Each August, as A-level results are being published, the headlines begin: ‘Standards are falling, ‘Pass rates fixed in advance,’ or ‘Too many A grades handed out.’ While parents are concerned about reading these stories, teachers are gearing up to answer a barrage of questions. And, students are simply trying to make sense of whether or not their achievements are going to be deemed valid.
One of the most misunderstood policies, and the source of so much confusion, is comparable outcomes. Its critics claim it is a “statistical fix” that prevents real progress from being captured in the exam results. Other conspiratorial thinkers believe it is a secret system that guarantees only a specific proportion of students are allowed to succeed.
The reality is distinctly more encouraging. Comparable outcomes do not aim to achieve a “cap” on success. It is centered on maintaining fairness during curriculum changes and also on ensuring qualifications are upheld during scrutiny from universities, employers, or the public.
This article explains the motives, functions, and repercussions of comparable outcomes on parents, teachers, and students, going deeper than the headlines.
At Discover Learning Tutors, we are of the opinion that demystifying the grading of exams helps families and schools to pivot their focus to what is truly important: authentic learning, not unfounded narratives.
The Myth of “Fixed” Results
The notion that A-level outcomes are “fixed” is one of the most stubborn myths. The public finds this reasoning intuitive, since the national results do not dramatically change from year to year. The pass rates and the proportion of grades assigned do not vary wildly and instead sit within a few percentage points.
This stability, along with a national results record that does not change dramatically from year to year, has led to the misbelief that exam boards are capping achievement, which, on its own, is also a misconception. Teachers often express concern that their students’ genuine progress is not fully reflected.
However, as research shows, including the thorough investigation by Paul E. Newton in 2022, that is an oversimplification. The system in place is not intended to restrict achievements; in fact, it aims to maintain equity and uniformity.
The Most Accurate Definition of Comparable Outcomes
Comparative outcomes are a strategy especially applied during periods of change, such as when a syllabus or an exam is updated. Picture an A-level exam that is entirely new, which has new topics and new styles of questions. Do the first set of students need to be punished just because they are, in effect, “guinea pigs”? Obviously not.
That is where the methodology of comparable outcomes is useful. The methodology is as follows:
1. Baseline Data – Examination boards assess the cohort’s prior attainment and often use GCSE results as a predictor. A-level candidates of the previous year are often considered to project results. If a set of A-level candidates shares the same academic profile as the previous year’s group, their outcomes are expected to be comparable.
2. Statistical Predictions – These forecasts inform the setting of grade boundaries. They do not determine results outright, but they create a floor and a ceiling within which results are to be set to ensure no student is unfairly treated.
3. Examiner’s Decision – The award of the grade still has to be verified by seasoned examiners who assess real student work in comparison to the set benchmarks from prior years. They ensure that an A grade is not awarded unless the candidate has performed to A-grade standards.
4. Final Adjustments – An evaluation of scripts is done in cases where students have performed significantly better or worse than what was predicted. In these cases, final adjustments will be made.
The balance is achieved at this point: data ensures stability, while human judgment guarantees fairness.
Reason Why Comparable Outcomes Were Introduced
To safeguard students was the primary reason why comparable outcomes were designed. In the absence of this system, students from earlier cohorts taking administered reformative exams could have been placed in unfairly low result brackets.
Take this scenario into account: An entire syllabus is overhauled, and the very first group of students is penalized with significantly lower scores due to much harsher exam phrasing. In the absence of a comparable outcomes system, universities and employers would assume this group was significantly weaker than the previous group, even though they performed just as strongly.
The system was put in place with the intention of smoothing out these unjust discrepancies. Students are now able to be assured that, irrespective of exam structural changes, their grades will be comparable to their predecessors.
The system also ensures these results have enduring value. Outlandish and unpredictable changes to results have the potential to erode public confidence in the system. By enforcing stability, comparable outcomes work to preserve public trust in the value of the qualifications.
Does Comparable Outcomes Function as a Permanent Solution?
Another prevailing misconception is that the system puts a permanent ceiling on students’ achievements, claiming that no matter what effort is put in by students, their results will always be in line with previous cohorts.
This is not true. Comparable outcomes are a temporary measure meant to assist during the initial years following a reform. After a period of stabilization, grading shifts back to the traditional method of attainment-referencing, where the actual standard of student work, measured against past benchmarks, dictates the grades.
Even during the application of comparable outcomes, examiners retain the discretion to acknowledge genuine improvement. If student scripts demonstrate significantly higher levels of attainment than expected, this improvement can and does influence results.
Attainment-Referencing: The Real Anchor
While comparable outcomes are useful during transitional years, the true anchor of A-level grading remains attainment-referencing.
Attainment-referencing differs from norm-referencing (where a fixed percentage of students must get each grade) because grades are awarded based on a student’s work. Attainment-referencing requires examiners to compare current student responses with archived examples to ensure consistency over time.
This method ensures that:
- An A grade in 2025 reflects the same standard of attainment as an A grade in 2010 or 2000
- Improvements in teaching and learning can still be recognized.
- The credibility of the standards is preserved for universities and employers.
While comparable outcomes attempt to cushion shifts during change, attainment-referencing remains the long-term principle.
Why the Headlines Mislead
If the truth is reassuring, why does the media tell a different story?
Partly, because “falling standards” or “rigged grades” are far more attention-grabbing. They play into broader societal concerns about equity in education, intergenerational comparisons (“Exams were harder in my day!”).
Headlines rarely, if ever, capture the nuance. They fail to explain that comparable outcomes protect, rather than penalize, students. They also fail to illuminate the important aspects of examiner judgment in the grading process, ensuring that the grades awarded are a true reflection of the student’s attainment.
The result is an unwarranted sense of suspicion among parents and students, a sense of demoralization. This is why it is particularly important for schools, alongside tutoring organizations such as Discover Learning Tutors, to strive for clarity.
What This Means for Parents
For parents, understanding the concept of comparable outcomes alleviates anxiety. Rather than stressing about their child’s grades being “capped,” parents can rest assured that the results are fair and consistent across the board.
It also assists parents in setting realistic expectations. Parents now understand that consistent results are not a sign of stagnation, but rather, a sign of the system maintaining its integrity. With an understanding of the media myths, parents are now able to focus on supporting their child’s learning.
Implications for Instructors
Instructors often bear the burden of the public scrutiny associated with accountability measures and concerns about grade inflation. The understanding of comparable outcomes helps them to communicate with parents and students more effectively.
This understanding also helps instructors to focus on the more critical elements of their profession, which include knowledge construction and critical thinking, as well as the students’ examination preparedness. The understanding that grade allocation is based on achievement frees instructors to focus on core academic outcomes instead of chasing misleading headlines.
Implications for Learners
Learners remain the same in that their core message is that effort is of utmost importance. Comparable outcomes do not erase achievement; rather, they protect it. Learners will have their grades based on their effort and capability as measured against a set benchmark.
By concentrating on active learning and preparation for the examination, learners will be assured of the recognition of their effort.
At Discover Learning Tutors, we build with students topical and examination knowledge in addition to knowledge, confidence, and resilience in the exam. Our approach is that students are prepared to show their real potential regardless of the grading method.