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

Yes... let's allow kids to take books into exams. What could possibly go wrong with that?!

They are not going to change the rules so that kids can bring "reading" books to read into the exam. Think about it.

Well let them leave the exam hall when finished

But my point is that they aren’t all being assessed, at least not from my experience. For my DS, his CAT scores suggest he should be capable of getting a 5 in English yet he is on a 3-4 borderline. His written English, spelling, punctuation and grammar are actually very good, but he is at serious risk of failing English Language and not getting on to his college course because he struggles to finish the exam. He is attending a highly regarded school that people fight to get in, but no teacher has ever once suggested slow processing to us and I have no idea if that is the problem or not. I wonder how many other children are in exactly the same situation across the country. We simply cannot give extra time to some children on the basis of a hidden disability that we don’t test all children for.

If your son struggles to finish the exam @GCSEnerves, his teachers should have a) taught him when to move on between questions and b) asked the SEND department to check him out. That's not the fault of the exam.

Even more ludicrous a suggestion, quite honestly.

I wonder if those who are so upset about extra time feel the same about other exam concessions.

Should certificates state that James got an extra 5% in every paper because his dad died the week before GCSEs?

Or that Fiona got 25% extra time because she broke her arm the week before?

Or that Ahmed got to use a laptop for every exam because he has hypermobile joint?

How about Sarah who is homeschooled and has done 2 GCSEs every 6 months since she was 12 and got a 9 in all of them - only having to revise 2 subjects at a time... must be a huge advantage there.

Or is just issues with slow processing and dyslexia that are the big issue?

And for employers, in today's world it's quite likely that a significant proportion of job applicants never even did GCSE because they went to school in a different country under a different system. So now how are you picking out who needed extra time in their Geography GCSE?

If I was in charge, I would change English and Maths so that you had to prove you’d reached a certain standard in numeracy and literacy by the end of year 11 (similar to passing your driving test) and move away from this idea of only a certain % of children can achieve grade 4 (which will be influenced by giving some children extra time). Kids can still do GCSEs to stretch them but I’m not sure that the English Language GCSE is a good way of assessing literacy skills. Most employers want to know if a person can write coherently and not whether they can identify and describe the impact of a metaphor.

If he's finishing all his other exams and only struggling in English Language, that doesn't suggest slow processing tbh.

You might think that having a reader might be seen by some employers as even more worthy of mention than extra time....

@Kendodd If some kids take longer to do the same work, is it that they never finish?

Some finish but take longer (and what longer is varies individual to individual - hence differing amounts of extra time given) and some wouldn’t finish even with an unlimited amount of time.

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?

Some DC need more than 100% extra time. See the example another poster mentioned of 200% extra time. This is because their additional needs means they need significantly longer. That can be for a multitude of reasons.

But also, if you give everyone else the opportunity to write for say 3 hours rather than the current 1hr30, then someone who has extra time at the moment is disadvantaged because their reasonable adjustment is removed. A pupil who doesn’t need extra time might still write for 3 hours so the pupil with extra time currently doesn’t have a reasonable adjustment compared to that.

Are you saying some kids will never finish and never answer all the questions?

Yes, some DC don’t answer all the questions.

And this is why I’ve never pushed for any kind of assessment. He finished maths and science with plenty of time to spare and got a strong 5 in history in the mocks with no timing issues. I just don’t understand why he struggles so much with English when his writing is pretty good. Oh well I’ll see what the results bring and decided whether to have him assessed if he doesn’t pass.

GCSE English language isn't just about writing! One of my constant refrains to my classes is how many minutes to spend on each question so they attempt them all.

It seems to me that no one is able to express concern over the system, if such a thing exists.
I for one am not disputing extra time for some conditions. Clearly that would be absurd and it’s irritating, to say the least, that some aggressive posters put words in our mouths and in so doing, silence reasonable discussion.
However I have experienced the same as @GCSEnerves. My DC has struggled all through her high achieving school. She has constantly been admonished to get better at “timing “ yet not ONCE has “slow processing” been mentioned. It seems that some schools/parents are more “on it” than others. As mentioned to @noblegiraffe, she could have got most of certain papers correct, but didn’t have time to finish.
The mantra seems to be “oh well don’t criticise the system; DC should have got extra time “ but the thing is that she wasn’t bloody offered it. Not a peep of a suggestion. So her exam results will not affect her knowledge. The “system” is therefore a lottery and no, that isn’t fair!

This is exactly my point. It is the system that is unfair. But any attempt to discuss it is written off as ableism or by changing the subject with reference to glasses or walking aids or broken wrists. It seems some parents having gained the extra time and level playing field don’t want that extended to anyone else and aren’t interested in discussions about how the extra time can be implemented more fairly and not just on the basis of parents and schools being more proactive.

I doubt my son has issues with slow processing. He’s probably just a bit rubbish at English and deserving of his grade. But it seems unfair that this is never even considered at his school.

I also fear that if access arrangements become too widespread (both at schools and universities), employers will lose faith in the exam system and will start implementing their own tests. This is already routine in my industry and there would be no accommodation for extra time as we quite literally bill clients on an hourly basis so timing is vitally important. If we had to start offering extra time for assessments to avoid being accused of discrimination, then recruitment would become very challenging.

