The GCSE disadvantage gap narrowed, but remains wider than before the pandemic

The finding

The gap in average attainment scores between disadvantaged and other pupils narrowed from 15.5 points to 15.1 points. However, it remained above the pre-pandemic baseline of 13.6 points.

What the data shows

Disadvantaged pupils' average attainment score increased from 34.9 points to 35.6 points. Other pupils' average increased from 50.4 points to 50.7 points. The gap narrowed because the disadvantaged-group mean increased more, not because the other-group mean fell.

The gap in the English-and-maths threshold measure also narrowed, from 27.3 percentage points to 26.8 percentage points. Its pre-pandemic baseline was 25.2 percentage points. Percentage-point gaps and attainment-score gaps are different units and should not be combined.

What this could mean

For leaders, the useful question is whether improvement is reaching disadvantaged pupils across the attainment distribution. A threshold measure alone cannot describe every pupil, while an average can conceal variation. Review both alongside curriculum access and local pupil evidence. National changes cannot establish that any particular intervention worked.

What the data cannot tell us

Disadvantage includes recent free-school-meal eligibility and specified care histories, rather than current FSM status alone. Group composition can change. These are cohort attainment comparisons, not individual progress, school effectiveness or causal estimates. The latest year is provisional. Pandemic-era grading changes limit time-series comparisons. Calculated gaps use the published rounded group figures; the separate DfE disadvantage gap index is a different measure.

Questions for your school

Are both groups improving, and is the gap changing? Does your definition of disadvantage match the published comparison? What do subject-level and pupil-level reviews add that a national average cannot show? Keep provisional status visible when presenting the findings to governors.