That's true, but there will always be people who "don't make the grade"
- it's a statistical bell-curve thing. However, when comparing schools, and the attitude of teachers, it is better to look at the "value-added" rather than the raw score. What is wrong is the insistence that no-one with less than a C grade is a worthwhile person.
As for the point about whether a grade should reflect the actual score on a written paper. Yes, gaining the top marks on a CSE gained you a grade 1, but everyone accepted that this was equivalent to a C grade at O-level, so what is the practical difference? Then there were two separate syllabi, each with their own level of exams, and a top grade in one was equivalent to C in the other. Now there are two levels of exams (in many cases, two separate syllabi), but only one set of grades, and it all has the same name. Spin and re-branding, but this time from a Tory government.
Stuart