Number of kids getting extra time in exams MASSIVELY overstated

In the nicest way possible its meant to be hard. English Language GCSE needs to be at a high level, and the majority of students get at least a 4 if not much higher. They study and practice in the time. It's the most important thing, build the skills, do the hard work and then you have to not only in mocks, but in your own time do exam questions in the time, over and over again to get it done in the time. That way you know you can get it done. Different questions require a different amount of time, Q1 is multiple choice it takes 1 or 2 minutes, Q2,Q3 are typically 8 marks so 12 ish minutes. Q4 is 16 marks so 20-30 minutes and Q5 is 40 marks so 45 minutes. That is more than enough time for most students as the exam is 1h 45. So likely he may have needed extra time but I know many students who initially in Y10 or early Y11 struggle with time but don't need extra time. So what do they do? They study harder, Practice more exam questions in the time, over and over. By the real thing they're fine.

I know exams don't work for everyone, but they do not just test memory - for english lang you don't even know the texts you'll see. It tests your comprehension, your critical thinking, ability to analyse the use of language and techniques, the ability to write a persuasive answer etc. Many kids struggle and they study and get it done in the time. If you genuinely think your son needed extra time to finish, he most likely needed it.

Well said @HappilyUrbanTrimmer

We gave up with Eng Lang GCSE for DD and she did Functional Skills instead (outside of college).

English Language GCSE is a bit of an outlier I think as loads of kids appear to have time issues with it. They just seem to ask for too much to be done in the time. It consistently comes up as an issue in a way that say History or Physics just don't.

Anyway the exams are done now and we will see what the results are. My son worked incredibly hard and I am proud of him whatever.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. But it is offensive to accuse a child who you know nothing about and who is struggling to just get a 4 of being “verbose and not managing his time well”. One of the things we worked on was the order in which we to tackle the English Language questions as he would be unlikely to finish it.

There are clear criteria on the assessment scores as to where the line is drawn.
Some schools are more on the ball than others.

That's why we have people who are professionally trained to make these judgements about where to draw the line.

Personally, I think the exam system is very flawed for various reasons which require a whole new thread. It sounds like your son was let down by the school by not getting him assessed.

We're not testing ok n speed! We're testing knowledge.

Some people have a disability that means they process things slower. Or have no hands. Or can't write. Or English is their third language, it they're blind. Or any other host if issues.

Allowing the blind student with slower processing to have a reader, a scribe and extra time isn't a bad thing. They still know all the Civil War facts. They just need assistance getting those answers in the format required.

Your son, perhaps should have been given extra time and WOULD have been given extra time. And then he's on an even playing field.

If children who didn't need the extra time, we're given the extra time youd have other issues presenting themselves. Eg children writing 300 word answers for a 3 mark question. Marking would take even longer to no better outcome.

Candidates thinking they have to stay for the whole time regardless. Candidates would think that the maximum time was not inclusive of the 3 hours. Candidates needing rest breaks would be in the exam for muck longer.

No he wasn’t assessed because nobody ever mentioned it to him or to me and I had no idea about this until recently. But the problem is that huge numbers of children are slightly slow readers and have poor handwriting. Where do you draw the line?

But my point is that there is no need to double the time if every child gets more time than is really needed. If the exams are testing understanding but not speed, then we just give everyone the same. If schools can manage 100% extra time for some children, why is it so difficult to give it to all of them?

I've lost track. Was he assessed? A slowish reader and writer would be a reason for extra time, if slow enough.

I just think we are either testing speed or not. It is fundamentally unfair to test some children on speed and others not.

I’ve done several exams as an adult post university and it is common to set a lengthy time and for everyone to just leave when they are done.

Also you have no idea why my son would need a bit longer and it is hugely presumptive to think that you do. It is absolutely nothing to do with being a bit verbose (I wish it was). He is a slowish reader and struggles with his handwriting. It just makes me think that some SEN are considered more important than others.

And all those who say that the children without extra time don’t need it, why would you then care if they received it.

Also, you have candidates that need prompting to move to the next question. Otherwise they will spend the entire exam on the first question.

How are you going to measure the appropriate amount of time the promoter should use for them to move on if they have upto 100% extra time? Do they double the time? Keep it the same and see what happens? Then what, go over it again? For how long?

And just because your child would have liked 20 minutes, doesn't mean he needed it, he probably didn't manage his time well, or was overly verbose in his answers anyway.

I think this is the key point. Give some kids unlimited time and they will write a page for a 2 mark answer. Exams are the length so that most students can complete them in the time allowed. Making unlimited time would be administratively more complicated and more expensive.

