There are several areas in education where coronavirus has given us an opportunity for re-evaluation. The current interruptions are serious and concerning, but many of us feel that they are not simply to be endured before returning to normal, because much about what was happening before March was imperfect anyway. 

In light of the heroism of the NHS and the calm scientific expertise of Chris Whitty among many others, an increased respect for the caring professions will hopefully transfer into education too - not least as millions of families discovered through home-schooling that teaching is not as easy as it might initially look. 

This might allow our sector’s leading voices to take up an empowered role in discussion and decision-making. If so, many key areas of national educational strategy might be improved, including: closing the gap and looking after the “forgotten third”; reaffirming the importance of vocational education importance; re-evaluating the purpose of public examinations such as GCSEs and key stage 2 Sats; improving the use of technology in education.

Another such topic is PQX: the process of sorting university places post-qualification - after the announcement of A-level or comparable qualifications. 

A knotty problem

This has long been a knotty problem, but recently there have been statements from politicians that might suggest a greater appetite for reform. The general shake-up brought about by coronavirus may mean that there is now be a better chance of making the change stick.

Admittedly, they do not seem to have come out of consultation with the education sector (no surprises there). And, not for the first time, we are left to interpret and shape key details. 

And so we are left asking ourselves, as in so many maths questions: what is X? 

Assuming the accuracy of exam marking (and let’s do so for now, because that is a can of worms all of its own), if the uproar over IB grades has taught us anything, it’s that it makes more sense to base decisions for university places on actual results than on predictions. 

Reading what someone has got in their public examinations is a clerical exercise while - unless one possesses skills of clairvoyance - guessing what they might get in the future is inevitably imperfect. 

Social mobility

One could argue that “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” And it is true that lots of students make the transition from secondary to tertiary education every year.

However, social mobility is an issue rightly on our national conscience, and there have been concerns about the complexity of our predicted-grades system, which seems harder for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to navigate, because of lack of support or relevant role models. 

This certainly seems to rule out post-qualification applications, with the whole process delayed until mid-August, after many students have left their schools or colleges. It is hard to see how such a move would make it easier for the groups already finding the system daunting. 

Indeed, I think the Ucas machinery is positive, particularly for those in Year 13 researching venues and courses, attending open days, making choices about the best individual fit. These are all healthy processes for general development. They can act as a motivational catalyst towards the end of A levels (or their equivalent), and there is many a sixth-form report that carries a message about “the gap between where a student currently is and where they want to be this time next year”.

Imagine there’s no offer...

So, imagine a system based on the current one. Ucas would still allow universities to learn who is interested in which course at which institution. Tutors would still have access to GCSE grades, to personal statements and to predicted A-level grades, if that was still deemed helpful. The only difference would be that they would not make an offer at his point. Instead, they would only make an offer once the actual results were known. 

Others have described this as post-qualification acceptance, but I prefer a clearer distinction: PQO, post-qualification offer. This offer is simple: an invitation to study a particular course at a particular place and with no strings attached. It is the final, decisive part of the process. 

We know this is possible, because it is already a feature of the Ucas process. For those of us in schools who have seen people applying or reapplying to university with their results in hand, it all seems refreshingly simple. 

There is such goodwill from the whole of society to make university admission a key driver for greater social mobility that, if a founding principle is PQO, the other elements will be made to work. So we would need a slight adjustment to the summer examination timetable - for example, A levels could, like the IB, be taken straight after Easter. This would then allow universities to access exam results earlier in the year. 

The independent sector might be able to help here, too. Many such schools turn for a few days in August into mini-Ucas advice centres, as results come in and expert staff help pupils with their options. This could be extended to pupils from other settings. In fact, it already happens: for more than 15 years, state-school attendees at our Year 12 universities summer school have received ongoing support with the Ucas process throughout Year 13. Hundreds of young people have benefited, and the partnerships have been most rewarding.

Clearly, the market forces affecting tertiary education are complex, and there are concerns around long-term planning, particularly for issues such as student numbers and accommodation. 

However, the arguments against pre-qualification applications are stronger: they preserve a status quo in which there is substantial social immobility. 

With so much change in the world at the moment, let’s work for a solution that is simpler and fairer for everybody.

Steffan Griffiths is the head of Norwich School