THE government is under increasing pressure to follow Scotland’s lead by scrapping moderated A-levels after thousands of pupils’ results were downgraded in what has been described as a “huge injustice.”

In England, 39 per cent of teachers’ estimates were reduced by at least one grade, according to data from Ofqual, amounting to around 280,000 entries.

The proportion of downgrades was highest for pupils from the most deprived backgrounds, but the regulator has insisted that there was no evidence of systemic bias.

After exams were cancelled this year because of the coronavirus pandemic, teachers were told to submit the grades they thought each student would have received had they sat the papers, alongside a rank order of students.

Exam boards adjusted these “centre-assessment grades” by subjecting them to statistical moderation based on historic outcomes for each exam centre, students’ prior attainment and the expected national distribution of grades.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson made an 11th-hour announcement on Wednesday that students could choose a result from their calculated grade, a valid mock grade or a grade from sitting exams in October.

Labour has pointed out that October exams would be too late for students seeking to start courses in September and that many students would not have sat mock exams.

In contrast, the Scottish government decided this week to scrap moderated grades and allow students to pick between the grades given by the exam board or by teachers — neither of which would have been standardised.

The National Education Union (NEU) pointed out that Mr Williamson’s changes would not level the playing field between English and Scottish students competing for university places and jobs.

It is calling for an urgent review of the moderation process in England and assurance that schools and colleges will not face financial barriers when lodging appeals for students.

NEU joint general secretary Dr Mary Bousted said: “The appeals process is more important than ever. It needs to be accessible to all and resourced properly to cope with demand, so that no further delays are created in the lives of young people. 

“The only solution is to award students the grades their teachers — who know them better than any computer data prediction — think they would have achieved.”

Overall, in England a total of 35.6 per cent of grades were adjusted down by one grade, 3.3 per cent were brought down by two grades and 0.2 per cent came down by three grades.

Some 85 per cent of candidates classed as having a “low” socio-economic status by Ofqual had been predicted to achieve a C and above by their schools.

But this fell to 74.6 per cent once final grades were calculated under the new moderation process – a 10.4 per cent drop compared to students from the wealthiest backgrounds who saw an 8.3 per cent fall, to 81 per cent.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, described the grading process as having a “systemic bias” against larger centres such as colleges.

Association of School and College Leaders general secretary Geoff Barton said that reviewing the moderation process was “a matter of urgency.”

Shadow education secretary Kate Green said: “It is a huge injustice that pupils will see their results downgraded just because of their postcode.

“Students must be able to lodge their own appeals if they haven't got the grade they deserved and admissions teams must be forced to be more flexible. No student should see their dreams slip away because of this government’s inaction.”