This is exactly my point. It is the system that is unfair. But any attempt to discuss it is written off as ableism or by changing the subject with reference to glasses or walking aids or broken wrists. It seems some parents having gained the extra time and level playing field don’t want that extended to anyone else

Well no, those discussions about glasses were because people were saying that employers should know which kids got extra time in their exams and nothing to do with your posts.

In addition, I think that it's generally agreed that any child who would qualify for extra time should get it. I don't think there are vast swathes of kids who should get extra time who don't, (the usual concern was that there were loads of kids getting it who didn't really need it, but as my OP shows, those stats were massively overblown), so increasing exam time would just be making the vast majority of kids who have already finished the exam sit in the exam hall for longer doing nothing. That's not a good use of time or fair on them either.

Maybe all children should be screened. That has huge cost implications though.

I can comment on this. My DD has ADHD and anxiety. She finds it very hard to get started writing in an exam. She would spend lots of time staring at the paper panicking. Eventually she would start to write but run out of time.

Having extra time has meant firstly that she doesn't feel the same level of panic at not getting everything down so she is able to start sooner. Then she has more time anyway so generally does get to the end of the time having put down all she wants to.

In a work place I would expect she might need some reasonable adjustments that it might take her longer than some people to do certain tasks.

We routinely screen all y7 and 10 and 12 for a number of things. The many many hours I spend counting words and looking up standardised scores is absolutely not a cost effective use of my time.

This is problematic. Firstly because you would get a steady stream of people leaving, which is disruptive. Secondly you would get some kids feeling pressure to leave because their mates have.

I had always assumed extra time was for physical disabilities or dyslexia…It has been an eye opener that “slow processing” is deemed to be in the same category. Isn’t that just not being “bright” or “academic”? As such, the system is “not fair” on two counts; those who fall under the radar, who are “slow processors” but whose school never mentions concessions and just states that low marks are due to “timing issues” and those who are just not academic, but whose results, due to concessions, give them a false sense of what they can achieve and who are then BITTERLY disappointed at the final hurdle (ie when applying for certain jobs such as in GCSEnerves’ industry, where they need to pass an external test)

Isn’t that just not being “bright” or “academic”?

No. It is entirely possible to be exceptionally bright and still need extra time.

@queenofthesuburbs for some, slow processing can be part of physical disabilities and dyslexia.

People can qualify for extra time and still be academically able. I have 2 academically able DC who as part of their access arrangements receive extra time (one 25% and one 50%).

I think it's a misunderstanding of what processing speed actually means.

I know several children who get extra time due to slow processing (combined with other SEN) who are on track for 4 A* at A level and are currently holding Oxbridge offers.

They are definitely 'bright' and 'academic' - but their slow processing speed is a handicap for them. In the same way as there is no correlation between intelligence and dyslexia.

Slow processing is also often more of a problem when it is combined with very high VR, NVR and spatial scores.

Kids who are 'not academic' are not going to suddenly get a 9 in history because they got an extra 27 minutes on a 110 minute exam. The chances are nobody has even shown them how to use that time, and their brain doesn't suddenly become academic.

I'm shocked how many parents on this thread are saying their child struggles with exam timings and doesn't finish, but seem to have done nothing about it? We have these crazy modern inventions called telephones and email. Why have you all let your children down so badly? How did they get to sitting the final papers without you noticing an issue? Or were their exam scores actually completely in line with what they would be expected to get?

I teach further maths A-level which is, by definition, only taken by very bright kids. Some of them qualify for extra time.

They could then leak exam questions, some other students still in the exam could hide a phone somewhere and then go and look. Time limits exist for a reason and also there's a reason why everyone does the exam at the same time in the country and finishes at the same time.

@GCSEnerves Many law firms and other jobs I know do offer extra time for such assessments and also should. I know people who have had longer breaks between assesment when doing an assessment center. I know people who for numeracy assesments or the written talks at assessment centers have also gotten extra time. A company has a legal responsibility to do so because it is a reasonable adjustment for interview if somebody requests it. Also there is already assesments for numeracy and literacy (Functional Skills). GCSEs are about literacy and critical thinking, and persuasive writing, the impact of techniques on a reader and amplifying a readers argument. English Language develops basic fundamental skills of comprehension and impact (looks at both non-fiction and fiction writing). It's seen as one of the most valuable GCSEs that why it's compulsory to pass and if you can pass or do much better than your literacy is derived from that as GCSE papers are all at a reading age of 16. Okay as a lawyer you might not be identifying a metaphor, but you might be trying to write a motion with impact in your writing - GCSE English Lang shows you how to. Even in day to day life, knowing how writers are creating impact = media literacy. They read articles, understand how propaganda and populist campaigns are using writing to spread ideas. Also identifying metaphors is a useful skill and is not that hard. It might not directly = specific job but it does develop a range of skills for the world and further study. Knowledge is valuable just because it's is knowledge. Not everything in school needs to directly = specific job. The range of study of subjects at GCSE is useful. Also depending on what you go on to study at A-Level, uni and what career - GCSEs give you that foundational knowledge. Someone might use Maths GCSE more, another person History, another Geography but it gives you the most options.