Gender gap in predicted grades raises questions over their use in university admissions

 A study of more than 350,000 students in England has found that teachers predict higher A-Level grades for girls than boys who go on to achieve the same exam results. The findings raise fresh questions about the role of predicted grades in university admissions.

The research, by academics at the Universities of Cambridge and Bristol, found a consistent “pro-girl” gap in teacher predictions across 10 A-Level subjects. Depending on the subject, girls were between 3% and 11% likelier than boys to have their grades overpredicted, and between 15% and 41% less likely to have them underpredicted.

This does not mean that teachers deliberately favour girls. Instead, the researchers suggest that because girls typically have stronger all-round academic records, teachers may pick up on characteristics like motivation, diligence and classroom engagement when forming expectations about their future performance.

This could create a “halo effect”, where positive impressions about these students spill over into predictions about their academic potential.

Indeed, when the researchers compared students who not only achieved the same A-Level results, but also had similar records of prior academic performance, the picture changed. Within these groupings, boys received higher predicted grades in scientific STEM subjects, while girls retained a smaller advantage in non-STEM subjects, such as English Literature.

The findings, published in the Economics of Education Review, have implications for the UK’s university admissions system. Although university places are ultimately awarded based on students’ final A-Level results, initial offers are made months earlier and rely heavily on predicted grades.

Organisations including the educational charity The Sutton Trust have called for reforms to the system. In 2020, the Government consulted on moving towards Post-Qualification Admissions, where university decisions would be made after students received their final grades – but ultimately decided against the change.

Dr Konstantina Maragkou, from the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education and the study’s lead author, said the debate around predicted grades should be revisited.

“It is very unlikely that teachers deliberately predict better results for girls, but they may be relying on an impression of student characteristics which can lead to gendered predictions,” she said. “We need to think carefully about how fair that is for young people when the stakes are so high.”

The study used data from three university application cycles between 2017 and 2019. By comparing boys and girls with the same A-Level outcomes, the researchers identified a substantial gender gap in predicted grades.

On average, girls received predictions between one tenth and one fifth of a grade higher than boys. For example, girls were predicted, on average, around 0.17 of a grade higher in Physics and 0.13 higher in Sociology. “Differences of this size may appear small, but they can be enough to move a student across a grade boundary – for example, from a B to an A, or an A to an A*,” Maragkou said.

The researchers tested whether the findings could be explained by other differences between boys and girls and accounted for a wide range of other possible factors, including socioeconomic background, ethnicity, class size and school attended. The results remained unchanged in each case.

The researchers then explored what might explain this gender gap. One possibility is that teachers’ predictions are influenced by a conscious or unconscious perception of girls’ abilities compared with boys. Another is that their predictions incorporate broader information about the students. Previous studies have suggested that teachers could be influenced by observable characteristics such as a student’s work ethic, diligence, engagement, or everyday conduct at school.

To investigate this, the researchers used earlier Key Stage 2 and GCSE results to measure students’ broader academic profiles. Crucially, they looked beyond performance in the subjects they later chose at A-Level, capturing what they describe as “cross-disciplinary competence”. For example, they examined the earlier English performance of students who went on to take STEM A-Levels, and the earlier maths performance of students who chose non-STEM subjects.

This substantially changed the results. When comparing boys and girls with both identical A-Level outcomes and comparable prior academic records, the prediction advantage for girls fell by about 70% in non-STEM subjects and reversed in STEM subjects in favour of boys. “Accounting for prior academic record did not eliminate the gender gap; it just changed it,” Maragkou said.

The researchers also found that the gender gap was particularly pronounced among lower-achieving students, possibly because predictions are more difficult when performance is less certain.

The authors stress that their explanation for the gender differences requires further research. However, they note that official guidance states that “predicted grades should be independent of student behaviour or background.”

The findings may also have implications for other countries where teacher assessments form part of student evaluations, although the UK remains unusual in using predictions in university admission decisions.

