Number of kids getting extra time in exams MASSIVELY overstated

This is problematic. Firstly because you would get a steady stream of people leaving, which is disruptive. Secondly you would get some kids feeling pressure to leave because their mates have.

We routinely screen all y7 and 10 and 12 for a number of things. The many many hours I spend counting words and looking up standardised scores is absolutely not a cost effective use of my time.

I can comment on this. My DD has ADHD and anxiety. She finds it very hard to get started writing in an exam. She would spend lots of time staring at the paper panicking. Eventually she would start to write but run out of time.

Having extra time has meant firstly that she doesn't feel the same level of panic at not getting everything down so she is able to start sooner. Then she has more time anyway so generally does get to the end of the time having put down all she wants to.

In a work place I would expect she might need some reasonable adjustments that it might take her longer than some people to do certain tasks.

This is exactly my point. It is the system that is unfair. But any attempt to discuss it is written off as ableism or by changing the subject with reference to glasses or walking aids or broken wrists. It seems some parents having gained the extra time and level playing field don’t want that extended to anyone else and aren’t interested in discussions about how the extra time can be implemented more fairly and not just on the basis of parents and schools being more proactive.

I doubt my son has issues with slow processing. He’s probably just a bit rubbish at English and deserving of his grade. But it seems unfair that this is never even considered at his school.

I also fear that if access arrangements become too widespread (both at schools and universities), employers will lose faith in the exam system and will start implementing their own tests. This is already routine in my industry and there would be no accommodation for extra time as we quite literally bill clients on an hourly basis so timing is vitally important. If we had to start offering extra time for assessments to avoid being accused of discrimination, then recruitment would become very challenging.

It seems to me that no one is able to express concern over the system, if such a thing exists.
I for one am not disputing extra time for some conditions. Clearly that would be absurd and it’s irritating, to say the least, that some aggressive posters put words in our mouths and in so doing, silence reasonable discussion.
However I have experienced the same as @GCSEnerves. My DC has struggled all through her high achieving school. She has constantly been admonished to get better at “timing “ yet not ONCE has “slow processing” been mentioned. It seems that some schools/parents are more “on it” than others. As mentioned to @noblegiraffe, she could have got most of certain papers correct, but didn’t have time to finish.
The mantra seems to be “oh well don’t criticise the system; DC should have got extra time “ but the thing is that she wasn’t bloody offered it. Not a peep of a suggestion. So her exam results will not affect her knowledge. The “system” is therefore a lottery and no, that isn’t fair!

GCSE English language isn't just about writing! One of my constant refrains to my classes is how many minutes to spend on each question so they attempt them all.

And this is why I’ve never pushed for any kind of assessment. He finished maths and science with plenty of time to spare and got a strong 5 in history in the mocks with no timing issues. I just don’t understand why he struggles so much with English when his writing is pretty good. Oh well I’ll see what the results bring and decided whether to have him assessed if he doesn’t pass.

@Kendodd If some kids take longer to do the same work, is it that they never finish?

Some finish but take longer (and what longer is varies individual to individual - hence differing amounts of extra time given) and some wouldn’t finish even with an unlimited amount of time.

So if the length of time to do an exam was doubled say, so it was more than enough time for everyone to answer all the questions are you saying some kids would still need extra time on top otherwise it's unfair?

Some DC need more than 100% extra time. See the example another poster mentioned of 200% extra time. This is because their additional needs means they need significantly longer. That can be for a multitude of reasons.

But also, if you give everyone else the opportunity to write for say 3 hours rather than the current 1hr30, then someone who has extra time at the moment is disadvantaged because their reasonable adjustment is removed. A pupil who doesn’t need extra time might still write for 3 hours so the pupil with extra time currently doesn’t have a reasonable adjustment compared to that.

Are you saying some kids will never finish and never answer all the questions?

Yes, some DC don’t answer all the questions.

You might think that having a reader might be seen by some employers as even more worthy of mention than extra time....

If I was in charge, I would change English and Maths so that you had to prove you’d reached a certain standard in numeracy and literacy by the end of year 11 (similar to passing your driving test) and move away from this idea of only a certain % of children can achieve grade 4 (which will be influenced by giving some children extra time). Kids can still do GCSEs to stretch them but I’m not sure that the English Language GCSE is a good way of assessing literacy skills. Most employers want to know if a person can write coherently and not whether they can identify and describe the impact of a metaphor.

I wonder if those who are so upset about extra time feel the same about other exam concessions.

Should certificates state that James got an extra 5% in every paper because his dad died the week before GCSEs?

Or that Fiona got 25% extra time because she broke her arm the week before?

Or that Ahmed got to use a laptop for every exam because he has hypermobile joint?

How about Sarah who is homeschooled and has done 2 GCSEs every 6 months since she was 12 and got a 9 in all of them - only having to revise 2 subjects at a time... must be a huge advantage there.

Or is just issues with slow processing and dyslexia that are the big issue?

And for employers, in today's world it's quite likely that a significant proportion of job applicants never even did GCSE because they went to school in a different country under a different system. So now how are you picking out who needed extra time in their Geography GCSE?

Even more ludicrous a suggestion, quite honestly.

If your son struggles to finish the exam @GCSEnerves, his teachers should have a) taught him when to move on between questions and b) asked the SEND department to check him out. That's not the fault of the exam.

But my point is that they aren’t all being assessed, at least not from my experience. For my DS, his CAT scores suggest he should be capable of getting a 5 in English yet he is on a 3-4 borderline. His written English, spelling, punctuation and grammar are actually very good, but he is at serious risk of failing English Language and not getting on to his college course because he struggles to finish the exam. He is attending a highly regarded school that people fight to get in, but no teacher has ever once suggested slow processing to us and I have no idea if that is the problem or not. I wonder how many other children are in exactly the same situation across the country. We simply cannot give extra time to some children on the basis of a hidden disability that we don’t test all children for.

Well let them leave the exam hall when finished

Yes... let's allow kids to take books into exams. What could possibly go wrong with that?!

I don't quite get this argument.
And please don't be rude or insulting back, it is a genuine question.
If some kids take longer to do the same work, is it that they never finish? So if the length of time to do an exam was doubled say, so it was more than enough time for everyone to answer all the questions are you saying some kids would still need extra time on top otherwise it's unfair? If so why? Are you saying some kids will never finish and never answer all the questions?

Daft? 😀
So change the rules!
Lack of imagination sand resistance to change is what has led to this ridiculous system that is no use to anyone.

Why not just set the exam timing for everyone to be the amount of time a person with ‘slow processing’ can do it and get full marks if they are capable.
Those who finish early can read a book.
The exam system needs a complete overhaul anyway -first decide what its purpose is, then design accordingly.
Clearly no longer fit for purpose for employers who need to set their own tests to ensure that get someone capable to do the job efficiently and effectively.

If we cannot increase the timing margin of error on exams for all children, then the only fair thing to do is to routinely screen all children for invisible disabilities such as slow processing. I have no idea how much that would cost or the resources required, but it seems fundamentally unfair any other way. I am shocked by some of the attitudes on here that just because a child doesn’t have a diagnosis, then they don’t have other challenges or difficulties and they must just not be preparing enough or organised enough.