GCSE Results 2026

I was thinking of writing a new version of this post. But I think I will just do a new introduction and leave the original one.

Introduction:

The Association for Language Learning webinar with Helen Myers, Adam Lamb and David Blow made a few things clear. It will be available to members on the ALL website and is well worth a look. The main message on grades is: no real change. Grades at 1+, 4+ and 7+ were set by comparable outcomes to be in line with previous patterns, and therefore to preserve unfair grading in languages. The numbers of pupils scoring in each of these ranges was kept the same, as was the overall mean score for each language.

There were however some questions I don't think were answered. Or perhaps they were, but I didn't understand.

One is that with the SAMs seeming more accessible, schools entered more pupils for Higher tier. This could have been a dangerous decision as we know that pupils can drop to a U. In the event there was only a small increase in the number of pupils who got a U. Is this because comparable outcomes meant the number of U grades was always going to be stable?

In French, there was an increase in grade 6s. Was this because in previous years we had entered too many pupils for Foundation tier?

There was also an increase in the number of grade 3s on Foundation tier. Was this necessary in order to balance the extra 6s and keep the mean constant?

Was it because of the ability profile of the cohort? If so, how was this determined as this group had no SATs baseline?

Was it because the drop in entries for French changed the profile of the cohort? Again, how could they determine this without SATs?

Or was it genuinely arithmetically determined by simply allocating grades by dividing up the marks to be scored in between the 1, 4 and 7 key comparable outcome points?

Here's my original post. But I warn you, it doesn't answer the questions!

 There seems to be some improvement in some of the grades allocated to Languages at GCSE this year.  We know that in terms of the key points of grade 4+ and grade 7+, the allocation of grades has been kept in line with previous patterns. But there may be some shifts for example to more 6s and fewer 5s in French. I am waiting for FFT education datalab to update their series of blog posts on severe grading. [Link at bottom of this post.]

Meanwhile, what can we say about the grades?

Firstly, we should question any narrative that this is in some way down to the new GCSE being better. When a new GCSE is introduced, Ofqual are very careful to make sure there is parity of grading carried over from the previous GCSE. The grade boundaries are shifted to make sure the number of pupils awarded each grade is kept the same year on year (with small tweaks depending on the cohort's KS2 SATs results).

There are 3 possible reasons for improved grades being allocated in languages.

1. A deliberate decision to allocate better grades as a tacit recognition of long-standing unfairness.

2. A stronger cohort of pupils taking languages. This could accompany the drop in numbers taking languages, possibly as a result of some schools starting to remove compulsion at KS4, seeing a change to the profile of the cohort. This would be particularly hard to judge this year, given that there was no KS2 SATs baseline for this year group.

3. A deliberate decision to allocate better grades to make the new exam look successful. This could take advantage of the lack of SATs results to address some of the unfairness in grading without having to acknowledge it.

On this third point, there are some aspects associated with the new GCSE that may have needed finessing. The Sample Assessment Materials produced by the board were generally recognised as being much more accessible than previous materials, with pupils scoring much higher marks especially in Listening. This opened the possiblity of two implications for the new exam. Firstly that if unfair grading was carried over to the new GCSE, it would look ridiculous that pupils were being given low grades for very high raw scores. In the event, I think the actual exam papers were not as easy as the SAMs.

Secondly, the accessible SAMs could have led to more pupils being entered for Higher Tier. And in the event, it is the case that more pupils were entered for Higher papers this year. This could have meant an embarrassing number of pupils dropping to a U if they were incorrectly entered for Higher Tier when the actual papers weren't as accessible as the SAMs. What we see in fact, is fewer grade 5s allocated this year and an increase in 6s, presumably as a result of some schools entering more pupils for Higher Tier. And only a very small increase in Us.

So a potentially embarrasing situation was avoided, without compromising Ofqual's intention of maintaining parity with previous years at the key grades of Grade 4 and Grade 7. It will be interesting to find out as more information becomes available, exactly how this was negotiated.

The important questions are whether this goes far enough to bring MFL grading into line with other subjects. And whether it will be sustained. There is the famous "sawtooth" mechanism whereby when a new specification is introduced, grading becomes gradually harsher as teachers gain expertise in the new course and the new exam. Is this year's grading a step in the right direction? Or just a one-off to ease in the new exam?

Unfair grading has a huge impact on the narrative of national "failure" in language learning. Any steps to address it would be hugely welcome, and could be transformative alongside very necessary changes post-16. Let's hope this is a first step in the right direction!

Update following the ALL webinar. There is no movement towards ending severe grading. The allocation of grades at 4+ and 7+ was always going to be maintained. There are shifts in French with more 3s and more 6s. This is arithmetically determined rather than deliberate adjustment. It may be explained by changes to the profile of the pupils taking French as numbers drop. Or the higher numbers entered for Higher tier. Languages remains graded nigh on a grade lower than other ebacc subjects in the range 4 to 7. In fact it is the 50th years since Nuttall's research confirming severe grading at O Level.

FFT Datalab blog now have a post analysing the results - worth a read!