Maragkou said that any attempt at reform should involve teachers, policymakers and researchers. “Teachers are not supposed to base predicted grades on students’ character, but they are probably not doing so consciously,” she said. “We also need to ask whether it is always wrong, conceptually, to consider broader qualities that affect academic success. These are difficult questions and they deserve careful consideration.”

---

Journal

Economics of Education Review

DOI

10.1016/j.econedurev.2026.102814 

1 in 4 teens report using mobile food delivery at school

Fast foods and sugary beverages are popular options; findings raise concerns about nutrition and classroom distractions

Nearly one-quarter of teens reported using mobile food delivery services during school hours and almost half said they use them after school, according to a national survey of over 1,000 U.S. adolescents.

Among respondents who used such services, almost 60% reported ordering fast foods such as pizza and burgers, and over one-third ordered sodas or other sugar-sweetened beverages. The findings raise concerns about the ability to maintain safe learning environments and support healthy nutrition for students, according to researchers.

“Federal and state school nutrition policies are designed to support access to healthy foods and beverages in school cafeterias and vending machines, but technology has outpaced policy,” said lead study author Mika Matsuzaki, PhD, MS, MPH, assistant professor in the Human Nutrition group in the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Today, a smartphone instantly brings a food outlet many miles away right to the school gate, fundamentally changing how our children access foods and beverages at school. We can no longer look at school nutrition without looking at the smartphone in a student’s pocket.”

Researchers conducted the survey online during the summer of 2025, garnering responses from 1,027 adolescents aged 13-17 years. In addition to the overall national trends, the results revealed some regional variation. Students living in the western United States were more likely to attend schools that allow mobile food delivery during school hours; however, teens in this region were also more likely to say they avoid using mobile food delivery due to the perceived high costs.

Nearly half of respondents said they support allowing mobile food delivery during school, although many—regardless of their support or opposition—expressed concerns about its implications for the learning environment and factors such as equity and bullying.

“Interestingly, students themselves are divided on whether this should be allowed. Even those who support it openly worry about campus safety and classroom distractions,” said Matsuzaki. “It’s rare to see teenagers raise flags about their own digital habits, which signals to us that they recognize these platforms are a double-edged sword.”

Researchers said schools can be an important venue to teach teens how to navigate digital food environments responsibly rather than impulsively. School administrators and policy makers could use the survey data as they consider campus safety and phone-use policies as well as potential guardrails to limit the influx of unhealthy food during school hours. It may also be possible to collaborate with food-delivery platforms to encourage users to make healthy choices. For parents and teens, researchers said the data could spur more conversations about nutrition and budgets.

“For many school administrators and parents, this study will be a wake-up call as they may not be aware of this relatively new phenomenon. We hope these findings will bring proactive conversations,” said Matsuzaki.

Researchers noted that self-reported surveys have inherent limitations and future studies could help to further confirm the findings.  

US State Laws and Policies Regulating Cellphone Use in K-12 Public Schools

 

Adolescent smartphone use has increased sharply over the past decade, coinciding with documented increases in anxiety, depression, and psychological distress among youths.^1,2 The US Surgeon General has issued advisories highlighting the potential harms of social media and digital device exposure to child and adolescent development.³ Much of this evidence concerns overall screen time or social media exposure, however; direct evidence on school-based cellphone restrictions remains limited. Cellphone access during school hours may further undermine academic performance through classroom distraction and task switching.^4,5 Despite these concerns, school-level prohibitions on nonacademic cellphone use declined from 91% of US public schools in 2009-2010 to 76% in 2021-2022.⁶ We aimed to systematically characterize whether and how US states have developed statewide regulations of cellphone use in K-12 public schools.

Results

Overall, 42 jurisdictions had statewide laws or policies regulating student cellphone use in K-12 public schools, whereas 9 jurisdictions did not (Figure). Among jurisdictions with policies, 32 (76%) enacted a statewide ban during instructional time, 2 (5%) limited use with local flexibility, 3 (7%) encouraged district-adopted policies, and 5 (12%) required district-adopted policies without specification (Table). Of the 32 statewide bans, 15 (47%) extended to the full school day (bell-to-bell), while 17 (53%) permitted access during noninstructional periods (eg, lunch, between classes). Statewide policies generally applied uniformly across all grades; no state established categorically different prohibitions by grade level.

