Students receiving eagerly anticipated A-level results
Last year, 27.8% of UK A-level entries were awarded an A or A* grade – the highest proportion outside the pandemic-affected years of 2020-22.
The Covid-19 pandemic led to an increase in top A-level grades in 2020 and 2021, with results based on teacher assessments instead of exams.
In 2019 – the last year that summer exams were taken before the Covid-19 pandemic – 25.4% of UK A-level entries were awarded top grades.
Leaders in the education sector have warned of the possible continuation of 'stark' divides in A-level results between different regions across the country because of the legacy of the pandemic and socio-economic factors.
The Education Secretary has said she will not 'stand by and accept the entrenched inequalities' that blight the life chances of many young people.
The Government's plans for turning around the attainment gap between white working class children and their peers is due to be set out in the autumn.
Students who are receiving their A-level and level 3 vocational and technical qualification results were in Year 8 when schools closed because of the pandemic.
This cohort of school and college leavers received their GCSE results in 2023 – the first year that grading was returned to pre-pandemic levels in England.
In Wales and Northern Ireland, exam regulators returned to pre-pandemic grading in 2024 – a year later than in England.
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said A-level grades have returned to a 'consistent standard' since the pandemic and he would expect that to 'broadly continue' this year.
But Mr Di'Iasio told the PA news agency: 'Unfortunately, we also expect to see the continuation of persistent inequities in terms of performance gaps between different regions and students.
'This is a product of longstanding socio-economic factors which require a much more concerted society-wide effort to fix.'
He added: 'The legacy of Covid is part of this picture, with the disruption caused by the pandemic likely to have had the greatest impact on students from disadvantaged homes.
'Schools and colleges have put huge efforts into supporting these young people, but without sufficient Government action to help them, and in the face of an extremely difficult situation caused by funding and teacher shortages.
'The current Government has made the right noises but unfortunately this has so far not been matched by the improved investment in education which is so clearly required.'
Lee Elliot Major, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, said: 'We must brace ourselves for stark divides in A-level results this year — not only between state and private schools, but also between London and other regions such as the South West and North East.
'In recent years, the gap in top grades — As and A*s, the passports to the most selective universities — has grown alarmingly, undermining efforts to widen access.
'These inequities are being driven by a toxic mix of the cost-of-living crisis, rising poverty, persistent school absence, and the long shadow of Covid.
'Unless we act, we risk locking in generational divides that will shape life chances for decades, with all our social mobility indicators now flashing red.'
For many students, receiving their exam results on Thursday will also bring confirmation of university places.
Last week, Jo Saxton, head of Ucas, suggested a record number of 18-year-olds could be successful in securing their first-choice university on results day.
British universities are keen to recruit UK students because there is more 'uncertainty' around international students, she suggested.
On the day before A-level results day, a PA sample of 129 of the UK's largest higher education providers showed there were 22,518 courses with vacancies for undergraduate students living in England on the Ucas clearing site – which matches applicants to university places yet to be filled.
As of Wednesday afternoon, 18 of the 24 Russell Group universities, which represent some of the most selective UK institutions, had vacancies on courses for English residents – a total of 3,492 courses between them.
Clearing is available to students who do not meet the conditions of their offer on A-level results day, as well as those who did not receive any offers.
But prospective students who have changed their mind about what or where they wish to study, and also those who have applied outside the normal application window, can also use clearing.
In England, T-level results will also be received by students on Thursday.
Speaking on A-level results day, Ms Phillipson said: 'Every young person should have the opportunity to achieve and thrive.
'This Government won't stand by and accept the entrenched inequalities that continue to blight the life chances of too many young people, especially those from white working class backgrounds who have long been overlooked.
'We're already taking decisive action and making encouraging progress.'
She added: 'Today is a time for celebration as young people up and down the country collect their exam results.
'Whether A-levels, T-levels or technical and vocational qualifications, I wish everyone the very best of luck, and offer my heartfelt thanks to the fantastic teachers, staff and parents who've supported them to this milestone.'
Kevin Latham, research and policy manager at the Sutton Trust social mobility charity, told PA: 'Year 8 is a crucial time in educational and social development, and the effects of school closures during lockdown are ongoing.'
He said he would be 'surprised' if there is significant improvement in attainment gaps between the South East and North East of England.
'By the time students get to their A-levels, years of disadvantage are already baked in for pupils in areas of high deprivation,' Mr Latham said.
Sir Ian Bauckham, chief regulator at Ofqual, England's exams regulator, said: 'Ahead of students receiving their results we would like to recognise the valuable contributions made by their teachers who have put so much work into getting students to this important day.
'Exam results can change people's lives, and underpinning these defining moments is a well-regulated system of widely recognised and valued assessments and qualifications.'
Scotland has a different qualification system and students received their results on Tuesday last week.
Figures released by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) showed that 78.4% of those sitting National 5 exams passed with grades A to C – up from 77.2% last year.
