Unequal exams ‘favour better-off students’

Attainment gap in region has widened, report says

“ALMOST NO progress” has been made to close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students over the last three years because of the country’s unequal exam system, a leading teaching charity warned last night.

Yorkshire and Humber is one area where charity Teach First says there is evidence the attainment gap has widened, as it called for long-term funding for schools with the poorest pupils ahead of GCSE results being announced tomorrow.

It comes after it was confirmed Year 11 students would tomorrow receive the highest grade, whether that was the one given by teachers or awarded through a moderation system, following the U-turn on A-level results earlier in the week.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson yesterday said GCSE pupils would be handed results reflecting “whichever is their highest”.

Department of Education guidance released on Monday had said pupils would only receive their centre-assessed grade, with official grades to follow a week later.

But the Joint Council of Qualifications confirmed last night Mr Williamson was correct.

Russell Hobby, chief executive of Teach First, said the “confusion and change” had left pupils “overwhelmed” and “the process threw a sharp light on the inequality in our education system”.

But he said “inequality in exam results is hardly unique to this year” as the charity’s report showed that in the most recent available figures (2018/19), just 45 per cent of disadvantaged pupils achieved passes in English and maths, compared with 72 per cent of non-disadvantaged pupils, and “not because they are smarter or more ambitious”.

The figures have not moved in the last three years, and in Yorkshire and the Humber the gap had slightly increased.

Mr Hobby said: “This report has laid bare that due to unequal access to a brilliant education, pupils from wealthier homes are awarded better results than their peers year after year.”

It comes after an algorithm used to award A-levels in the absence of exams due to Covid-19 saw 40 per cent of grades reduced from teachers’ predictions.

Mr Williamson apologised for the distress caused and said the Government had been given “reassurance” that the system would not discriminate against children from a disadvantaged background.

He said: “Actually, the real issue in terms of where we saw the mounting evidence that was presented to us as a result of standardisation process that there were too many children – whether from a disadvantaged background or a privileged background – that quite simply had not got the grade that they truly deserved and had been working towards.”

GAVIN WILLIAMSON’S lingering presence as Education Secretary is not just an insult to all those teachers, students and families who have suffered so much heartache over their A-level and GCSE results as the fallout escalates.

It also suggests that the Seven Principles of Public Life – the code of conduct that all holders of public office are required to uphold – are now irrelevant to Ministers.

Just how can the Education Secretary command confidence when he effectively finds himself in breach of all seven of the so-called Nolan tests after his U-turn on the grading of exams, and then a series of interviews which exposed his lack of leadership.

This is the context which makes Mr Williamson’s failure to resign, and Boris Johnson’s reluctance to sack this enfeebled Minister, all the more unforgivable as William Hague, a Tory grandee, warns of “striking parallels” with the ‘poll tax’ furore of the 1980s.

Selflessness: This requires holders of public office to “act solely in terms of the public interest” – a notion at odds with Mr Williamson’s failure to ensure that the algorithm used by exam regulator Ofqual to award grades was fair to all.

Integrity: The Minister contends that he only became aware of the scale of the problem on Saturday night. Yet the cross-party Education Select Committee reported last month that “calculated grades” risked penalising “disadvantaged pupils”. Did he not read the critique?

Objectivity: Public office holders are required to take decisions impartially “using the best evidence”. The fact that Mr Williamson did not appear to sufficiently challenge Ofqual to test its algorithm is a prima facie breach.

Accountability: To be fair, it’s not Mr Williamson’s fault that Parliament is in recess. But the Education Secretary is responsible for the DfE’s wall of silence between Saturday morning, and the U-turn on Monday teatime, that caused so much angst. Now it emerges that he’s left universities to sort out his mess.

Openness: This says ‘information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing’. Yet Mr Williamson failed to act when the Education Select Committee called on Ofqual “to make a transparency guarantee”.

Honesty: This says “holders of public office should be truthful”. Yet this, too, is open to question when Mr Williamson was so evasive about whether Ofqual still had his confidence and whether he had offered to resign.

Leadership: As well as requiring public servants to lead by example, it requires them to “challenge poor behaviour” and “robustly support” the Nolan principles. Irrespective of the level of culpability at the DfE and Ofqual, Mr Williamson has demonstrated none of these qualities.

Sacked as Defence Secretary by Theresa May in a rare act of decisiveness on the former PM’s part, Mr Williamson was fortunate to be given a second chance by her successor – this appointment smacked of nepotism rather than any suitability for high office.

Yet it is not just on exams that Mr Williamson has failed; his own ‘school report’ would be just as damning if the seven tests were applied separately to the reopening of schools or his response to the North-South attainment divide.

And this matters because the post of Education Secretary should be one of the most important public offices of all – its decisions are fundamental to the futures of all young people and, in turn, their ability to forge successful careers for Britain’s benefit.

However the fact that Scarborough-born Mr Williamson is the fifth Education Secretary in a decade – and 11th since the turn of the Millennium when Labour was in power – points to successive premiers not making the right appointments to ensure any continuity. Every change represents another disruptive upheaval.

In this respect, Boris Johnson can begin to make amends by subjecting all potential successors to a rigorous interview process to assess their suitability rather than making an appointment on a whim. Their ability to lead, manage and inspire – traits that Mr Williamson has time and again shown to be without – now need to guide the PM if the Nolan principles are to remain relevant to public life.