Benefits of middle school program trickle down to next generation

 

Nearly 20 years after middle school students participated in a drug-abuse prevention program, they reported better communication with romantic partners and better adjusted children

A substance-use prevention program delivered to students and their families in the sixth and seventh grades led to wide-ranging benefits well into adulthood and — for those who became parents — even positively affected their children, according to a new study by researchers in the Penn State College of Health and Human Development.

The Promoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) program builds problem solving and communication skills among middle school students to reduce alcohol and other substance misuse. It was developed more than 20 years ago by researchers at Penn State and Iowa State University and has been delivered for decades in rural towns where residents have higher risk for substance misuse and lower levels of education.

Other studies have shown that participating in PROSPER improved young people’s abilities to communicate and solve problems with others. Eighteen years later, the children of middle school PROSPER participants displayed higher levels of social and emotional skills — including listening, getting along with others and self-control — than children of people who did not participate in PROSPER, according to a new study published in Child Development.

“The skills that youth developed in PROSPER are so meaningful and so transferable that their home lives as adults were improved. In fact, they improved to the point that we can see a difference in their children,” said Greg Fosco, professor of human development and family studies, Edna Bennett Pierce Faculty Fellow in Prevention Research and lead author of the study. “To me, this shows the true power of helping children and families build skills before problems emerge. It can literally change lives for generations.”

Training that makes a difference for decades

In 2001, 28 communities in Pennsylvania and Iowa were randomized to either receive PROSPER programs from trainers in their community or to continue education as usual. In sixth grade, PROSPER students received training on solving problems, working with peers and/or declining alcohol and other substances. In seventh grade, students and their families received training on building relationships and problem-solving together.

Subsequent studies found that students in the PROSPER program continued to develop better problem-solving skills and had lower levels of delinquency and substance use during high school. After high school, they had reduced risk for antisocial behavior and problematic substance use, and they experienced lower levels of depression and suicidal thoughts. They also experienced lower levels of romantic partner violence and reported better problem-solving skills with their romantic partner, the researchers said.

“It was clear that PROSPER continued to affect people’s lives when they went out into the world,” said Mark Feinberg, research professor in the Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center and co-author of the study. “That inspired us to ask, ‘Do these benefits carry over to next generation of children?’ It turns out that they do.”

Benefits for the next generation

In this study, the researchers examined data from 395 individuals who had young children and participated in PROSPER from 2002-03 or 2003-04, either as participants or in the control group. Statistical analyses indicated these individuals were similar to other PROSPER participants, so it is reasonable to assume that the same benefits would extend to the rest of the sample if and when they had children, the researchers said.

Participants of this study completed surveys about their family environments and their children’s social-emotional skills. Results showed that parents who participated in PROSPER during middle school reported lower levels of family conflict, higher levels of family cohesion and more clear and consistent routines for their households.

Middle school PROSPER participants also reported that their children demonstrated the abilities to share, get along with others, be helpful, wait to take turns, follow instructions and other skills needed for succeeding at school and forming friendships. Comparatively, individuals from non-PROSPER communities reported lower levels of those skills among their children.

The path from PROSPER to better adjusted children

What excited the researchers, they said, was that they could determine how PROSPER affected the next generation.

The PROSPER intervention helped pre-teens develop the ability to cooperate and solve problems with others. These skills continued to improve relative to their peers after PROSPER ended, according to the researchers.

“PROSPER targeted drug use among teenagers, but by putting them on the path to better social problem-solving skills in their youth, participants continued to practice and develop these skills during adolescence,” Fosco said. "This is why we saw participants' social problem-solving skills continue to improve for a few more years."

When these PROSPER participants became adults, they reported less family conflict, more family belonging and clear household routines. These family-level variables were then correlated with the next generation of children's improved social-emotional skills, the results showed.

