To question private/indep schools 'extra time' in exams

[Mama2many73]

30% of pupils were given extra time to complete their gcse/alevels. This should be down to have additional needs (of varying types)

"More than two in five (41.8%) of all candidates in independent centres – of which the majority are private schools – were granted 25% extra time in their exams in 2023/24, compared with 26.5% in non-selective state schools"

Call me a cynic but I m calling that out as BS. that just under ½ of their kids need extra time but only a ¼ state school kids do!?

Both my DH and myself were teachers, he is now a HT and we know how hard it is to get a judgement. As foster carers we have fought for several kids to try and get them better chances in their exams. Kids with suspected adhd/asd, poor working memory, OT fine motor skills issues, major trauma..... I could go on and they have never passed the threshold despite us and the school trying their best.

Chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham sid he was 'surprised' by the data and it is now being investigated?!

I await their findings. I think some schools may be in trouble!

Edited for spellings

Being a dyslexia assessor is expensive - buying and storing the test kits, renewing the Assessment Practising Certificate every three years, doing mandatory (costly) professional development each year. Even the paper forms can’t be photocopied - must be bought from the test kit companies.

I’ve also heard of people sharing the name of exams access assessors who are prepared to alter test results.

My daughter’s (indie) school had every child sit a very comprehensive proprietary computer-adaptive screening text for SEN (including dyslexia, processing difficulties, dyspraxia, motor skills and so on) in their first term of year 7 to identity any learning issues. I’m not aware that most state schools do this (though they may, I don’t know).

Several kids in her class are in the school precisely because they have diagnosed ADHD/ASD/dyslexia/dyspraxia/etc., but are just managing enough that they don’t need extensive learning adjustments as long as they are in a small supportive teaching environment where they can cope with the setting.

That's the actual percentage of state school kids who got extra time. I feel it should be higher!

But that in itself won't get you extra time. There are strict guidelines and reading between the lines I'm thinking Ofqual KNOW there are kids receiving it who shouldn't! (And vice versa)

26% got it.

My point is that independent schools take time to find which children may need extra support and then progress them to assessment and exam adjustments if necessary. Whereas in the state sector many pupils who might actually have undiagnosed SEN don’t always get picked up in the first place.

Turns out the data was totally wrong and exaggerated.

Figures are much much lower and OFQUAL has withdrawn the data set this week.

But look at all these people jumping on the band wagon to show their prejudice.

Turns out it’s the state regulator, OFQUAL, that is at fault here…

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jul/17/ofqual-admits-massively-exaggerating-number-of-students-getting-exam-assistance

They weren’t exaggerated - they were just wrong owing to a calculation error.

Not all children need to be tested in schools. Children with a consultant’s diagnosis (e.g. ASD/ADHD) wouldn’t need testing and children with an EHCP wouldn’t need testing. However, having these diagnoses doesn’t automatically qualify candidates for anything. There has to be evidence that the candidates usual way of working is being transferred into the examination room. Exam access arrangements should not be a special advantage given for exams but a usual adaptation to level the playing field for the student.

They were exaggerated - they were represented as being significantly higher than they actually were. That’s what exaggerated means. (If they were just wrong, some could have been higher and some lower. The use of the word exaggerate means they were wrong in the higher direction.)

The cause of the exaggerated figures may well be a calculation error - OFQUAL haven’t explained that bit properly yet but presumably will when they publish fresh figures.

Funny that they didn’t check or interrogate the figures before they published them, but it must have seemed to fit a prevailing prejudice - which is evident on this thread - that “everyone’s at it”, so they didn’t check properly.

Very poor from a state regulator, whose pronouncements some take as gospel.