We were recently asked the question: “Can we drop the 63% pass mark?”

Why pass marks and consistency matter

When we originally designed the Career Progression Gateway assessment system for promotion, we chose to express scores as percentages because they are easy to interpret. However, the underlying scoring framework was based on the bands used in the previous ADC National Toolkit, where the original pass mark was 2.75 out of 4.

After a period of use, and considerable debate, that pass mark was reduced to 2.5 out of 4 because too few candidates were passing. There were genuine issues with some of the exercises at the time. Anyone in the fire sector over a certain age will probably have stories about airports and hospitals which still evoke strong feelings!

As a starting point, we converted 2.5 out of 4 into the percentage system, which gave us 63%, with the intention of reviewing it as more evidence became available. We now have that evidence, and we haven’t changed it because it works.

In practical terms, scores below 63% typically reflect a profile containing limited or inconsistent evidence across the 12 leadership constructs. At 64%, a candidate can still have an area rated as limited evidence, provided the remainder of their profile demonstrates sufficient evidence. Of course, there can be variations. A candidate may accumulate several significant evidence ratings alongside a small number of limited or no evidence ratings and still achieve a pass. In reality, however, that pattern is relatively uncommon.

It’s important to understand that our assessors are not tough markers. To receive a limited evidence rating, the evidence tends to be implied or lightly referenced only. Demonstrating some evidence across the assessed leadership areas is not an unreasonably high standard- some mention, with some explanation is sufficient. If a candidate scores below 63% (as an average across two exercises), there will be clear reasons for that outcome, and from an evidence-based perspective we cannot recommend them as ready for progression for now.

If concerns exist around pass rates, there are far better solutions than lowering the standard.

 
Where candidates pass one exercise but not another, they can re-sit following a period of targeted development, typically after three to six months. We provide workshops focused on specific leadership behaviours, such as working with teams, as well as written skills workshops for those who struggle with case study exercises. Our developmental feedback sessions are consistently highly rated, and we also offer follow-up reviews at three or six months to monitor progress, provide ongoing support and create accountability for development.
 

Lowering the pass mark for a single Fire and Rescue Service creates a more fundamental problem: it undermines transferability.

 
If an external candidate arrives with a CPG (Career Progression Gateway) pass, you rightly assume that the pass represents a known standard. The same should be true whether that candidate comes from a neighbouring service or from the other side of the country. Once individual services begin applying different thresholds, that consistency disappears and the value of the result is weakened.

It’s reassuring when Services recognise the importance of maintaining standards. What is concerning is when reducing the pass mark is considered as a shortcut to addressing workforce challenges, because it simply creates different problems further down the line.

It is far more practical, and far more responsible, to ensure candidates receive the support and development they need before assessment than to manipulate the pass mark in order to appoint people who are not yet demonstrating the minimum behavioural standard. The consequences can be significant: impacts on team effectiveness, individual wellbeing, performance, culture, stress levels and absence rates. Put simply, it is not an ethical approach.

We’re not sitting in an ivory tower. We’ve worked with Fire and Rescue Services for more than 25 years and have seen countless examples of what effective leadership looks like in practice. The 63% threshold is not an aspirational standard. We know what ‘good’ needs to look like at a minimum. Less than 63% is not it.