated by the CoP Every summer, awarding decisions are made nationally for approaching 500 GCSE specifications and 500 GCE (including AS and A level) specifications, affecting some 600,000 and 300,000 candidates respectively. These qualifications have been called “curriculumembedded” (Cresswell, 1996), indicating that they are taught to, and assessed against, a defined specification including programmes of study, assessment objectives, grade descriptors etc. Candidates’ performances in these qualifications are assessed through their work being marked according to a clearly defined mark scheme, and are rewarded according to a grading scheme: A*-G in the case of GCSE and, as from 2010, A*-E in GCE A level. The process by which candidates’ marks in the assessments are translated into grades has, in recent years, been dictated by an- initially voluntary and latterly statutory-CoP with which all awarding organisations offering these qualifications comply. A full prescription of the awarding process is contained in som

FAQs

Why does the paper claim the awarding process is no longer fit for purpose?

It argues the process has not kept pace with research, technology, and the availability of candidate-level data, while relying on fragile theoretical assumptions. It also emphasizes that the system is expensive, opaque, and not conducive to rigorous monitoring and evaluation.

What does the current Code of Practice prescribe for awarding decisions?

It requires senior examiners to meet, review evidence—both qualitative and quantitative—and recommend grade boundary marks. At boundaries, committee members independently peruse and vote on scripts, after which provisional boundary marks may be adjusted based on subject outcomes.

What kinds of evidence are used in the awarding process?

The paper distinguishes qualitative evidence (e.g., scripts, mark schemes, principal examiners’ reports, grade descriptors) from quantitative evidence (e.g., mark distributions, item-level data, entry patterns, and centres’ estimated grades).

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Taylor Morgan