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

But they ARE a true picture of that person's ability to recall facts and put them down as answers in the exam...

Just like Joseph needs glasses in order to be able to access the exam material and Jeremy needs his walking aid to get to the desk to do their best ... Jason needs to have a prompter, and John needs to use a PC, and Janet needs a reader and a scribe.

They won't magically get a 9 instead of 4 because if these things.

Essentially, you're saying you think it's okay to force people to highlight their physical and mental issues in their job applications.... Nice.

The use of glasses is a poor comparison because no employer will care if the employee wears glasses or not but they will care if a task takes 25% or 50% longer to do.

I also think it’s concerning that there is no testing for slow processing, so as a PP said, lots of children could be falling below the radar and even further disadvantaged

I'm not saying have No time limit. Where has that come from?? Even people awarded extra time have a finite period.That has been dreamed up to obfuscate the argument. I am saying that everybody who wishes can have the same extra time that the others have say 25%

Yes or doing both in some circumstances

What is the actual point of time limits in the first place? If its to measure not only your knowledge but also how quickly you can recall and express that knowledge then surely everyone should have the same amount of time so that can be properly compared? If exams are just to test knowledge and expression/analysis of that knowledge, then why is time limited or short for anyone?

With regard 'slow processing' or slow output (I believe Stephen Hawkins had very slow output because of his communication difficulties) well I can see in some roles it might not matter or the output might be worth waiting longer for. In other roles it would be absolutely unacceptable. For example I would imagine (hope) that the hazard awareness part of the driving test is not slowed down for anyone. You need fast reaction times driving and it just wouldn't be safe to allow extra time for slow processing

This particular student had many many many access arrangements.

We started processing them before they set foot on site in y7 so that they would have a chance of showing people what they knew and could do.

Doing a single GCSE paper over several days is very much not the norm.

So include a speed test in your selection process if that is what is critical for the roles you are recruiting to. Other employers care more about innovative thinking, verbal skills, reasoning and logic and the speed is less important, and they can test for those skills. GCSEs are not designed to measure speed but to measure learning. If two people have learned the same quantity of information and one takes longer to communicate what they have learned, they have both earned and both deserve the same grade. Only an idiot employer wants to discount the grades of people who needed some adjustments to be able to demonstrate their knowledge. Taking 25% longer to write the answers to exam questions does not necessarily mean they take 25% longer to do everything, and assuming they will is ablist discrimination and is illegal. They might be not noticably different from other employees in the workplace when they have access to all the nornal technology that is forbidden in the exam room. Some people who have extra time don't actually use it - but they have such anxiety about the exam setup that they are likely to freeze into an inability to write a thing and will score zero, but with the "extra time" accommodation it relaxes them enough that thsy can work at an entirely normal speed and do the exam in the standard timeframe. Do you want to discriminate against them too?

It came from the poster who said "I wonder if a solution would be to just have no time limit for anyone? You just finish when you finish? Don't really see how that would be unfair to anyone."
and has not been dreamed up to obfuscate the argument.

Because if there were no time limit
...some people would sit in the exam hall for 6 hours or more....

I can't get over how intolerant and ignorant people are on this thread.

What a depressing thread. The OP relayed how a statistical error from an accountable body has overstated the prevalence of extra time.

But the thread has been filled up with anecdata on how extra time is “abused.” Ignorant to how extra time is actually awarded.

Or more anecdata about how extra time is obviously unnecessary as children don’t use their time well anyway. Ignoring that many children will feel stigmatised through their time in education and in exams themselves and almost certainly won’t have learnt exam technique to optimise their extra time.

Then there are the awful people who don’t accept that time constraints aren’t the reason their children with cognitive trajectories for grade 4 aren’t achieving grade 9.

Nothing wrong with a 4 of course. But if children are cognitively capable of higher grades, but have slower processing or fine motor skills, why on earth should they be graded below their capabilities? Some parents are like a dog in a manger. They want to maintain disadvantage for capable children so they can’t achieve their potential to keeps things “fair” to their children who with the best will in the world will only ever achieve a pass.

Don’t get me started on the people who cannot comprehend the difference between exams and the workplace. It’s like the Equality Act isn’t a thing.