For Highers, 75.9% passed with the top bands, up from 74.9% last year, and for Advanced Highers 76.7% of students achieved A to C grades, up from 75.3% last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
18 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rail campaigners say potential 5.5% fares rise would be ‘ripping off' passengers
The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6% hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5%, which means fares could jump by 5.5%. Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, told the PA news agency 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He said: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.' Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71% of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. 'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. About 45% of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments. A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why Dutch-style bin ‘smart meters' could solve Britain's waste crisis
Bins have never been more contentious. Strikes in Birmingham have left waste piling high, collection times across the country have been slashed and garden rubbish fees are commonplace. All the while, council tax bills continue to increase year-on-year. Numerous ideas to solve the nation's eternal bin gripe have been floated over the decades, yet both the Government and our councils are no closer to finding a solution. Birmingham's recent transformation into a rats' paradise with black bags stacked two metres high suggests we're further away than ever. But is the answer to Britain's bin misery embedded in a short-lived idea chucked on the rubbish heap 20 years ago? Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), which was trialled by 50,000 homes in South Norfolk in 2005, involved residents paying a fee based on the amount of waste they put out for collection. Think smart meter, but for rubbish. Bin lorries weigh the contents of a wheelie bin (or bags), and the resident is billed accordingly. In turn, council tax can, in theory, be lowered. The Dutch and South Koreans have made a success of it, with households charged less overall and recycling figures healthily increasing. A research paper by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) found 'there has been little evidence of discontent with PAYT'. It continued: 'Indeed, studies suggest that populations which have been exposed to PAYT schemes are more likely to support them than counterparts with no experience of the system.' It's a policy which Mark Hall, of waste management firm Business Waste, believes should be revived in Britain. He said: 'Many of the Government's policies, such as landfill tax and low emission zones, are moving towards the polluter pays principle. 'A PAYT system would not be out of place in this new strategy. If it's proven to reduce council tax costs, it's hard to see how it wouldn't receive public backing in the current cost of living crisis.' One problem, however, is that there is no specific allocation for refuse collection in our council tax bills. It means it is hard to quantify whether a PAYT system would be more cost-effective for the individual. Residents mistakenly tend to think their council tax bills are predominantly for bin collection, when in reality, a much larger share of the tax bill is spent on social care provision. The Communities and Local Government Committee stressed in 2007 that the 'introduction of a financial link between the bin being taken and the householder's bank balance may be welcome', yet such clarity has never materialised. 'The technology just didn't work' A key hurdle to introducing PAYT in Britain is the fact the South Norfolk trial did not produce promising results. This was due to technological issues which caused inaccurate readings, missed collections and general confusion. Microchips in wheelie bins were supposed to monitor the weight of rubbish, and the billing information for each household was then downloaded to a database each week. At the time of the failed trial – which sparked a 250pc rise in fly-tipping – the former leader of the council, John Fuller, said: 'The technology just didn't work. If you want to base a tax system on it, it has to work in every bin, in every street on every day of the year. Otherwise the figures are nonsense.' There was also slightly less incentive for households to embrace the PAYT system two decades ago when council tax bills swallowed up a smaller share of household income. In 2002-03, the lowest income households in Britain spent just 2.4pc of their earnings on council tax. By 2020-21, this figure had risen to 4.6pc, according to the Resolution Foundation. Frustration with waste management services is also at an all-time high today after many councils introduced 'add-on' fees for disposing of residents' garden waste. Last month, the actor James Buckley, who starred in The Inbetweeners, vented his anger on a podcast after his council introduced an annual fee for emptying his garden waste bin. 'Has my council tax come down? No, is the answer to that question. Has it gone up? Yes, is the answer to that question. Everyone up and down the country is saying the exact same f-----g thing – what the f--- is going on?' A solution, it seems, is far more pressing today than it was in 2005. Netherlands and South Korea leading the way Other countries, however, have made a success of PAYT. In South Korea, smart bins are used for food waste – with residents using high-tech systems to weigh the waste and pay accordingly. For general waste, residents pay for local government-issued bags to dispose of rubbish. Recycling, however, carries no charge, encouraging residents to divert as much waste as possible to this stream. The countrywide benefits are there to see with South Korea boasting an 86pc recycling rate, compared to around 44pc in the UK. Weight-based fees are also utilised in the Netherlands – a country keen on using weight as a barometer for costs (car tax is calculated based on how heavy a vehicle is). Half of Dutch municipalities use PAYT for rubbish collections – equating to around 41pc of the population. Councils use various methods, yet the municipalities charging fees based on weight have seen the best results. 'Weight-based schemes appear to give the greatest reduction in overall waste quantity... but the vehicles used in such schemes are more expensive with on-board weighing equipment,' the IEEP said in 2016. The cost of retro-fitting, or buying brand new bin lorries with weight-monitoring technology is likely a fantasy that our cash-strapped councils this side of the Channel can ill afford. That's not to say, however, that simpler forms of PAYT could be considered. The World Economic Forum (WEF) found that 'once households begin paying directly for waste services, they tend to rapidly reduce how much they throw away'. More than 7,000 towns and cities in the US – including Seattle, Austin and Portland – have PAYT policies, yet they aren't based on weight. Instead, it is a simpler process. Residents are often required to purchase special trash bags or stickers so that they pay separately for every bag. Or, they may have to sign up for a certain level of waste collection service, which limits how much garbage they can set out on the kerb. In Seattle, residents are charged $45 (£33) per month for their waste to be collected from the kerbside.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Ministers have a duty to protect freedom of speech and end this insanity
