Potentially discriminatory extra time exam rules?

[Aleiha]

Just really wanted to sense check this.

DD is at a top ranking University and is entitled to extra time in exams due to having a disability. This is not disputed by the University which has given her 25% extra time. This is also what she had during A levels and GCSEs.

She is studying an essay based subject (history) and has had her first exam today and discovered that the university have extended the four hour exam to five hours. This is fine but they have applied the extra time to all students sitting the exam. This includes those with a disability and those without. The rationale from the university is that those who don't need the extra time won't use it and those who do need it can then use it.

Its a online open book exam (two essays) and so clearly everyone will use the extra time.

Is this a correct application of the rules? My understanding was that the extra time is supposed to alleviate any disadvantage she suffers due to her disability.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Shouldn’t she have 5 hours plus the extra time? (Or is that what you’re saying?!)

Yes sorry. The exam was supposed to be four hours. With 25% extra time it was extended to 5 hours. But then they gave the five hours to everyone sitting the exam. Including those who weren't eligible for extra time. DD queried it and was told that those who didn't need extra time wouldn't use it (but clearly they will in an essay based exam like history)

Sounds very odd! If the university has changed the time allowed for the paper to five hours from four then students with an access arrangement of. 25% extra time should have 25% added to the new exam duration- five hours plus 25%.

Yes, your DD should now be eligible for an additional hour and fifteen minutes on top of the five hours, so she needs to find out who to speak to to ensure she gets that.

I don't think that's fair at all. I think they've applied the rules incorrectly - are universities still bound by JCQ?

I don't really know how it works.

The point of extra time is to level the playing field. This action by the university means those with an extra time access arrangement are disadvantaged. Quite bizarre!

Se has already queried it and their response was that the exam was four hours with 25% extra i.e five hours but everyone was given this.

When she said that wasn't right they just said that those who didn't need the extra time wouldn't use it.

This disadvantages DD. She is severely dyslexic and in an open book exam like this where she has to find sources and read through texts quickly it's very
difficult for her. She needs the extra time to offset some of the disadvantage.

This particular exam is now done but she has others coming up and they have said this is their policy with extra time requirements.

Is it graded on a curve?

If not, and it’s the same exam as before, then I don’t think she’s disadvantaged. She still has the time she needs to get the grade. And that isn’t affected by what others get, so it doesn’t matter.

If it’s graded on a curve then I don’t see how they can say this is a fair way to do it.

Apparently, it’s a thing at Sheffield Hallam University, for one.

They call it ‘inclusive extra time’ 🤨 Except given how significantly it shifts the goal posts, it seems the exact opposite of that.

The university I work at are talking about implementing this (possibly have done). So the idea is that academic staff determine how long they think the exam would take, then work out extra time and yes everyone gets the longer time. The idea being is that someone without a learning difference won’t benefit as they would struggle to fill the time.

Ime most students are done by the end of the initial exam time (so 4 hours). And even most people who get extra time don’t use it. But yes, I do get what you’re saying that there is a chance one student uses all 5 hours to achieve a high mark.

however one thing to remember is that unlike A levels there is no limit to how many students can achieve top grades. So another student getting 75% isn’t going to affect your daughter’s grade.

The cynical part of me wonders if this is being done due to staff cuts. If you only have one room full of students rather than a room for standard time and a room for extra time then you only need half the staff to invigilate. I actually don’t have enough staff on my programme to man two rooms. Never mind a third room because there will always be someone with a learning plan which says they must be in a room on their own.

Sounds incorrect action by the university.
Check/request their policies about exams and extra time. Ensure they are following this correctly and put in a complaint accordingly.

I think it’s fairer this way (if not bell curve graded) - even those without disabilities can have bad days in exams and why should they be penalised?

very grateful I went to a uni that didn’t have time limits on exams (well office hours only) so every one could give it their best shot.

They do this in Canada for all extra time.

There is a big debate at the moment over the number of students getting extra time. According to Ofqual, 30% of students are receiving extra time at GCSE and A-level. Statistically, middle-class children and children from wealthy backgrounds are much more likely to get extra time. This has led to concerns that some people are gaming the system-although I am not trying to say you or your DD are at all.
I think these concerns are the basis for Sheffield Hallam's decision. Theoretically, giving everyone an extra hour (that students can choose or not choose to use) should make it fairer to those students who should get extra time but have not had a diagnosis. There are many students from lower socioeconomic bacgrounds who could qualify for extra time but don't.
Possibly if same proportion of students from lower socioeconomc backgrounds had extra time as middle-class students, then maybe 50% of students would have extra time.

There’s also the students who are care leavers, the students raising young children, the students going through DV, the students who don’t have English as a first language, the students who have just lost a relative / friend and are grieving etc.

plus timed exams aren’t really reflective in the majority of most modern world working conditions anyway

I have designed tests this way. Students (many of whom had accommodations) still achieved a range of results, left at different points, confirmed that they had put in everything they wanted to.

It doesn't work well for a simple "race against the clock, how fast can you write, think quick or lose out" exam, but there's no need to design them that way. Also no need to mark them that way. If you're easily impressed by more facts or more words, this is poor assessment design.

If students have been set a sensible task to do within the original timeframe, many will not use the additional time. Some with relevant accommodations will use the time; some won't. Some without relevant accommodations will do better for lack of exam nerves, time to think, time to write.

Yes, I expect that some universities are using this kind of assessment for logistical reasons. About 20% of our students have formal accommodations. Another 20% or so would have made us aware of a relevant / expected / probable diagnosis without the paperwork needed for accommodations. Many in the second category would be mature students or students from non traditional backgrounds who got on a diagnostic pathway only at university. Pretty much all are slower and worse at handwriting than they used to be.

The question is whether the task is achievable for your daughter in the time set. Are there mock papers? Is there a marking scheme? Can she ask about expected word count? If she needs further accommodation then she needs that anyway, regardless of what other students have.

It’s an open book history essay though under (short) timed conditions. It isn’t like a maths test where once you answer the question it’s answered. It benefits from more research, the inclusion of more relevant quotations. The referencing of the work of academics.

But it’s not a competition…? I understand that it seems unfair she’s getting the same time as everyone else but realistically - her grade will be the same whether the others have that time too or not?

But if 5 hrs is enough for her, AND it’s not graded in a curve, what’s the problem?

That was the case for the tests I set too. Actually it sounds almost exactly like one exercise.

I'm not saying this is necessarily well designed, but it really could be.

My advice for your daughter would be to try a mock exam under test conditions and liaise with disability services if the timing is still a problem. She may need more time if she can't complete the task to her usual standard. Dyslexia and processing issues affect people differently of course, and a further accommodation should be available if she needs it.

It won’t necessarily shift the goalposts though. That would only apply if, for example, in an exam sat by 100 students the top 25% ie 25 students get a pass and below that % is a fail. If the pass rate is 75/100, everyone who gets this will pass.

I’m struggling to get my head around it. Five hours was better than four hours certainly. But given the nature of the subject clearly eight hours (for example) would have been better.

she was denied the opportunity to have more time than the lecturers believe is necessary to write a good answer (which is effectively what everyone else got).

I take the point that it makes a difference whether it is marked on a bell curve or not. Although in general if everyone gets firsts because they had lots of extra time then that surely ultimately starts to devalue a first.

I need to think it through properly

It sounds the fairest way to me assuming that students are not competing with each other for the top grades (like in a levels). Surely it allows everyone to do their best?

I can understand the reasoning to some extent, but that is not how this technically works. It would be too easy for the person writing the exam to just keep adjusting the scope.