This page outlines the process of grading AS and A levels. You can click on the links below to find out information on how awarding bodies and accountable officers determined this grading process during the first awarding of AS and A2 levels in 2002.

How are A levels graded?

Content

• Introduction
• Recommending grade boundaries
• Evidence from scripts
• Statistical evidence
• Approving grade boundaries

Introduction

Grading happens twice each year, within each of the awarding bodies, after all scripts and coursework have been marked. It involves deciding the lowest number of marks needed for a grade A, B, C, D and E in a unit. This number is known as the grade boundary mark. The grade boundary marks and candidates' marks are converted to a scale that is common for all units: the UMS (Uniform Mark Scale). This ensures that a mark from one unit is worth the same as a mark from any other unit, in whatever year the unit is taken.

The process of deciding raw grade boundary marks for each unit happens in two stages:

1. a meeting of the awarding committee to recommend grade boundaries
2. a review of the recommended grade boundaries by the awarding body accountable officer.

This process is set out in QCA's Code of Practice, which the awarding bodies follow.

(back to top)

Recommending grade boundaries

The awarding committee typically has around eight members, each of whom are senior examiners and subject experts. The committee consider students' work from scripts and coursework, as well as statistics and archive material of students' work from previous years. It uses the evidence to recommend grade boundaries that will ensure the standard is maintained year on year.

The Code of Practice recognises that grade awarding is not an exact science and therefore grade boundaries cannot be determined entirely by fixed rules. This is because the validity of evidence from sources can change in different circumstances. For example, statistical evidence will be less reliable for subjects with only a few students; evidence from scripts will be less reliable where syllabuses have changed substantially. Both statistical evidence and experienced judgement contribute a distinct perspective and both are vulnerable.

(back to top)

Evidence from scripts

The awarding committee uses evidence from scripts to make a direct comparison of standards. It compares current scripts with scripts from the previous year.

• The previous year's scripts represent the work that fell on the grade boundary for that year.
• The current scripts are from a range of marks that are around where the grade boundary is likely to fall.

The awarding committee decides which marks from the present year's examination show a level of performance that is most similar to the level of performance shown at the previous year's boundaries.

(back to top)

Statistical evidence

Since comparing evidence from scripts is the only direct method of comparing standards, some question why statistical evidence is used at all.

In previous decades, examiner judgement was often the sole criterion. However, there were instances of apparently large swings in performance from one year to the next. This suggested that examiner judgement alone was insufficient, which is understandable; grading examination papers that are not of identical difficulty is a complex process, especially when changes in curriculum and assessment arrangements have occurred.

The awarding committee uses statistical evidence to build a picture of how performance might be expected to change. This is based on the characteristics of students who take each examination and the characteristics of the examination itself.

For example, if the average mark is slightly higher in the current year than it was in the previous year, the committee might look at the schools entered. If there was a greater proportion of high-performing schools, this might explain the higher average mark, and provide evidence for an increase in the percentage of students gaining a particular grade.

(back to top)

Approving grade boundaries

The accountable officer reviews the awarding committee's recommendations before making final decisions. The officer cannot make further judgements of scripts, but can consider the committee's judgements and recommendations in light of decisions made by other awarding committees for similar subjects. This provides an opportunity to:

• check the recommendations made by individual awarding committees
• coordinate decisions across subjects.

(back to top)