Number of kids getting extra time in exams MASSIVELY overstated

And that is fine. Ask the applicant about how they cope with pressure ,or test them yourself. You absolutely don't get to make judgements about how valid their qualifications are. The awarding body has done that. If you don't trust them, set up your own times application tests.

When somebody applies for a job ,it is up to them if they disclose their disability. If as an employer you think they need certain abilities, make that clear and assess them if necessary.

For me the problem is that we don’t as a country screen for issues such as slow processing. Therefore for every child who gets extra time for this, there may be another 3 who are never detected and thus disadvantaged. The only way round this is to screen every child routinely for these conditions so that it is not dependent on parental or school intervention. Alternatively, if other children don’t benefit from extra time, it seems easier to just extend the exam time slightly for all who feel they would benefit. Just work out how long a standard child should take and add a bit spare on for those who might need it. You can still add even longer on for children with a broken wrist and who need a scribe.

You absolutely should not be told that as an employer. No way.

Poor person stuck with invigilating 200% ET

Or the one we had that had unlimited rest breaks. They didn't even start the exam for 2 hours... After about 5 and half hours the EO out and end tonite, they'd answered 2 questions.

They'd have a hissy fit about the child that was allowed to have their own room, invigilator, play music, take drinks and food in, had a particular chair and a scribe.

Or the child that had a reader AND a scribe.

Do you think the same about all exam access arrangements? If some are given the exam access arrangement, everyone should? Or is it just extra time you have a problem with? If it is just extra time, why exactly do you specifically have a problem with that.

And when it’s time to apply for jobs, employers can work out if candidates are suitable through the interview process and testing (if appropriate for the role).

And employees can chose which jobs to apply for based on their abilities and can ask their employer to make reasonable adjustments in law once in post.

Unless the job is to sit exams (not sure this exists) then whether someone had extra time in their school exams is not the business of a future employer. And is actually discriminatory to suggest this should be declared.

This is very frustrating.

You seem to be hung up on”speed”

Many people have explained, it’s not about speed:

• The people setting the exams have determined the amount of time a standard student should be able to answer the questions in.
• Some students cannot work at this pace because they have a broken wrist, anxiety in the exam situation, slow processing, have to work with a reader or a scribe, or many other reasons that I don’t know (and aren’t my business).
• The school therefore is permitted to make reasonable adjustments for these students - based on their usual way of working in school.

Again, no-one is having anything “both ways”. Reasonable adjustments (including extra time) are all that is available to the school to assist the students to try and give them the same ( or as near to the same) opportunity to do their best in a compulsory exam that is designed for the standard student.

it is not “hey that kid is getting something extra - why can’t my kid have it too?”

Son what ... You personally know the careers paths they all took and how they fared in the work place over the next 20 years...?

No,. because the company assessment will identify that.

A candidate shouldn't be dismissed for interview selection because they're disabled!

Most companies will actually make accomodations where it's reasonable.

And good for them.

Instead of this weird "let's highlight disability and prejudice ourselves against them"

Again, you wouldn't take Michael's glasses away from him, because he wouldn't be able to read the questions as easily, and would take more time to read them.... so why are you so insistent on taking Katie's extra time because her disability isn't visible??

Lots of people apply for jobs they will be no good at!
You can't have it both ways.
EITHER working quickly is an important part of the assessment snd people should be aware of those who have had extra time.
Or speed is not important so everyone who wants it should be allowed to have it.

Lots of people apply for jobs they will be no good at!
You can't have it both ways.
EITHER working quickly is an important part of the assessment snd people should be aware of those who have had extra time.
Or speed is not important so everyone who wants it should be allowed to have it.

It's become an absolute bandwagon.

On the contrary, I think you make an extremely valid point and one I hadn't thought of, which is that they can then demonstrate what they know. @noblegiraffe made the same point earlier in the thread.
I'm sorry if it came across that I thought those students were gaining an "unfair advantage".

I stand by my experience though of students who have had concessions all through university, but then fail at the last hurdle. Despite what @BusWankers says, this is my experience.

Just saying the person who got a 9 with out extra time, wouldn't automatically be better than the person who needs extra time...

