>>10649936During High School, I was taken into social care as my mother fell into a toxic alcoholism after my father died of cancer - she died just before my A-levels, worrying about her health, and my fathers health.
My grades plummeted because adverse outer conditions make tests seem far less important. But my performance before and after was pretty decent, I'm studying a PhD in stem cell biology now in a top university, but wasn't able to go into a science undergraduate immediately because my A-levels weren't good enough. Applying as a mature student (at 22) I got into genetics undergraduate and ended comfortably with a first, I was always capable of that but my A-levels were ruined by my inability to balance study and my home life at the time - so universities didn't initially accept me. I think this story applies to a significant amount of gifted kids.
The point is: adverse home conditions (health of family, or ability to afford bare necessities) can wildly change your perspective on exams and study - in the moment it becomes very difficult to care about a specific maths problem or past papers when someone you love needs you
I don't think children who suffer these conditions should necessarily have a grade boost, but they certainly deserve at least some senior teachers written opinion on their academic ability to tackle higher levels of education - to be considered at universities.
Life isn't fair, and there are lots of differences in advantages in upbringing (e.g. whether you have money for private tuition or don't) - but this reflects life after school as well as during. Being disadvantaged doesn't necessarily mean you are performing under your potential at school but any teacher worth their salt should be able to figure out if a child can handle upper education or deserves the chance.
