Extra time in exams - how schools actually decide.

It’s quite an interesting comparison actually because the different systems approach it slightly differently.
If anyone has questions about how schools usually evidence things like processing speed, reading speed or “normal way of working” under the GCSE/A level system I’m happy to try to explain how it tends to work in practice. It can be quite opaque from the outside

In the IB system as I understand it 10% extra time can be used where a student has a documented difficulty affecting processing or reading speed but does not need the full 25%.

The IB also still requires evidence and the adjustment has to reflect the student’s normal way of working in school, but the allowance can be scaled (10%, 25%, or occasionally more) depending on the level of need. That flexibility is quite different from the GCSE/A level system where the main threshold tends to be 25%.

That’s absolutely true. In the IB exam specification I believe 10% extra time is available as an access arrangement.

Miskast, you are absolutely correct. Sometimes extra time simply extends the time a student is in the stressful examination environment. In terms of accommodation schools usually have one or two rooms separate from the main exam hall for pupils who need this to support concentration, have readers etc. it’s quite unusual to have 1:1 invigilation - this would be used when there is a risk of disruption to other candidates. An example might be if an individual had Tourette’s syndrome or significant behavioural difficulties etc. The implications for resourcing individual invigilation are obvious .

@mrsconradfisherThe update from the JCQ also identifies correctly that the students on view is important in terms of evidence about what examination access arrangements are appropriate for him. Evidence does not just have to come from teachers. The view of the student themselves is also very important.

To further clarify, until a few days ago, the school were actually required to trial and thoroughly exhaust the option of rest breaks before considering extra time as an option. Literally in the last day or so the JCQ provided an update changing the regulations:

In section 5.1, supervised rest breaks, we have amended the wording to state that ‘Where a candidate has an impairment other than a learning difficulty, the SENCo should consider the option of supervised rest breaks before making an application for 25% extra time’. This is because we recognise there might be circumstances where it might not be practicable or appropriate for a SENCo to ‘trial and exhaust’ supervised rest breaks before making an application for 25% extra time. SENCos should always use their professional judgement to determine the most appropriate adjustment for the candidate’s assessments. This would be based on classroom observations, feedback from teachers and the candidate’s own views.

when they say an impairment other than a learning difficulty they mean a medical condition such as ADHD or ASD etc.

Miskast makes a good point about rest breaks. Under the JCQ regulations they are a centre-delegated arrangement, so they are generally easier for schools to implement than extra time. Schools still need to record the rationale and ensure it reflects the student’s normal way of working, but they don’t require the same specific testing evidence that extra time sometimes does.
The guidance actually encourages schools to consider arrangements like rest breaks before extra time in some cases, particularly where fatigue, processing load or concentration during long tasks may be the main issue. In fact, the regulations require the SENDCo to consider rest breaks before extra time can be awarded in the case of a medical condition.

@Miskast
Just to clarify my intention with the thread – I’m certainly not criticising parents. If anything it’s the opposite.

As I mentioned I work in school learning support and over the years I’ve realised that the exam access arrangements system can be quite difficult for parents to interpret from the outside, especially because most of the guidance is written for schools rather than families.

I was really just interested in how it looks from a parent’s perspective and what parts of the process feel unclear. It’s actually helpful for me to hear different experiences.

@mrsconradfisher
It sounds as though the SENCo is probably thinking about the “normal way of working” requirement in the JCQ guidance.

In England, extra time usually has to reflect support that is already part of the student’s normal classroom practice rather than something introduced just for exams. Schools normally have to show evidence from class tests, internal assessments or teacher observations that a difficulty with speed of working is affecting performance.

When difficulties only become obvious once timed tests increase in Year 10, it can sometimes be harder because the evidence hasn’t been built up earlier. That doesn’t necessarily mean nothing can be done, but schools usually need to see the pattern across several assessments before deciding whether an arrangement like extra time is appropriate.

Sometimes other adjustments are also considered depending on the nature of the difficulty.

It might be worth asking the SENCo how they are monitoring his performance in timed assessments this year and whether they are gathering evidence about processing speed or speed of working.

It’s a fair question though Fair question. My intention wasn’t to suggest parents should be applying for arrangements themselves.
In most schools the SENCo and exams officer coordinate the process, as you say.
What I’ve noticed though is that many parents find the JCQ regulations quite difficult to interpret from the outside, particularly around things like diagnosis, evidence and “normal way of working”. Sometimes that leads to misunderstandings or anxiety about how decisions are made.
I was mainly interested in hearing how common that experience is and whether parents generally feel they understand the process or not.

Yes — that’s how it should work in most schools. The exams officer and SENCo normally coordinate the evidence and the application.

Where some parents become interested in the regulations is when experiences differ between schools, or when a student is struggling to complete timed work but the reasons aren’t yet clear.

In those situations parents sometimes try to understand how the system works so they know what kinds of evidence schools usually look for.

But you’re right that the process itself is coordinated by the school rather than parents applying directly.

Thanks for all the interesting perspectives. It’s clear that experiences can vary quite a lot between schools and across the UK systems.

One thing that often causes confusion for parents in England is that exam access arrangements aren’t usually based on a diagnosis alone. Schools normally have to evidence that a difficulty affects the student’s speed of working in timed tasks, and that any support (such as extra time) is already the student’s normal way of working in lessons and tests.

That’s why conversations about arrangements often start once students begin doing more timed assessments during GCSE courses.

Happy to try to clarify anything if it’s useful.

@Talkingfrog I’m actually dealing with a PE NEA case at the moment. (OCR exam board). The timings for the task are advisory. The students should get as much time as required. There are other relevant adjustments though- recording the response rather than live. Cue cards to structure the verbal response etc. There is a high working memory demand for these kinds of tasks.

Yes — but Scotland handles it quite differently from England (JCQ).

In England, the JCQ system requires “Normal Way of Working” (NWoW) as formal evidence that the access arrangement (e.g., 25% extra time) is routinely used in class and tests.

In Scotland, the system is run by the about:blank Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), and the concept is similar but not identical.

1. The Scottish Equivalent: “Demonstrated Need”

SQA does not use the exact phrase “Normal Way of Working.”

Instead, schools must show that the support reflects the candidate’s demonstrated need in learning and teaching.

This means the school must evidence that:

• The arrangement is regularly used in class
• It supports the learner’s usual way of working
• It is not introduced just for the exam

So in practice, SQA expects something very close to NWoW — they just describe it differently.

2. Evidence Schools Typically Use

Scottish schools usually justify extra time through:

• Classroom practice
• Internal assessments / prelim exams
• Support plans (e.g., IEP or support plan)
• Teacher evidence of processing or working difficulties

The decision is made within the school, not through a national Form 8 process.