It may be that in your job and in some 'professions' that use their own admissions tests they are wasting applicants time by not making it clear that fast processing is a key requirement for success in the application. Yes, it may help with sweat shops in ensuring they get the maximum volume of work out of the applicants to maximise profit but there are other jobs where innovative or deep thinking or creativity is what drives the profits for the business and being slightly slower at processing could be an advantage. Slow processing is not the same as 'thick', it means their brains are wired slightly differently. Hence, they may suit different jobs, yes, but it probably helps if they know what is required for the job applying so can focus their efforts towards employers who will consider them an asset. I bet though, that many employers who devise selection tests don't want to own up to what their selection criteria are so they hide behind the selection test instead! I am not sure that even fast processors would find some jobs as attractive as they first thought if they knew the employer valued how fast they would be churning out work above many of the 'sexier' descriptions of their chosen career that they read in the graduate jobs blurb! However, if it is what they want and they aren't put off, then letting them know what is required helps you get the applicants you want and not waste so much time assessing those you would rather not have.

One poster mentioned that no-one would want to pay a lawyer for 3 hours work if another one could do it in one hour but remember that 'extra time' when it is given is usually no more than 25% so that is an extra 15 minutes for an hour's work. It is not necessarily the case that a 'slow processor' produces less work or poorer work in the same time as a faster processor either, as people often learn coping skills so they work differently when they don't have to follow the rigidity of a timed exam paper.

Bit of a stretch lol……

Yes ,and they seem to think this extra time will magic them up and 8 or a 9.

Some kids will achieve a 3 with extra time.

Nowadays there are different routes that you can take for university.

Johnny sits exams in 3 A levels at the end of 2 years and gets 3 A stars, a UCAS point score of 168 and a place at an RG university.

Mary does a L3 Extended BTEC and at the end of 2 years of coursework is awarded DDD*, a UCAS point score of 168 and a place at the same RG university on the same course.

Johnny might be bright and lazy and knuckled down 2 weeks before the exams, but will probably have forgotten half of it by halfway through August.

Mary may have very poor working memory and processing speed issues that aren't a problem when she can do everything as coursework and take the time to get it right.

Which one is the best employee now?

Some people on this thread seem to think those with extra time will use their unfairly inflated results to cheat themselves into jobs they don't deserve.

I personally think most people by adulthood have a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses and try to find a job that they can succeed in. Many jobs require thoughtful work, or innovative work, or accurate work, and speed is secondary.

It's all making me feel quite sad.

This question has already been answered a few times this thread.

GCSEs are not a speed test. The amount if time is entirely adequate for most pupils to show what they know. If it was designed to reward speed, there woukd be some kind of system to give bonus points to thise who hand in their exam paper 15/30/45 minutes before the time is up. employers who need a fast processing speed can and do set speed tests as part of their recruitment - I have had to do numerous high-speed mathematics tests during various recruitment processes throughout my career because my excellent maths grades are not proof of my speed.

Intelligent employers do not assume that a GCSE grade in Geography means that someone can answer quickfire questions on Geography at high speed, it simply means that the person acquired a specific level of knowledge as defined on the subject-specific curriculum At a particular point ij time. No sensible employer is going to assume any particular level of general skill just because someone has 5 GCSEs at grade 5+ or 9 GCSEs at grade 6+. If they need a high processing speed, or high fluid reasoning, or a high working memory, due to the specific demands of the job, they need to test for that separately, not rely on GCSE grades as a proxy for something they are not intended to measure.

You're talking absolute nonsense.

Since when did you ever work anywhere where your knowledge of what you've learned over the last two years was tested on?

Or have you always been able to talk to colleagues, discuss ideas etc?

Just because someone needs a computer to type an essay doesn't mean they won't make an excellent Spanish Teacher.

And if they need 50% extra time to process and write answers, they will adjust or not even bother applying for roles that require written work to a tight deadline.

Extra time for slow processing doesn't magically make someone better at maths or French or whatever though. It just enables them to show what they know.

I think it’s unlikely they would able to pursue these careers in the first place