Exam Access Arrangements

[fleshmarketclose]

Dd has a statement of SEN (our LEA is well behind the timescales for transfer to EHCP and so dd's statement is unlikely to transfer until y11) and is in y9.
Dd's statement is a decent statement and specifies the need for extra time in all assessments because she has processing difficulties and her recording speed is slow.
I was led to believe that extra time in all assessments would provide evidence of need for her GCSEs and up until this year's exams she has received extra time, been seated with a TA outside of the exam hall etc.
When I asked about the arrangements for this year's exams I was told by the SENCo that dd reporting she hadn't finished would be sufficient and so she wouldn't be receiving extra time.
I would argue that she should receive the provision in her statement, that the extra time would mean a better assessment of her abilities which in turn would protect her self esteem and if I push the point then she will get the extra time.
What I want to know though should I have to do this? Shouldn't the extra time be a given because of the provision in her statement and is that really true that it is sufficient that dd just reports she ran out of time? This is problematic in itself in non essay based exams as dd works through the paper doing the ones she finds easiest first and so might well complete the last question on her first sweep of the paper. Wouldn't this perhaps be used to indicate she had in fact finished?
The other question I have is dd should have been sitting the higher tier exam papers (as she is predicted 7 to 9 in GCSE). Due to some incompetence in Learning Support mix up she has sat foundation papers and so has to re sit. Is it reasonable to expect that the re sits are sat over the course of the week like they would have been rather than pushed into gaps in her timetable as the SENCo suggests? The gaps have other purposes again detailed in her statement and so not free periods like the SENCo implies.

That's a bit harsh titchy

User may have some things wrong but some of what she/he says is true.

IME rooms with students who need special arrangements are often very difficult places to concentrate in.

And again ime only the scribe/reader would never be the invigilator as well. Maybe it's allowed but I think it would be very bad practice and ripe for cheating

Is that what happens as your school titchy? Does every access student have their own room? I can't see that many schools would have enough spare rooms to do that unless they only had a couple of students to accommodate

You need to do an AS on user examseason.....

And yes I have never heard of several readers being on the same room - probably because it's against the JCQ regs. Where the student needs other arrangements (e.g. laptop) then no clearly there's no need for them to be separated out. And rooms aren't normally an issue, even if it means some of the offices are requisitioned.

Having several readers and scribes in the same room is absolutley not against the regulations, it's totally standard practice where I work and passes the inspection every year.

Personally I don't think it's always best for the students and for those who don't need a reader it must be very distracting.

I haven't read the JCQ book in detail for a couple of years, do you know which paragraph says they can't be in the same room, I would be interested in discussing with the exams officer. He does his best to separate students but there aren't enough rooms in the school as there are a large number of students who need special arrangements.

If what you say is correct there is an issue with both the school and the inspection system which is disadvantaging the students

https://www.jcq.org.uk/Download/exams-office/ice---instructions-for-conducting-examinations/instructions-for-conducting-examinations-2016-2017

7.3

Interesting AS titchy user is a TA and from what she posts one I'd call a "bum on a seat". Obviously going to take what she posts with a pinch of salt.
Contacted HT mistakes will be addressed (Learning Support again ) and dd will sit the papers next week with one to one support as usual and extra time and following the exam timetable.

I have no axe to grind at all and you can chose not to believe me but the situations described by user happen in the school I work at.

The exams officer is extremely experienced and competant and I know that there have been absolutely no issues raised by the inspector about having more than one student in a room with TAs as readers and scribes.

Thanks for the link titchy, I can only assume that a pragmatic view is allowed to be taken if there just aren't enough rooms for each student to have one.

One thing that strikes me is that the rules say that the invigilator can act as a scribe not the other way round. I think that's an important distinction i.e. it isn't good practice to have the student and the person they work with every day being alone in the exam room.

As an independant invigilator it's reasonable to me that I could provide reading or scribeing help

Maybe user and I work in the same school but I think that's highly unlikely, there must be other schools that have this situation

user is a TA and from what she posts one I'd call a "bum on a seat".

very curious way of thinking!

You read that I am subject to constant abuse, and your immediate assumption is that I am to blame, and somehow must be negligent in my job for this to happen.

I am very interested in hearing you articulate this view point further!

For example, at what point did I become responsible for the behaviour of the children in my classroom? When I signed the contract? When I set foot through the front door? When I first arrived into a chaotic and riotous lesson? after that?

