Number of kids getting extra time in exams MASSIVELY overstated

[noblegiraffe]

Ofqual are withdrawing their statistics on how many children getting extra time and other accommodations in GCSEs and A-levels because they've admitted that they are completely wrong. It's something I know has been referenced quite a few times here so I thought it worth flagging.

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

"The new analysis suggests that the actual proportion of students receiving access arrangements – including 25% extra time in exams – is now broadly in line with the proportion of students with special educational needs in the school population."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-withdraws-access-arrangements-statistics

As someone who has both had extra time and now grants extra time for students in my care, a lot of the time the difference the extra time makes will not actually change the functional problems the people have. I had extra time in exams, in my BA, in my MA. I now work part-time and have one-to-one for some areas of my work. If I had not had support with my exams, I would have worse grades, maybe not had a BA or an MA. I would either not work at all and be benefit dependent, or I would be in another role - but the chances are I would still need support in my role at work. I guess my point is that if the person struggles with exams for a reason that won't then affect them at work, because their need was temporary (e.g. broken arm), or because their job is nothing like exams, then having better grades than they would have got without support, probably enabled them to be a working member of society which they might not have otherwise been. If they got support for something they will always need support for, then they will always need a workplace to consider that else they won't be able to hold down a job and will be dependent on benefits. Having lower grades doesn't appear to benefit anyone, just mean they are more likely to be long term benefit dependent!

Buswankers - you said they both had a 9, that puts them both in the top 5%, so both amazing. I’ll go for the quicker one, everything else being equal.

But a cheese lovers exam or whatever only tests one aspect: the knowledge of cheese.
It doesn't, generally, test soft skills such as getting on with people, team working, work ethic, time management, ability to present, or things like innovation.
It is really short sighted to think that just because someone needs extra time they will be automatically 'worse'.

DS has access to a quiet room with his job - software engineer. He works in an office with one other person so doesn't actually need it but it was provided. He also had interview questions in advance. He absolutely loves his job and is fantastic at it. He had adjustments for exams but not extra time.

I would say that about 15% of our kids get extra time - I was told it was getting harder to get as it was being tightened up and students were expected to be given rest breaks rather than extra time wherever possible. I would say of those 15% getting extra time a good half will never use any of it, the exam is already too long for them and they're finished long before the end of it. Of the others you may only one or two who will take the whole of their extra time at GCSE at least.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if private schools had been gaming the system as extra time is a huge benefit if you don't really need it - and their results are everything. I mean we know there are teachers/head teachers that cheat in SATs by telling kids the answers so it's no surprise that schools might give their kids this advantage. It's good that the system is being tightened up but it's a really important adjustment for dyslexic kids in particular.

If you're setting an exam that has around 1hr15m of content, and allocate 1hr30m, but allow candidates to remain for up to 3 hours.

A whole lot of candidates will stay right up until the end - getting the equivalent of 100% extra time. So they will have an actual advantage.

You will get some candidates thinking 3 hours is the length, and they will think they should get t 25% extra on top of that.

You'll have longer exam periods as there's more clashes.

Candidates with rest breaks could easily be in the room for 4-5+ hours, after all, they're allowed a maximum of 3 hours. Or does this 3 hours include their rest breaks?

And just because your child would have liked 20 minutes, doesn't mean he needed it, he probably didn't manage his time well, or was overly verbose in his answers anyway.

And just because your child would have liked 20 minutes, doesn't mean he needed it, he probably didn't manage his time well, or was overly verbose in his answers anyway.

I think this is the key point. Give some kids unlimited time and they will write a page for a 2 mark answer. Exams are the length so that most students can complete them in the time allowed. Making unlimited time would be administratively more complicated and more expensive.

Also, you have candidates that need prompting to move to the next question. Otherwise they will spend the entire exam on the first question.

How are you going to measure the appropriate amount of time the promoter should use for them to move on if they have upto 100% extra time? Do they double the time? Keep it the same and see what happens? Then what, go over it again? For how long?

I just think we are either testing speed or not. It is fundamentally unfair to test some children on speed and others not.

I’ve done several exams as an adult post university and it is common to set a lengthy time and for everyone to just leave when they are done.

Also you have no idea why my son would need a bit longer and it is hugely presumptive to think that you do. It is absolutely nothing to do with being a bit verbose (I wish it was). He is a slowish reader and struggles with his handwriting. It just makes me think that some SEN are considered more important than others.

And all those who say that the children without extra time don’t need it, why would you then care if they received it.

I've lost track. Was he assessed? A slowish reader and writer would be a reason for extra time, if slow enough.

But my point is that there is no need to double the time if every child gets more time than is really needed. If the exams are testing understanding but not speed, then we just give everyone the same. If schools can manage 100% extra time for some children, why is it so difficult to give it to all of them?

No he wasn’t assessed because nobody ever mentioned it to him or to me and I had no idea about this until recently. But the problem is that huge numbers of children are slightly slow readers and have poor handwriting. Where do you draw the line?

We're not testing ok n speed! We're testing knowledge.