The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is a collection of essays edited by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As is often the case during the Edinburgh Fringe, the material was weak and the delivery unconvincing. While authoritarian bullies rampaged across Scotland's cultural landscape last week, the response from senior politicians was predictably - depressingly - poor. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In saner times, an apology from a publicly-funded venue for allowing the Deputy First Minister to enter the premises would have provoked justifiable outrage from the very top of Government. Likewise, the decision to ban a book from an exhibition at the National Library of Scotland would, surely, have seen the personal intervention of the First Minister. Instead, last week we witnessed yet more of the lack of leadership which has allowed trans activists to wreak havoc across the public sector. First, and I cringe for those involved as I type these words, we learned that management at the Summerhall venue in Edinburgh set up a 'safe space' for staff and performers while Deputy FM Kate Forbes was in the building. The presence of Forbes, a devout Christian who previously revealed that, had she been an elected member at the time the law was changed, she would have voted against gay marriage, was dangerous. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes (Picture: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire) Management at the venue later apologised for letting her in. 'Summerhall Arts' primary concern,' said a spokesperson, 'is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.' This is insanity. Kate Forbes is a democratically elected politician whose faith-born opposition to gay marriage, while controversial, is perfectly legal. Her presence in Summerhall created no danger for anyone, LGBTQ+ or otherwise, and those claiming otherwise should be embarrassed. The only danger, here, is in Summerhall management's attack on free speech. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Another enthusiast for undermining this fundamental freedom is National Librarian, Amina Shah. It emerged last week that the excellent book 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been withdrawn by Shah from an exhibition highlighting the importance of libraries and the ways in which they can 'empower individuals and the communities they belong to'. The editors of the book, a collection of essays by women involved in the ultimately successful campaign to defeat the SNP's plan to allow anyone to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, discovered through a freedom of information request that it had received more public nominations for inclusion that any other. They learned that the book had, initially, been selected for inclusion in the 'Dear Library' exhibition but that, after protests from members of staff, Shah - with the backing of the board, chaired by Sir Drummond Bone - withdrew it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Shah's actions are indefensible and stand fully in contradiction to the responsibilities that come with the position she is unfit to hold. I suspect the National Librarian's decision is one that will whisper in her ear for years to come. Faced with threats of disruption from staff if 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest' had been included in the exhibition, Shah should have turned to the National Library's disciplinary code. Rather than capitulating to authoritarian bullies, she should have reminded them that gross misconduct is a real thing with real consequences. As these twin scandals unfolded, finance secretary Shona Robison spoke of the need for 'tolerance'. In her reaction to the Summerhall scandal, Robison revealed at least some of the reason that we find ourselves where we do. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I don't think,' said Robison, 'it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech.' Any weaker and the pulse would be undetectable. Something that sends out entirely the wrong signal over freedom of speech is members of the Government sitting back while others deny the free speech of others. When culture secretary Angus Robertson eventually spoke up, he served a weak cocktail of bromides. While he was a 'strong supporter' of free speech, there would always be 'tensions' between that right and views that some people might find 'unpopular or unjustifiable'. It would not, he added, 'be easy all of the time to please everybody'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Robertson waffled: he was a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression; there was an important distance between government and cultural organisations; there were issues of 'public concern' and 'public debate'. Over the two decades that I've known former journalist Robertson, I've always considered him - in common with most in our trade - a fundamentalist on freedom of speech. His unwillingness to take a stronger stance, here, does not chime with the values I've long understood him to hold. Robertson spoke about the important distance between government and cultural organisations and it is, of course, correct that ministers should have no say in the decision making of bodies such as Creative Scotland but that does not mean he should not intervene when things are going catastrophically wrong. Robertson is entitled to demand the presence in his ministerial office of Summerhall chief executive Sam Gough. The culture secretary is perfectly within his rights to point out to Gough that Summerhall - a venue recently propped up with more than £600,000 of public money - must operate within the law and that failure to do so will mean the tap's turned off. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The National Library of Scotland is funded by the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Robertson has the right - the duty - to act here, too. Amina Shah, cowed by activists, removed a book from an exhibition that includes, satire fans, George Orwell's '1984'. She's a censor and Angus Robertson should sack her and remove Sir Drummond Bone from the library's board. Freedom of speech is under attack as never before in living memory. The culture secretary's presence on the frontline of this battle would be very much appreciated.
