Pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have overcome the obstacles placed in their way by the Covid pandemic to a striking degree. The cohort who received their GCSE results on Thursday did not take Sats at the end of primary school. Their crucial transition to secondary education was disrupted, with students missing chunks of formal learning and experiences such as school trips.
This year’s strong results should thus be celebrated as a triumph over adversity. Teachers deserve enormous credit for stewarding these pupils through what is always a demanding set of tests. Like last week’s A-levels, however, these results also give rise to concerns. Chief among these are the widening attainment gaps between richer and poorer areas, and between better-off and disadvantaged pupils.
Predictably, the poorest children have suffered the worst effects from Covid disruption. On some metrics, including school attendance, decades of progress have unravelled. The number of candidates passing compulsory resits of maths and English has also declined – a situation rightly described by one exam board chief, Jill Duffy, as a crisis. Rectifying the unjust situation whereby there is no pupil premium after year 11 would be a good start.
Bridget Phillipson has already announced the expansion of a scheme offering dedicated support and mentoring to schools in England that are “stuck”. But while pupils in the north-east and north-west continue to score lower grades on average than those in and around London, this is not a simple tale of north and south. Comparing pre- and post-pandemic outcomes, a new report from the Institute for Government (IfG) highlights complexities that require fresh approaches.
While councils have lost most of the power they once had over schools, the significant attainment gap between the least and most successful local authority areas points to some highly localised, place-specific effects. Multiple attempts to boost results in towns such as Blackpool have failed. New thinking and resources will be needed to achieve turnarounds.
Another issue is understanding what kinds of schools serve disadvantaged pupils best. Schools with a mix of social backgrounds and abilities are the long-established preference of progressives. But the evidence from the IfG is complex: it finds examples both of disadvantaged pupils benefiting from socially mixed settings, and of them doing better in primary schools where they are clustered – perhaps because teachers there are more focused on their needs.
Some London boroughs, meanwhile, are a law unto themselves, outperforming other areas by wide margins despite high levels of disadvantage (evidence suggests Birmingham and Manchester may be on similar trajectories). While the gap between boys’ and girls’ results shrank slightly this year, differences between ethnic groups are significant yet hard to summarise. When disadvantaged schools are compared, those with higher proportions of pupils with English as an additional language do better.
Overall, the results give cause for reassurance about young people’s resilience. But relief that some of the worst predictions about the pandemic have not come true must not obscure the fact that more than 40% of pupils missed the crucial grade 4 in maths and English. There are other problems with GCSEs, and exams and assessment in general. But too-rigid rules around resits, and the wider question of how to improve post-16 options, are the most pressing.