I recently recieved a cut on the back of my head, walking down the corridor, when a student I don't know, who was behind me, hurled a chair at another student I don't know, missing him and hitting me instead. This was my fault presumably? After all, I'm only a "bum on seat" I'm not doing my job properly, it must be because of that that I end up bleeding in the first aid room.....

One of my students has just been convicted of attacking and raping a 50 year old woman at the bus stop on the way home from school last year. Presumably you don't feel she brought this on herself by not sitting at the bus stop at in an engaging enough way? Was she not considering his needs carefully enough? Was she just being a "bum on seat"?

If you don't hold the 4 O'clock victim outside school responsible for bringing about his aggression, why would you blame the 3 O'clock victim inside school?

At what age, or at what point would you consider a young person responsible for their own behaviour, and being proactive in their own education.

Please explain in detail!, I am finding your point of view absolutely fascinating!

To be fair, on p64 of the linked guidelines, it does give detailed information about accommodating those requiring scribes / readers:

"Question
How do we accommodate candidates requiring readers and/or scribes?

Answer
The number of readers and/or scribes present in the room will very much depend on the layout of the room and the particular acoustics.

Options available:
A normal sized classroom
If a normal sized classroom is used you could have six to seven candidates with readers and/or scribes in one room. With six to seven candidates the background hum stops candidates overhearing one another.
(Candidates reading aloud, or using an examination reading pen, can also be accommodated alongside those working with readers and scribes.)

Very large assembly hall/sports hall type venue
In a very large assembly hall/sports hall type venue it would be perfectly acceptable to accommodate large numbers of candidates with readers and/or scribes. The candidates would be sufficiently distanced from others in the hall.

^Other alternatives
Accommodate candidates in the library^
Candidates can sit with their reader and/or scribe in between the book shelves so the sound is dampened. A ‘roaming’ invigilator would be deployed.

An open carpeted area of a library or room
Candidates who only require occasional support from a reader could be seated in an open carpeted area of a library or room, so a ‘roaming’ reader can support the candidates. This reduces both the number of invigilators and readers required.

Sound boards between desks
Another solution is to have sound boards between the desks. This provides a small private area for the candidate and reader and/or scribe to work. Again, a ‘roaming’ invigilator would be deployed.

Accommodate candidates in a dance studio with candidates separated by screens
A further solution would be to use a dance studio with candidates separated by screens. This again provides a small private area for the candidate and the reader and/or scribe to work. A ‘roaming’ invigilator would be deployed."

So it does seem that the regulations allow several candidates with readers in the same room, provided that each individual reader cannot be heard clearly by another candidate.

At the same time the exams are taking place, five or six year groups are in normal lessons, so there just isn't space for each candidate with a reader to have a separate room.

Titchy doesn't seem to realise that many many schools have several candidates in the same room with readers, and some with scribes or some word processing in that same room. This is not unusual. And is not forbidden in the ICE book.

My is dd year 9 she has auditory processing, working memory and dyslexic traits (all this wasn't found out until the start of year 8) she had no statement but she has just completed a assessment that will give her extra time and a reader for all exams.

user I've met a few TAs I'd call "bums on seats" and have called them that to the SENCo and the HT as well. Funnily enough when presented with the evidence of their failings neither the SENCo nor the HT disputed my description. Likewise I've met some TAs who were worth their weight in gold and am still in touch with a few who were ds's TA some 15 years ago and others from more recent years who were ds's TA and dd's TA.
I'd consider a TA who didn't add value to a child's learning experience "a bum on a seat" because if they don't bring any worth then that's what they are, purely present and a "bum on a seat".
You state in your thread that children in your care/ who you are supposedly a TA to, don't work, don't make progress and you seemingly don't have the knowledge,experience,motivation or training to alter that. From that I'd surmise you are a "bum on a seat" because you are not bringing anything to those children's school lives.
I'm very fortunate in that ds and dd have mostly received incredible support in spite of ds having ASD and extreme challenging behaviour and dd having ASD. But their statements specified/specify the requirements of the TA supporting them . Both had/have statements from age 3.
Mind you "bums on seats" don't last long when they are forced to document the support given (written into a very good statement) in my experience not least because it's very easy then to measure their worth and raise any failings and if you bring nothing to my child's school life then don't be surprised when I make sure you are moved elsewhere.

you seemingly don't have the knowledge,experience,motivation or training to alter that.
I do have the knowledge, experience, motivation and training. Far, far far more than you. What I don't generally have is a situation in which I can use them.

