At the Association of Colleges Exams Officer Conference earlier this year, there were grave concerns over the growth of Access Arrangements (AAs) requests and how centres were struggling to meet the associated additional costs and resource requirements within existing budget constraints.
The Examination Officers’ Association (EOA) agreed to gather information from various exam centres about the impact that increasing AAs are having on exam centre delivery and to suggest what solutions might be plausible to support this process more effectively and also to reduce spiralling costs.
AAs related to general and vocational qualifications and can be divided into two categories, both of which must comply with the Equality Act 2010 (1). A range of AAs can be awarded by the centre itself, such as the provision of supervised rest breaks. Then there are those that require prior Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) awarding body approval, which are usually dealt with through the Online Access Arrangements process (2).
Increase in AAs
In 2014, an EOA survey sought to discover what impact the return to a main summer, terminal exam period would have.
It revealed that there was a growth in AAs in response to students, teaching staff and centres feeling under pressure because there was no opportunity to retake exams, with the exception of GCSE English and maths, until the following summer.
Two years later and the latest research shows that AAs have continued to rise, with 37 per cent of exam centres reporting a 20 per cent increase in their AAs (13 per cent reported a 15 per cent increase while 15 per cent reported a 10 per cent increase).
This increase cannot be put down solely to the move back to a main summer exam period. The need for all students to pass GCSE English and maths has drawn in more students with SEND, especially those affected by various forms of dyslexia who may have been excluded or missed through the historic AAs process.
With nowhere to go under the old modular system, and no major alternative exam retakes, the pressure on centres to use any process that might help their students through the exam system is clear – assuming they have the funds available for the tests and assessments undertaken by SENCOs and the specialist academic staff who are responsible for this aspect of the AAs process.
The “marked increase” in late requests for AAs, reported by 70 per cent of centres, may be seen as another indicator of the pressures being felt by institutions to improve on results. Centres also report a rising demand in personal requests from students (56 per cent), parents (63 per cent), and teaching staff (62 per cent).
The perception by some is that in some way AAs are being used and/or abused by some centres to advantage their students. The ability for certain centres and/or individuals to fund tests and assessments to gain access to the AAs process while others cannot is seen as unfair.
This perception is bringing the process into disrepute and could damage access to the AAs process by those in need. I have discussed some of these issues previously in SecEd (Exams, Access Arrangements and assistive technology, September 2015: http://bit.ly/1MbxXoI).
Unused extra time
One of the most commonly requested AAs is for extra time to complete the exam. This allocation may vary in relation to the student need, but a vast majority of successful applicants are awarded 25 per cent extra time based upon an assessment of speed of processing or working.
In the EOA survey two years ago, exams office staff reported that more than 60 per cent of students did not actually use the extra time allocated to them and the recent survey confirmed that this pattern of sporadic take up continues.
In many cases, students often walked out of exam halls to avoid any stigma being attached to being given extra time. Many had never practised using it as part of their “normal way of working” in the classroom.
Educational specialists have pointed out that extra time requests should not be seen as a safety blanket to help bolster weaker students with learning difficulties, as they may not actually have the ability or capacity to use it appropriately.
This misappropriation of extra time is seen as a waste of resources by many exams officers in the survey.
This finding also highlights why the JCQ has been asking for more engagement by academic staff and SENCOs when making evidence-based requests at the beginning of the process.
Accommodation for AAs
Most requests for extra time can be more easily accommodated in main halls (19 per cent of centres), but AAs requests related to more severe disabilities and learning difficulties are proving more challenging, with 18 per cent of centres concerned over securing enough suitable accommodation to house students.
Seventy-nine per cent of centres adopted the traditional approach of using lots of rooms to meet more complex individual needs (related to the use of scribes and readers) which cannot be easily accommodated in large rooms.
If some centres persevere with this approach to AAs they may reach a point where the AAs process could become unsustainable. Indeed, 51 per cent agreed that the present AAs process was now “unsustainable and needs comprehensive review”.
Assistive technology (AT)
One alternative is to introduce more AT within exams delivery. Reading, writing and speaking software on individual laptops (68 per cent of centres noted an increase in requests) could be housed in fewer rooms and/or in main exam halls, reducing costs and promoting a more independent learning culture for students, which can be transferred from their “normal way of working” in classrooms to the exam hall (and beyond into their place of work).
EOA research last year illustrated that while JCQ documentation over the past three years has been more positive in encouraging the use of AT, there was a gap between its acceptance and its actual use within the teaching community – this seemed to be due to a lack of training, confidence and budgetary constraints.
Historically, the teaching community had been reluctant to adopt AT within their teaching practice because it was thought difficult to replicate in an exam hall based on JCQ directives.
However, the latest survey does reveal that requests for AT have increased, with 77 per cent of centres reporting between five and 20 per cent increases in such requests. While many centres ponder their ability to fund AT, the fact remains that if they continue to provide AAs in their present format provision may quickly become unsustainable.
How can JCQ help?
All centres refer to JCQ publications for guidance and regulation on public exams delivery, including the provision of AAs and AT. In turn, it is the responsibility of the exams office community to implement these policies and practices so the exam system is not compromised.
However, there is a growing clash of cultures when it comes to AAs because most of the guidance given by JCQ and operated by exams office staff focuses on standard processes and practice, as such paper security or malpractice.
The problem with AAs is that their foundation is more firmly seated in teaching and learning related to classroom practice and not on routine exam procedures.
Some of the responses in the latest survey reflect a lack of confidence by exams office staff in interpreting the JCQ documentation in their centres.
Over the years this documentation has become more and more complex as it grapples with legislation requirements related to the Equality Act 2010 while still trying to maintain a valuable holistic exams delivery manual.
In our survey, 66 per cent of centres said they would like JCQ documents to be much clearer “to avoid issues over interpretation and implementation”.
Furthermore, 82 per cent asked for “more effective consultation on changes to JCQ publications because of the financial and resource impact they have on exams delivery in centres”.
- Andrew Harland is chief executive of the charity EOA, a professional body whose role is to support the professional development of exams office personnel working in centres in the UK and abroad. Visit www.examofficers.org.uk or email eoa.office@examofficers.org.uk
References
- Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010: http://bit.ly/2cD3P8y
- Access Arrangements, Reasonable Adjustments and Special Consideration, JCQ: http://bit.ly/2dF2dAc