How the GCSE 'disadvantage gap’ can further widen after results day

22 September, 2025 —

Blog

How the GCSE ‘disadvantage gap’ can further widen after results day

The GCSE marking review process is one example of how the disadvantage gap can be quietly exacerbated in our secondary schools

Share on:

by Huntington Research School
on the 22nd September 2025

Jane Elsworth

Director of Huntington Research School; Deputy Headteacher

GCSE results day is a milestone. It shapes choices, opportunities, and trajectories for young people but can, quietly reinforce inequality. The disadvantage gap isn’t created in one place; it compounds through many small, often un-noticed processes in the UK education system. The GCSE marking review process — now in its final week — is one example of how this gap can be quietly exacerbated in our secondary schools.

This summer, one of my sons sat his GCSEs. He was one mark below a higher grade in a subject. With knowledge of the system, access to an experienced subject teacher willing to assess the three subject papers, and the ability to pay the £45 review fee for one subject paper, we pursued it. The review came back last week, the grade was raised, and we had our review fee returned.

It was a positive outcome — but one that highlighted a troubling truth. Our ability to act was rooted in insider knowledge, access to professional networks, and financial security. Not every family can draw on those. Additionally, he already had the entry criteria he needed for his next steps before this review.

This raised some questions:

- Do all families know enough about the system to request a review?
- Who has access to and support from a professional with the experience and confidence to challenge marking decisions?
- Who can afford to “risk” £45 per paper if the school are not able or willing to pay for this?

The answers are predictable. Families with more cultural capital and disposable income are advantaged once again. In our case it was a professional network, but in others we know private tutors frequently support in this way. Meanwhile, schools under pressure are spending thousands on review fees — often recouped from families — while socio-economically disadvantaged students potentially miss out on opportunities to correct marking errors.

This is a clear example of The Matthew Effect: those who have the most, gain the most. Those with the least, fall further behind and when this happens in a core subject like Maths or English can have significant impact on future options.

Gaining a ‘good’ pass in GCSE English and maths is widely viewed as important for supporting young people’s academic and career opportunities and future life outcomes. Current policy means that students who do not gain a Grade 4 in English and maths in their first attempt must continue to study these subjects. Despite this attempt to have more students pass the GCSE, the proportion of resit students achieving a Grade 4 by 18 remains disappointingly low. In 2022, just 15.2% gained a Grade 4 in their maths GCSE resit, and 24.1% in English. Post-16-GCSE-Resit-Practice-Review.pdf

And all of it happens after results day, when many assume the process is already complete and fair.

How might we alleviate this?

- School leaders: do all students and families know and understand the review system and their options? Can we use Pupil Premium or hardship funds to remove the financial barrier of review fees for socio-economically disadvantaged pupils, especially for those close to crucial grade boundaries in English and Maths?
- Researchers: What does the data show? Are certain groups over- or underrepresented in review requests?
- Policy makers: If a core mechanism of our exam system exacerbates inequality, what safeguards or reforms are necessary? Should review requests be universally free, or automatically applied at key grade boundaries?

If we are serious about narrowing the disadvantage gap, we cannot ignore the hidden processes that quietly widen it. Every young person deserves a grade that reflects their ability — not their family’s ability to navigate or fund the system.