Clarification on the new 1-9 grading system

All subjects are going to move to grades 1-9. 4 is supposed to be the equivalent of a low C, so they can distinguish more between the top grades.

Part of the idea is that they can add a grade 10 if they want to, and even 11 and 12 in the long run, which would sound less stupid than A** and A***.

Pupils currently in Y9 will do their GCSE English and Maths (maybe some others - I'm not sure?) under the new system (Grades 1-9) but most other subjects will still be U-A*. The current Y8s will do new GCSEs for the other subjects.


In terms of KS3 Levels, it depends on your school. Most are still using levels for the time being (we are, with Y7 and 8 - Y9 use GCSE grades).

For next year onwards, we've been asked to develop descriptors/criteria for the GCSE grade 1-9 and to apply these from Y7 onwards. So a pupil might be grade 1/2 in Y7, grade 3 in Y8 and so on (working towards a final GCSE grade of 4-9). The trouble is that in my subject (Languages) we don't yet know what 1-9 will look like in terms of the GCSE. So any draft assessment schemes are very much a work in progress. I think this is common in other schools as well.

Come next year, some schools are doing this slightly differently. E.g. A pupil may enter year 7 with a target grade of 6 and this will be THE SAME every year. So they'd be a YEAR 7 level 6, a YEAR 8 level 6 and so on... Might be easier to show progress this way. Maybe? So pupils don't just get stuck and aren't able to move upwards any more when they're starting at 1 and just expected to keep advancing.

Hmm, that's an interesting way of doing things.

I just don't know how you'd decide what the criteria are if you needed a different set of criteria for every year group. What a "Grade 4" or whatever is would become completely subjective and meaningless if it was different for every year group.

Plus it would be a far too much work for teachers to produce 4 different sets of criteria, so I'd refuse solely on that basis.