I make sure you are moved elsewhere you have never made anyone move elsewhere! You may have been allowed to think you have.

Really user? I choose the TAs who support dd because the ones that don't provide support in accordance with her statement I have removed. I have a couple of emails confirming that the inadequate TAs will be/ have been removed from HT.
It's pretty easily done tbh get a decent statement that forces the support to be documented, then when the support given doesn't meet the statement you raise it with the school. Remind them of the legal requirement to meet the statement and give them the opportunity to right the situation before you contact LEA regarding their failure to meet the statement.School then ime are pretty eager to avoid LEA intervention (besides which the LEA would undoubtedly order the school to meet the provision to the letter to avoid having to answer to Tribunal for their failure to meet their statutory duty) and so remove the TA provision that doesn't meet the statement. It works every time although not a problem now as the three TAs now are the ones I approved at AR.
If you have all the knowledge experience and training then user how come you aren't actually providing any sort of decent provision to the children in the school you supposedly work in? I actually believe what you say in that respect though because some TAs do, funnily enough, seem to think that turning up is meeting their role. I believe though that all support should be measured for effectiveness and ineffective support should be addressed rather than children being let down repeatedly.

I choose the TAs who support dd because the ones that don't provide support in accordance with her statement I have removed. yes, sure, I see the other side of this so many times, TAs sharing out the awkward parents between themselves, trading hours spent, etc, sometimes it is necessary to ask the Head or SENCO to move you, and they will normally advice going through the motions as you describe above, so as to prevent parental complaints about lack of continuity.

The issue we have is so many children are allocated one to one support who don't need it, don't benefit from it or won't accept it. It is massive waste of everyone's time, and resources.

Thankfully I'm leaving in few weeks, but the sheer crapness and lavish waste of the system has left me reeling.

Unfortunatly, being one of the ones leaving, I have got ore than my fair share of the awkward ones right now, and have been instructed by the SENCO to attempt to piss one mother off to the extent that she withdraws her child from the school. I have been promised a bottle of wine if I succeed!

If you have all the knowledge experience and training then user how come you aren't actually providing any sort of decent provision to the children in the school you supposedly work in

it isn't possible because of feral behaviour by children, bullying from parents and inadequate management

TAs do, funnily enough, seem to think that turning up is meeting their role.

sometimes that is all you can do! And legally, if somebody or other is entitled to having a TA turn up, then one will turn up, even if they are only going to get furniture thrown at them. And some of my colleagues are quite content, for different reasons, to turn up, take the abuse, get paid, and go home. Thats up to them, they are not doing anything wrong. I don't want to do this iny longer though, I find it pointless.

I believe though that all support should be measured for effectiveness

well, it can't be measured, and if you think it can, then you are deluded. What you can do is SUBSTITUTE procedures for measuring effectiveness for BEING effective, but it is one or the other, not both, and the data you end up with is worthless, anyway.

As for you having more knowledge training and experience as a TA than I do well I don't doubt that for a minute because it's not a role I would want to do in a million years (not enough money in it for a start and I don't really like children tbh so would be quite awful for me ).But I don't need to know how a TA works to know whether or not they are providing good support for my children.
They have a good statement based on reports from Ed psych, SALT, OT and other health professionals who all have more knowledge about my children's individual learning needs than a TA, teacher or SENCo come to that. The statement is written with input from an educational law firm to ensure that the needs described and the support needed (including TA requirements) are written in the statement in a way that is legally enforceable should the need arise and then the school only needs to make sure they provide the support in full and document it properly for it to work nicely. And it does work ds in y2 was working at p scales but in y11 got 8 GCSEs grades A to C. Dd was globally delayed on entry to school but will achieve grades 7 to 9 across 11 GCSEs in a couple of years time. But to get that sort of progress you can't afford to have a "bum on a seat" rather than proper provision and so I don't and won't apologise for being "that" parent when the need arises.

Did you say you are off to a leadership position as a teacher in a private school user?
I find your posts terribly sad. I teach in a PRU, and have my fair share of difficult behaviour to deal with. I do understand that it can be hard. But you seem to have lost sight of the children in all this.
I moved the other way (well, not from private but from "nice" school to PRU), because for me, that was what I ended to regain a love of teaching. I hope your move does the same for you.

