Introduction: Clarifying The Headlines
With the approach of A Level results day in August, the media buzzes with concerns of so-called “grade inflation” and “declining standards,” while questioning if the boards “fix” results. Amidst such narratives, which always seem to recur, anxiety engulfs both parents and students, while teachers are bombarded with questions about whether genuine progress is acknowledged, if at all, within the system.
At the heart of the discourse is a concept oftentimes maligned and misrepresented, “comparable outcomes.” The phrase is pegged as a statistical gimmick that throttles achievement. In reality, it is a measure of equity. Its adoption was intended to prevent the systematic disadvantage of students due to the chronological order in which they sat examinations.
Contrary to the misconceptions that surround the phrase, comparable outcomes are not a secret quota system. It aligns with expert examiner judgment to balance fairness and data. It upholds accountability while protecting students’ interests. Here at Discover Learning Tutors, we have a clear conviction that understanding the process demystifies the myths surrounding relentless, focus-centered learning and supports the notion that genuine effort is always appreciated.
The Myth of “Fixed Results”
The so-called “fixed results” theory is intriguing, primarily because it explains why national pass rates appear static over time. Year-on-year increases in the percentage of students achieving a certain grade can appear “flat” and, therefore, somewhat suspicious.
It is an overarching theory that has most likely been perpetuated by Newton’s theory. The theory of fixed results seems plausible because it has some roots in reality. Graded outcomes in University admissions are an example of a competitive environment where a limited number of places results in a “fixed” outcome. Exams are presumed to function this way as well, and Newton’s theory helps support the supposition.
As Newton’s research shows, A Level results are neither maximized nor minimized. They are granted based on standards of “attainment-referencing” in the awarding of grades, based on benchmarks. Comparability outcomes achieved and applied do not negate this principle. Rather, it helps achieve balance during shiftpolicy shiftsWhat Are Comparable Outcomes?
Unlike Newton, who has spoken on this subject in detail, the term is relatively new and has not gained as much popularity. “Comparable outcomes” can best be termed as a “temporary stabilising measure.” It is defined by Newton, describing the 2010s as a time of sweeping change for A levels and GCSEs. Changes to the syllabus included a reduction in coursework, restructuring of excess exams, rewriting of syllabuses, and broad overhauls of teaching materials. In the absence of a stabiliser, the initial sets of students could have been unfairly punished for taking the new exams.
To circumvent this issue, examination boards set controlled grade boundaries and used statistical forecasts based on prior results from the students, usually their GCSEs. Provided that the new cohort was just as competent as the previous one, their results would be expected to remain stable, notwithstanding alterations to the examination format.
How the Process Works
The comparable outcomes process integrates both statistical insight and qualitative input. Here’s the sequence of events:
1. Baseline Analysis – The prior attainment of the current cohort (such as GCSE grades) is analyzed. This provides a statistical benchmark.
2. Predicted Outcomes – Using the benchmark, expectations for the number of students attaining each grade are scarce
3. Provisional Boundaries – Initial suggestions for grade boundaries are set based on these expectations.
4. Examiner Judgment – Senior examiners assess actual student scripts, analyzing borderline responses alongside snapshot comparisons from previous years.
5. Final Balancing – Where there is sufficient evidence from scripts indicating that the statistics are misaligned with actual performance, revisions can be made.
The result is a system carefully balanced with consistent fairness provided by data and consistency through examiners.
Is This a Permanent “Statistical Fix”?
Critics often misinterpret the timeframe of outcomes as a permanently fixed ceiling on achievement, as in no matter how high students perform, the outcomes can never exceed a certain level. This is, however, incorrect.
Both Newton’s research and exam board practice illustrate that the comparable outcomes were always intended as a temporary measure. It’s intended during the transitional phases when new syllabuses or structures are implemented. After the stabilizing period of the exams, the system switches back to the predominant attainment-referencing framework where examiner judgment is prioritized.
Even during the measure’s application, there was no restriction in acknowledging genuine improvement, as examiners were still able to adjust grade boundaries if students outperformed prior cohorts.
Therefore, rather than a “statistical cap,” the outcomes function as a fairness measure that is removed when reforms have been implemented and settled.
The Foundation of Attainment-Referencing
To appreciate fully why results are not “fixed”, it is necessary to look at the foundation of A-leveling: attainment-referencing.
Unlike norm-referencing, where a fixed percentage of students are awarded each grade, attainment-referencing means that grades are awarded based on what students know and can do, measured against a fixed benchmark.
Each year, examiners look at borderline scripts and compare them with benchmark examples from previous years. This is to ensure that:
- An A grade in 2025 is the same as an A in 2015.
- Performance improvements are acknowledged and awarded when they genuinely occur.
- Credibility of the system is maintained by the universities, employers, and the public.
- Comparable outcomes work alongside attainment-referencing; it does not work against it. Its purpose is to make sure that reforms do not create unjust dips or spikes that would undermine trust.
Why Myths Persist
If the system is fair, why do so many people still believe results are fixed? The answer lies in the reporting of results. Media narratives will often highlight “grade inflation” one year and “falling standards” the next. Though these narratives and headlines are attention-grabbing, they often lack nuance and complexity.
This causes anxiety for parents, frustration for teachers, and needless pressure for children. At Discover Learning Tutors, we assist families every summer, some of whom come in stressed due to these misconceptions. Once they learn the truth—that effort and examiner judgment both play a role in grades—then they relax because they understand that effort is truly valued.
Why Comparable Outcomes MatteMatterhere are two notable advantages for ‘comparable outcomes’ that are especially relevant for this discussion.
1. Equity to Students – No one is disadvantaged for being in a reform year—whether the exam is new or established, results will reflect student ability and not some design oddity.
2. System Credibility – The ability to stave off results straying too far from the accepted standard also provides reassurance to the public, universities, and employers that A levels are stable and reliable.
This system is especially critical in maintaining public confidence. If this were not in place, there would be wild fluctuations in results, and trust in the system would be undermined.
What Parents, Teachers, and Students Must Understand
Parents
Rest assured, the systems in place for your child’s school ensure their grades are not artificially capped. Both expert judgment and statistical systems in place work to defend their results, ensuring they are properly benchmarked.
Teachers
As for comparable outcomes, the message for teachers is straightforward: you are tasked with ensuring that students achieve mastery. Fixed results are but an unhelpful distraction from the focus of learning and boosting students’ self-efficacy.
Students
Equally, students must recognize that their efforts are valued and that hard work pays off. Achievement is not annulled by comparable outcomes. If you work hard, your results will reflect that.
Conclusion: Beyond the Myth of “Fixed” Results
The notion that A-levels are secretly capped each year is a potent myth. Comparable outcomes are not about “result fixing” nor the prescriptive setting of unachievable benchmarks. It is about ensuring fairness, especially in turbulent circumstances, and maintaining trust in the system.
By integrating expert examiner judgment with statistical forecasts, exam boards strike a balance between stability and recognizing true achievement. After a period of stability post-reforms, the system reverts to a model based on attainment-referencing, maintaining unchanging standards and documented progress.
At Discover Learning Tutors, the principles of fairness and authentic progress drive us to focus on the learner. True learning, as captured by our tutors, extends beyond grades and the confines of a predicted attainment model. True learning is grounded in a deep understanding of the material, self-directed critical thinking, and exam confidence.