Regulation

Reviewing GCSE, AS, A level and Level 3 Project outcome data received from awarding organisations as part of the data exchange procedure - 2025

Updated 18 June 2025

Applies to England

Our review of outcome data

The process for awarding organisations to submit their GCSE, AS, A level and Level 3 Project outcome data to Ofqual is outlined in the data exchange procedures.

We review all GCSE, AS, A level and Level 3 Project outcome data. Awarding organisations must inform us of instances where awards do not align with expectations. This must be accompanied by an appropriate explanation, supported by evidence. Where we require clarification of an explanation, or additional evidence to support the explanation, we will contact the awarding organisation to request it.

In reviewing the outcomes data, we will consider the rationale provided by the awarding organisation. The rationale may draw on technical and judgemental evidence, as outlined in the examples below. For qualifications that are entirely internally assessed (for example Level 3 Project) and the task remains the same from year to year, it might be more appropriate to consider trends in the technical evidence over time, rather than in a single series.

Judgemental evidence

For GCSE, AS and A level, the task for awarders is to consider the extent to which the quality of work on the grade boundaries suggested by the statistical predictions is the same as summer 2024. If an awarding organisation considers that the quality of work is not comparable, it should provide compelling evidence of this, particularly if there is little supporting technical evidence.

Technical evidence

For GCSE, AS and A level, awarders will review the quality of student work around grade boundaries suggested by the statistical predictions. Where an awarding organisation has concerns about the reliability of the statistical predictions (for example, if the cohort for a particular specification is not considered representative of the national cohort), an alternative approach might be taken to identifying the relevant work for awarders to review. In such instances, the awarding organisation would be expected to provide a rationale to Ofqual based on the technical evidence.

Where awarders choose a grade boundary which results in outcomes which are outside the specified tolerance around the statistical predictions, the awarding organisation will be expected to provide a rationale to Ofqual based on the technical evidence. Where awarders consider that the quality of work at the grade boundaries suggested by the statistical predictions exceeds that of summer 2024, awarding organisations will need to consider whether this reflects a genuine increase in attainment.

When reviewing outcomes data, to support comparability between awarding organisations, we will take into account any other awards within the same subject or suite of subjects made by other awarding organisations. We will also review whether there are any weakly evidenced systematic trends in outcomes across subjects relative to predictions.

We review each award on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each award and reviewing the evidence provided in order to reach a judgement about whether the award outcomes are justified. In reaching these judgements we are guided by 4 key principles:

• alignment with policy intention for summer 2025 grading
• fairness for learners
• consistency in our approach to all awarding organisations
• public confidence in the results being issued