A lot of "statements" are a. useless, and b. ignored. A lot of children who have SEN never got statements, and all the "support" was directed to those with statements, who were never necessarily the worst off.

You may be interested to know that all research done on this 1:2:1 support indicates that children with 1:2:1 progress more slowly, and achieve less, than children of the same SEND and the same academc ability WITHOUT Ta support.

Which is why in special schools, there is often no 1:2:1 provision at all, for anybody.

And I believe, from me own experience, that it is very much a waste of time and effort and does children no favours at all.

But in special schools there is a level of individualisation and staff ratios that are not comparable to mainstream.

You might be interested in this:

www.tes.com/news/tes-magazine/tes-magazine/myth-inclusion

He says overreliance on TAs “fosters dependency and learned helplessness” and “the more TA support pupils with SEND receive, the less well they perform academically”

or this

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/i-have-been-asked-report-teachers-who-fail-control-behaviour-they

But in special schools there is a level of individualisation and staff ratios that are not comparable to mainstream

yes, absolutely, and it works better, especially as children in special schools are expected to develop more independance, and get far less individual attention.

Working in special schools though, we get a lot of parents who still expect and try to demand 1:2:1 support for their childen.

But you seem to have lost sight of the children in all this. no, I haven't lost sight of the children, I have just recognised that in my current post I can do nothing educational at all. I hope I will be able to in my next post! Thanks for your good wishes.

In answer to the original question about exam arrangements:

Schools need to be able to demonstrate that the access arrangements is the candidate's usual way of working.

There is some flexibility in how they do this. Often it will start with some kind of assessment of need (Eg. EdPsyc report, GP referrals to CAMPS for mental health diagnosis, statement of send needs). From there the school puts access arrangements in place off the back of those recommendations. Schools keep a log of how work has been completed etc and then submits a case to the exam board.

E.g. I currently teach a y9 student with a number of additional needs. They have had extra time in assessments and at the end of normal time they change colour pen. We are also trying word processing to see which they get on with best (a few different needs so theres a bit of trial and error to meet their needs). This bank of evidence will make a strong case for gcse entry.

The earlier the process starts, the better. This isn't just for paper trails but it also gets the child used to working in the conditions they'll sit their final exams.

I hope it sorts itself out OP.

Yes I can understand why some children with 1 to 1 support progress more slowly because if your child is saddled with a "bum on a seat" for 25 hours a week then they aren't going to make progress. That is exactly what I said to the HT when I got rid of the first TA. Having that "bum on a seat" removed dd from the support of pretty decent teachers who, understandably I suppose. believed that the TA was fulfilling a purpose. Fortunately dd was only saddled with that particular TA for 5 hours per week for less than a half term. I feel terribly sorry for whichever child got saddled with her afterwards tbh.
I agree with you also about statements not necessarily going to those with most need (having a knowledgeable parent able to fight/play the system is very useful) and also about statements not being fit for purpose and or ignored. But again LEAs issue woolly statements to avoid being accountable and to lessen the chance of parents being able to enforce them and schools are pretty ignorant too if I'm honest.Dd's SENCo has knowingly or unknowingly spouted rubbish regarding the school's obligation and then retracted pretty quickly when reminded of the law but I can imagine that parents not knowing the system would fall for it and their children won't get the quality of support dd does.

I don't think the links you provide necessarily support the idea that children would be better off not receiving 1 to 1 support I think it is more that if the support provided was useful support (tailored to needs assessed by ed psych/SALT/OT) provided by someone with the ability to deliver it then it is incredibly valuable.
The trouble is schools don't always recruit high calibre TAs and the salary a TA commands is hardly attractive and so the role tends attract people who want to do a few hours during school hours to meet their family's needs more often than people who actually want to make a real difference to children's educational attainment.

but lots of TAs have the ability, but are not in the circumstances where they can deliver anything.

I just thought you might find them interesting.

A lot of TA allocation IS completely pointless, I am completely pointless. so are my colleagues.

Most of whom are ex teachers, one of whom is an exsenco, and ll of whom are graduates. Some of them are TAs because they are looking into teaching.

I would disagree about the calibre. The Mfl TAs are all native speakers of the languages they support in, the media TA runs a successful film company, the food tech TA is a retired baker, etc