“Researchers have known for years that the three-legged stool of low conflict, high sense of belonging and clear expectations helps create stable, healthy home environments,” Feinberg said. “In this study, we showed that this supportive home life helped position the children of PROSPER participants for success in the home, at school and among their peers.”

Because many factors influence how people, families and their children develop, the differences in the next generation of children due to PROSPER are small, the researchers said. But the fact that differences are detectable in the next generation shows how PROSPER changes lives, they continued.

“It’s important to keep in mind that PROSPER was delivered by people from the communities — not by researchers from Penn State,” Fosco said. “This program does not require outsiders to run it. Some towns have been reaping these benefits for their children over more than twenty years. PROSPER improves lives — literally for generations — and I hope to see the day when it is run in every community.”

---

Journal

Child Development

DOI

10.1093/chidev/aacag130 

Kids who own cellphones have poorer reading comprehension scores

 

Key takeaways 

• The widespread concern about the effect of cellphones on reading comprehension in elementary school children has led to surprisingly little experimental research. 
• New research by UCLA psychologists found a statistically significant relationship between owning a cellphone and lower reading scores — children who owned cellphones had poorer reading comprehension than those who did not. 
• In fact, simply owning a phone correlated with worse reading comprehension, whether or not the phone was brought to school. 

School cellphone bans might seem like a good way to improve learning for elementary school children, but new research published in Behavioral Sciences shows that simply owning a cellphone correlates with worse reading comprehension. Whether a child brings the phone to school or not made no difference on the same metric, the team of UCLA psychologists and researchers found. 

“We found that there’s no age at which you can give a child a phone that’s better or worse for reading comprehension, so it’s just having a phone at all,” said lead author and UCLA psychology professor Patricia Greenfield. “That’s true in third grade, and it’s true in sixth grade.” 

The study came about as researchers sought to answer the question: Do cellphones interfere with the concentration required to perform well on academic tests? They focused on determining whether the acquisition of a phone was negatively related to reading comprehension performance on tests for third and sixth graders. 

The widespread concern about the effect of cellphones on reading in elementary school children has led to surprisingly little experimental research. The authors note only two previous studies in elementary school children. One showed that texting benefits the skill of grasping meaning; the other showed texting to be a negative influence on basic reading mechanics at the letter and word level. 

To conduct the new study, researchers obtained approval to test children’s reading comprehension with and without phones on a group of culturally and linguistically diverse children in Antelope Valley public schools and Coptic Church schools in Los Angeles. County. Phones were normally allowed in both types of settings.

The children — some who owned a phone and others who did not — read short passages. Some children had a phone with them at school, while others did not. Researchers then tested them on what they understood about each passage. Students also filled out a survey about their cellphone ownership and use.

The researchers found a statistically significant relationship between owning a personal cellphone and lower reading scores — children who owned cellphones had poorer comprehension than those who did not. This negative relationship between phone ownership and reading scores held for students who spoke English at home and those who did not. Testing for distraction from phone notifications was not possible because the students received almost no notifications during the experiments. Furthermore, there was no difference in reading comprehension when phones were on desks or out of sight. The reported age at which a child acquired their first phone did not correlate with reading comprehension skill. 

“The children who brought their phones to school had the same reading scores as children who did not have phones at school that day. So, it’s ownership of a phone, not the immediate presence of one, that correlates with poorer reading comprehension at the elementary school level,” said Greenfield. 

The study found some good news for students who do not speak English at home. For students from non-English-speaking homes who had their own phone, reading comprehension was significantly better the earlier they started using their phone to text.

“If you have a phone and if you’re from a family where English is not spoken at home, it’s better for reading comprehension to start texting earlier rather than later,” said Greenfield. “In fact, when students from Arabic- or Spanish-speaking homes began to text in second or third grade, by sixth grade they had reading comprehension scores similar to their peers who still did not have phones.” 