Some people have a disability that means they process things slower. Or have no hands. Or can't write. Or English is their third language, it they're blind. Or any other host if issues.

Allowing the blind student with slower processing to have a reader, a scribe and extra time isn't a bad thing. They still know all the Civil War facts. They just need assistance getting those answers in the format required.

Your son, perhaps should have been given extra time and WOULD have been given extra time. And then he's on an even playing field.

If children who didn't need the extra time, we're given the extra time youd have other issues presenting themselves. Eg children writing 300 word answers for a 3 mark question. Marking would take even longer to no better outcome.

Candidates thinking they have to stay for the whole time regardless. Candidates would think that the maximum time was not inclusive of the 3 hours. Candidates needing rest breaks would be in the exam for muck longer.

That's why we have people who are professionally trained to make these judgements about where to draw the line.

Personally, I think the exam system is very flawed for various reasons which require a whole new thread. It sounds like your son was let down by the school by not getting him assessed.

There are clear criteria on the assessment scores as to where the line is drawn.
Some schools are more on the ball than others.

Anyway the exams are done now and we will see what the results are. My son worked incredibly hard and I am proud of him whatever.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. But it is offensive to accuse a child who you know nothing about and who is struggling to just get a 4 of being “verbose and not managing his time well”. One of the things we worked on was the order in which we to tackle the English Language questions as he would be unlikely to finish it.

We gave up with Eng Lang GCSE for DD and she did Functional Skills instead (outside of college).

English Language GCSE is a bit of an outlier I think as loads of kids appear to have time issues with it. They just seem to ask for too much to be done in the time. It consistently comes up as an issue in a way that say History or Physics just don't.

Well said @HappilyUrbanTrimmer

In the nicest way possible its meant to be hard. English Language GCSE needs to be at a high level, and the majority of students get at least a 4 if not much higher. They study and practice in the time. It's the most important thing, build the skills, do the hard work and then you have to not only in mocks, but in your own time do exam questions in the time, over and over again to get it done in the time. That way you know you can get it done. Different questions require a different amount of time, Q1 is multiple choice it takes 1 or 2 minutes, Q2,Q3 are typically 8 marks so 12 ish minutes. Q4 is 16 marks so 20-30 minutes and Q5 is 40 marks so 45 minutes. That is more than enough time for most students as the exam is 1h 45. So likely he may have needed extra time but I know many students who initially in Y10 or early Y11 struggle with time but don't need extra time. So what do they do? They study harder, Practice more exam questions in the time, over and over. By the real thing they're fine.

I know exams don't work for everyone, but they do not just test memory - for english lang you don't even know the texts you'll see. It tests your comprehension, your critical thinking, ability to analyse the use of language and techniques, the ability to write a persuasive answer etc. Many kids struggle and they study and get it done in the time. If you genuinely think your son needed extra time to finish, he most likely needed it.

@TheLivelyViper I don't see why English Language GCSE needs to be so very much tighter on the time than the other GCSEs though?

My DD very much needed the extra time, but that then made the exam so long for her it caused other issues.

But even for average students Eng Lang appears to be much tighter on time than other subjects, and I don't really see a need for that.

Well, your child sounds like they should have had Access Arrangements.

Which is what they exist for.

Because each exam is different. Each exam board does a different paper for each exam. Even within 1 subject the papers might be different lengths. So History Paper 1 may be 1h 15, Paper 2 is 1h 45 and Paper 3 is 1h 30 (to the best of my knowledge for Edexcel).

Again the papers are different, and it's based on the marks not just this is an essay question. Again even with Paper 1 and 2 English Lang, the marks for Q2,Q3,Q4 are different in Paper 1 and 2 but they add up to the same mark overall for each Paper- 80. So the decision is made for how long x question should take, with some time to check/read around 5 minutes added. So 1h 45. Different papers = different marks = different amount of time. It's based on the specific question (a 30 mark English Lit question takes around 45-50 minutes - more than enough time. So Paper 1 English Lit (AQA) is 2 30 mark questions comes to 1h 45 minutes for 64 marks (4 SPaG marks). But English Lit Paper 2 is 2h 15 for 96 marks. More marks = more time. Each exam board decides that when making the exam paper.

Also you should be tight for time ish - most students if they do the exam we'll and throughly should finish with 5ish minutes to check work. Its meant to be writing till the end, complete focus and just get it done. So most should be finishing with a few minutes to spare, if they've practiced right etc.

@TheLivelyViper I am well aware of different boards and the structure of the exam. But as you say it is designed to be tight for time which requires lots of practice to achieve.
But why?
Why does Eng Lang have to be so much tighter for time than other subjects? What's the benefit? That is what I don't think has been justified.

But if you gave every child who reads and writes a bit slowly access arrangements, that would be 1000s of children across the country and there wouldn’t be the resources to assess them all. I still don’t understand where you draw the line. Do you assume that all children scoring a 1, 2 or 3 in English mocks have some kind of SEN and then give them extra time. That would be about 1/3 of all children taking GCSEs.

I agree with this. The other exams don’t seem to be as tight for time whereas English Language does seem to be a test of speed for many children.