One poster suggested children requiring extra time would be better off doing vocational courses. I hope my own anecdote makes them realise how silly (if not nasty) they are:
My sister has a PHD in physics and went to Cambridge. My brother is a surgeon. Both are dyslexic and needed extra time in exams.

Well said @Doraymefarsolateado

I keep coming back to this thread to see the same posters arguing the same discriminatory points that appear to be filled with fear about a perceived advantage that their child isn’t getting. Whereas their child actually already has the advantage in the school system - no need for any adjustments.

How can it possibly be a problem to a child that has no issues in the practicalities of sitting an exam that someone else in their class needs some practical help to put across their learning and understanding to answer an exam paper? They are not being given an advantage. No-one is been given a leg-up or help with their knowledge and understanding of the subject they are being examined in.

Would these posters prefer all students to just have to “muddle through” with the same exam criteria as everyone else - achieving much lower grades than they are capable of just in case a future employer is somehow “ripped off” by how they sat their geography GCSE? Not achieving their potential and instead only able to apply for a different level of job or perhaps not work at all? Not be able to go on to higher/further education if they want to because their school grades aren’t an accurate representation of their capability?

Exams are designed to test knowledge. Exam skills are not the same as all the facets that make up a good employee.

It is a depressing attitude. And I’ve experienced it first hand - other students/parents passing comments on why/how some children have adjustments in place. Yeah, lucky old them - unable to feel “normal” with their peers, unable to revise in the standard way schools tell all students to approach exams, some working in physical pain, their parents in a constant battle to ensure they’ve been assessed and everything is in place for every single exam.

No-one would choose this for their child. And those children absolutely should not have to declare the reasonable adjustments made for their exams to any future employers for the rest of their lives

Can ANYONE come up with a cogent argument as to why everyone who wishes to cannot have 25% extra time???

Wow I posted here a few days ago and now there is 15 pages!

I had no idea there was such vitriol against students having extra time.

I couldn't care if everyone got extra time. My DC would happily give it up not to be dyslexic.

My younger one used to deny it and not use his extra time until a maths exam showed him he got every question correct that he attempted in the normal time. He now uses it and gets pretty much every question right for maths and science.

My husband is also dyslexic but only figured out when kids were assessed. He laughs at telling his employer about it as he owns a company that employs over 300 people. He still reads bloody slow to this day.

Yes, all the people who have already done so on this thread. Several times.

Because then it wouldn't be "extra time".

If everyone had an exam 25% longer than the current length and you don’t allow another 25% (or more for those who have more) extra time on top of the new allotted time you would be failing to provide the reasonable adjustment given to some candidates.

I see you didn’t answer my post yesterday so I will ask it again. Do you think the same about all exam access arrangements? If some are given the exam access arrangement, everyone should? Or is it just extra time you have a problem with? If it is just extra time, why exactly do you specifically have a problem with that?

If we cannot increase the timing margin of error on exams for all children, then the only fair thing to do is to routinely screen all children for invisible disabilities such as slow processing. I have no idea how much that would cost or the resources required, but it seems fundamentally unfair any other way. I am shocked by some of the attitudes on here that just because a child doesn’t have a diagnosis, then they don’t have other challenges or difficulties and they must just not be preparing enough or organised enough.

Why not just set the exam timing for everyone to be the amount of time a person with ‘slow processing’ can do it and get full marks if they are capable.
Those who finish early can read a book.
The exam system needs a complete overhaul anyway -first decide what its purpose is, then design accordingly.
Clearly no longer fit for purpose for employers who need to set their own tests to ensure that get someone capable to do the job efficiently and effectively.

People seem to think that all the other kids are scribbling furiously up to the wire and the extra time kids are luxuriously revelling in it.

The vast majority of kids have finished the exam before the end time. If there are kids who are routinely not finishing exams because they are running out of time then they should be assessed to see if they need extra time.

Don't be daft, they aren't allowed to take books into exams.

Daft? 😀
So change the rules!
Lack of imagination sand resistance to change is what has led to this ridiculous system that is no use to anyone.

I don't quite get this argument.
And please don't be rude or insulting back, it is a genuine question.
If some kids take longer to do the same work, is it that they never finish? So if the length of time to do an exam was doubled say, so it was more than enough time for everyone to answer all the questions are you saying some kids would still need extra time on top otherwise it's unfair? If so why? Are you saying some kids will never finish and never answer all the questions?