If you're setting an exam that has around 1hr15m of content, and allocate 1hr30m, but allow candidates to remain for up to 3 hours.

A whole lot of candidates will stay right up until the end - getting the equivalent of 100% extra time. So they will have an actual advantage.

You will get some candidates thinking 3 hours is the length, and they will think they should get t 25% extra on top of that.

You'll have longer exam periods as there's more clashes.

Candidates with rest breaks could easily be in the room for 4-5+ hours, after all, they're allowed a maximum of 3 hours. Or does this 3 hours include their rest breaks?

And just because your child would have liked 20 minutes, doesn't mean he needed it, he probably didn't manage his time well, or was overly verbose in his answers anyway.

I would say that about 15% of our kids get extra time - I was told it was getting harder to get as it was being tightened up and students were expected to be given rest breaks rather than extra time wherever possible. I would say of those 15% getting extra time a good half will never use any of it, the exam is already too long for them and they're finished long before the end of it. Of the others you may only one or two who will take the whole of their extra time at GCSE at least.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if private schools had been gaming the system as extra time is a huge benefit if you don't really need it - and their results are everything. I mean we know there are teachers/head teachers that cheat in SATs by telling kids the answers so it's no surprise that schools might give their kids this advantage. It's good that the system is being tightened up but it's a really important adjustment for dyslexic kids in particular.

DS has access to a quiet room with his job - software engineer. He works in an office with one other person so doesn't actually need it but it was provided. He also had interview questions in advance. He absolutely loves his job and is fantastic at it. He had adjustments for exams but not extra time.

But a cheese lovers exam or whatever only tests one aspect: the knowledge of cheese.
It doesn't, generally, test soft skills such as getting on with people, team working, work ethic, time management, ability to present, or things like innovation.
It is really short sighted to think that just because someone needs extra time they will be automatically 'worse'.

Buswankers - you said they both had a 9, that puts them both in the top 5%, so both amazing. I’ll go for the quicker one, everything else being equal.

As someone who has both had extra time and now grants extra time for students in my care, a lot of the time the difference the extra time makes will not actually change the functional problems the people have. I had extra time in exams, in my BA, in my MA. I now work part-time and have one-to-one for some areas of my work. If I had not had support with my exams, I would have worse grades, maybe not had a BA or an MA. I would either not work at all and be benefit dependent, or I would be in another role - but the chances are I would still need support in my role at work. I guess my point is that if the person struggles with exams for a reason that won't then affect them at work, because their need was temporary (e.g. broken arm), or because their job is nothing like exams, then having better grades than they would have got without support, probably enabled them to be a working member of society which they might not have otherwise been. If they got support for something they will always need support for, then they will always need a workplace to consider that else they won't be able to hold down a job and will be dependent on benefits. Having lower grades doesn't appear to benefit anyone, just mean they are more likely to be long term benefit dependent!

Even if the person who had access arrangements was better at cheese knowledge? Better at selling? The best consultant you'd ever known.
Just happened to need a bit of extra time to write the recommendation?

I genuinely cannot understand the problem. Just set the exam as it always is. Tell the kids it should take about 1.5 hours (or whatever) but that they are welcome to stay for up to 3 hours if needed. It’s by far the most inclusive way to do it. My son would have left the maths and science exams after the expected time as he did not have a problem with that. He would have probably done an extra 20 minutes in English to get all the points down he wanted to make. Why is his need less than someone else’s need?

Buswankers - GCSEs are a competition - the grade boundaries are set so that a certain rough % get each grade. If an exam is easier the grade boundary shifts up.

And if I was running a cheese consultancy (I would love this job!!) if there were two people who both got a 9 in cheese tasting I would choose the person who could get the work done quicker as they would be able to write more reports and earn more money for my cheese business.

You fail to understand that some candidates will interpret the maximum time is the time they should finish. Also how many questions are you setting in this extended period?

It's isn't "a race against the clock" it's an exam with an appropriate amount of questions that the majority of people can answer in that time. If they can't for processing reasons, medical reasons etc they get a little extra time to do something

Because...how many questions do you set for 3 hours?

Enough to fill 2 hrs? Enough to fill 2h30m?

You will get candidates working for the entire 3 hours and they don't need that time. They will be writing up until the end.

They will have the equivalent of getting extra time.

And some children who require 50% or 100% extra time, or unlimited rest breaks... The 100% candidates now get, what 6 hours in an exam?

Do you want your child to sit 20+ GCSE exams that are 3 hours long?