England has bowed to the seemingly inevitable. Standardisation of A levels and GCSEs has been abandoned, and grades will be awarded solely on the basis of teacher predictions. 

For thousands of young people, grades are now higher than they were last Thursday morning. Clearly, this is welcome news. They had been downgraded through no fault of their own, and a revision of their grade could put future plans back on the table. 

But policymaking in the coronavirus era is like whack-a-mole - as soon as you deal with one issue, another one pops up. Education secretary Gavin Williamson is promising certainty and will surely hope that yesterday’s announcement will be an end to the chaos. But, while the decision solves today’s issues, it also sows the seeds of tomorrow’s.

A-level and GCSE results: More issues to deal with

This is not a case of problem solved - it’s problem moved. It creates issues for young people who are disadvantaged by teacher predictions. It causes huge stress in the university admissions process and for young people who miss out this year. And it stores up problems for next year’s cohort of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who will struggle to keep pace. 

Relying on teacher predictions alone has not always worked out well for students. High-attaining students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be under-predicted, as are black and/or minority ethnic students. These students tend to do better when they sit exams than when they are assessed by teachers. 

The revised grades may be preferable to the algorithm for more students. But it’s not clear that they are fairer for all. 

Even though the cap on student places has been lifted by the secretary of state, many universities now have hundreds more people entitled to places than they have places to offer. It is not at all clear how they will deal with this. As we’ve seen with Oxford colleges trying to get ahead of the curve this weekend, part of the solution is likely to involve asking some to defer to 2021.

Unconscious bias

How will such decisions be made? Will the process, perhaps unconsciously, favour students with families who have been to university and are familiar with the admissions process? If so, young people who would be the first in their family to go to university are likely to be at a distinct disadvantage. And, if weeks of uncertainty result from the confusion, it is likely to be young people from a stable financial background who are able to wait it out.

And what becomes of those who are asked to defer? The UK is currently experiencing the deepest recession on record. Much higher unemployment is expected. What are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds expected to do for the next year if they are forced to defer? Some benefits their parents rely on will stop now they are no longer in full-time education. What do you do if you literally can’t afford to wait?

And, besides, every deferred place this year is a place taken from the class of 2021. Next year’s cohort will be at a distinct disadvantage. The grades that they achieve through the exam system, as a year group, will almost certainly be lower than this year’s. 

Research shows that just 16 per cent of results are predicted correctly, with 75 per cent of estimated grades over-predicted. Once again, it will be young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most likely to miss out. A return to the conventional exam system places many of them at a disadvantage. 

Inequality already in our system

That’s why we have long favoured targeted use of contextual admissions, so that talented young people from disadvantaged backgrounds get the chance to study at top-tier universities. In a world where such places will be even scarcer, university admissions departments must respond.

Many people campaigned for the change to predicted grades on the basis that it was in the best interests of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. In reality, it’s a mixed blessing. While there is much to welcome in the decision to abandon the algorithm, the fight for fairness isn’t over.

No solution to the current confusion is perfect. But the fairest thing to do now is to reset higher education admissions for the 2020 cohort. At this stage, we have a system where many students yet to receive their final grades have firm and insurance offers from institutions that are already full. It’s unfair on the young people and unfair to expect universities to shoulder the burden and quickly come up with a solution to this entirely new problem. 

Once the immediate issues are dealt with, we must take a step back and ask how we got here. 

Even before the crisis, we were dealing with a significant attainment gap between young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers - and a resulting access gap, with fewer making it to university, even when they got the grades. 

This week’s headlines only highlight an inequality that was already in our education system. Yes, we need an adequate response to the crisis, but that was never going to be easy. More importantly, we need an adequate response to the underachievement of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, which was already a feature of our education system. 

The National Tutoring Programme will go some way towards getting proven support to young people who need it, but it needs to extend beyond next year if we are going to see lasting change in the system. 

And, as the Education Policy Institute has powerfully argued, funding needs to follow need. If we care what’s happened to disadvantaged pupils this week, we should care next year, too, and in future years, until every child is able to do as well as their talents will take them, irrespective of background.

Dr Maria Neophytou is acting CEO at Impetus, a charity that works with disadvantaged young people