Although results suggest no academic effect of school bans through sixth grade, cell phone bans in the elementary grades should improve children’s social skills and relationships by increasing in-person interaction with peers and teachers; this is an important area for future research.

Teens who start the day with breakfast eat better overall

 A new study of teens around age 18 who tended to skip breakfast showed that consuming breakfast increased their overall intake of important nutrients such as fiber, iron, zinc and choline.

The researchers also found that eating breakfast reduced the intake of high-fat and high-sugar foods throughout the day when compared to those who didn’t eat breakfast. Participants who consumed higher-protein breakfasts saw even stronger benefits.

“This is one of the largest and longest tightly controlled breakfast trials in adolescents,” said Emma Rose Brown, a doctoral student under the mentorship of Heather Leidy, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences and the Department of Pediatrics - Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin. “Our findings suggest that adding breakfast, particularly one rich in protein, may be an effective way to improve nutrient intake and diet quality among older adolescents.”

Brown will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, held July 25–28 in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C.

“Although most Americans think that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, there isn’t a lot of evidence to support this idea,” said Brown. “We wanted to see whether consuming a high-protein breakfast would increase nutrient intake and promote healthier eating throughout the day.”

The study included 128 adolescents who were between 14 and 21 years old and skipped breakfast at least six times a week. Participants were randomly assigned to eat either a normal-protein breakfast, a high-protein breakfast or to continue skipping breakfast. 

For the groups eating breakfast, the researchers prepared and packed over 18,000 meals that included breakfast foods commonly consumed by adolescents such as burritos, quesadillas, egg scrambles and smoothies. Meals for the normal protein group contained around 15 g of protein, and meals for the high-protein group contained 30 g of high-quality protein.

At the start of the study and again at 3 and 6 months, study participants in the breakfast-eating groups received a food cooler containing the prepared foods. They could eat as much or as little as they wanted to over three days. This approach allowed the researchers to precisely track intake while allowing the food to be consumed at home. It led to excellent compliance, with participants consuming the provided meals more than 90% of the time.

Researchers assessed what participants ate by asking them to recall everything they consumed over a 24-hour period and by weighing the food coolers before and after consumption. Food intake was entered into nutrition software for analysis.

The researchers found that although all the groups consumed around the same amount of calories throughout the day, those eating breakfast took in more fiber, iron, zinc and choline overall. Participants in the high-protein group also consumed more protein, iron and choline compared to those in the normal protein group. 

The study also showed that both groups who ate breakfast consumed fewer desserts, sweets and candy compared to participants who skipped breakfast.  Additional benefits were observed with the high-protein group, who ate even less added sugar compared to the other groups.

Next, the researchers plan to look at how increasing dietary protein at breakfast might affect people’s thoughts and cravings about food, specifically in young adults and adults stopping GLP‑1 medications. A better understanding of how breakfast protein affects what people eat and how much they think about food throughout the day could help inform practical strategies that support long-term, healthy weight management.

College Sports and Early-Stage Career Choice

This paper examines how networks formed through college athletics influence the early-career trajectories of Ivy League graduates. Tracking professional histories of 120,306 Ivy League graduates, the authors compare each graduate's actual first job against other potential jobs that the graduate could reasonably have taken. 

Athletics-based networks, especially team-based connections, materially influence initial job choice. Employing one additional alum from a specific Ivy League collegiate sports team increases the probability that a same-team athlete joins the firm by 193.70% relative to the baseline match probability. Likewise, employing one more Ivy League alum who played a specific Varsity sport increases the probability that any Ivy League athlete who plays the same sport joins the firm by 16.40%, while employing one more alum who played any sport at a specific Ivy League university raises the probability that any Ivy League athlete from the same university joins the firm by 4.60%. For team-based connections, these effects persist whether the alum and the college athlete were direct peers whose college years overlapped or older “network” affiliates whose college years were completely disjoint. 

These results demonstrate that college athletics-based social networks materially influence initial job placement and early-career trajectories for top college graduates. More generally, they clarify how non-academic social capital shapes the job searching and matching process within labor markets.