JCQ Access Arrangements

JCQ access arrangements give candidates with disabilities, learning difficulties or temporary needs the conditions they require to show what they know without changing the assessment standard. In England, Ofqual's 2024/25 statistics reported that 18.0% to 27.7% of learners assessed in at least one GCSE, AS or A level qualification had at least one approved access arrangement, and that 16.6% to 25.5% had approval for 25% extra time. This guide sets out the practical picture for classroom teachers and SENCOs: what the arrangements are, what changed in the March 2026 JCQ update, how to gather evidence, how to train learners to use their arrangements, and how to avoid common compliance mistakes.

‍

What JCQ Access Arrangements Are

Access arrangements level the playing field in exams for learners. These adjustments help learners with difficulties access assessments fairly. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) manages this. Their AARA guide updates each August for the school year.

The legal foundation is the Equality Act 2010. It requires examination bodies to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (HM Government, 2010). JCQ acts as the shared service through which all major UK awarding organisations (AQA, OCR, Pearson Edexcel, WJEC, CCEA) apply this rule in the same way. What JCQ publishes is the agreed standard, and all centres are inspected against it.

The central test is the "normal way of working" standard. An arrangement must reflect how a learner already works in lessons, not only how they struggle in a high-pressure exam. A learner who never uses a word processor in class cannot receive one in exams simply because handwriting feels stressful.

This rule protects the credibility of the qualification, but it is not neutral for every learner. Late-identified, high-masking neurodivergent learners may have spent years hiding difficulty, avoiding support or copying peers' routines. Teachers should therefore record what they observe in lessons, mocks and homework. They should not treat quiet compliance as evidence that no adjustment is needed (Milner et al., 2024).

Access arrangements are not a reward for effort or persistence. They are not a substitute for effective classroom support under the graduated approach, and they are not evidence on their own that a learner has a special educational need. Candidates can qualify without an EHCP or an entry on the SEN Support register, provided they meet the AARA criteria.

‍

What Changed for 2025/26

The 2025/26 JCQ document was updated in March 2026. The official starting point is now the updated AARA guidance, read alongside JCQ's supplementary guidance on the March 2026 changes. The table below keeps the changes that remain current and corrects the earlier, stricter wording on rest breaks and workplace preparation.

Change	Current 2025/26 position	Practical impact
Supervised rest breaks and 25% extra time	Where a candidate has an impairment other than a learning difficulty, the SENCo should consider supervised rest breaks before applying for 25% extra time.	Do not treat rest breaks as a compulsory trial-and-exhaust hurdle. Use professional judgement, classroom observations, teacher feedback and the candidate's own views.
Workplace-preparation wording	JCQ removed references to access arrangements that prepare candidates for the workplace.	The requirement is to remove or reduce assessment barriers so candidates can demonstrate knowledge, skills and understanding.
Form 8 Part 1	Part 1 must include teacher feedback and evidence of normal way of working before the assessment takes place.	Teachers need to provide specific evidence from lessons, timed internal tests and mock examinations, not generic comments.
Skeleton Form 8	A skeleton Part 1 completed before assessment is no longer acceptable.	Evidence gathering has to happen before the assessor completes Part 2, not afterwards.
25% extra time applications	Except for GCSE resits, applications processed from 1 September 2025 require samples of internal tests or mock papers across relevant subjects, plus teacher comments on why and how the candidate uses the extra time.	SENCOs, exams officers and subject teams need an earlier evidence cycle.
Data consent forms	Signed candidate personal data consent and data-protection confirmation forms are no longer required.	Centres still need to inform candidates that applications are processed through Access Arrangements Online under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Terminology	Communication Professional has been renamed Sign Language Professional.	Update internal guidance and invigilator briefings.

The technology message should now be stated carefully. JCQ still lists computer readers, readers, scribes and speech recognition in Access Arrangements Online, but the March 2026 update removed the claim that arrangements should be chosen to prepare candidates for the workplace. A centre can favour technology where it is the candidate's normal way of working and removes an assessment barrier, but it should not turn that preference into a blanket rule against human support.

‍

The Full Range of Access Arrangements

JCQ separates arrangements into two groups. Some must be processed through Access Arrangements Online, while others do not need an online application. This matters because a centre-delegated arrangement still needs evidence and normal-way-of-working records. An online application must also meet the published criteria before it can be used.

Route	Examples	What teachers need to know
Must be processed online	25% extra time, extra time over 25%, computer reader/reader, scribe or speech recognition technology, practical assistant, access to a mobile phone for medical purposes, listening to music or white noise due to substantial impairment, and disability-related timetable variations.	Do not promise these to a candidate until the SENCo or exams team has checked the criteria, submitted the application where required and recorded the evidence.
Does not need online processing, but still needs records	Alternative rooming, word processor, supervised rest breaks, prompter, read aloud or examination reading pen, Sign Language Professional, coloured overlays, low vision aid or magnifier, ear defenders, fidget toys, timer on desk and amplification equipment.	Delegated does not mean casual. The arrangement must reflect need and normal way of working, and evidence must be available for inspection.
Modified papers and paper format changes	Braille papers, modified enlarged papers, modified language papers, coloured paper and enlarged A4 to A3 papers.	Modified papers have fixed ordering deadlines. For the June 2026 series, JCQ lists 31 January 2026 for modified papers and 21 March 2026 for January resit candidates ordering modified papers for June 2026.

* The June 2025 SASC guidance on SpLDs and visual difficulties uses visual stress as the accepted term and says older labels such as Irlen syndrome, Meares-Irlen syndrome and scotopic sensitivity are inappropriate. See our Visual Stress: A Teacher's Guide for the full picture.

Human readers, scribes, speech recognition technology and practical assistants are tightly controlled because they can affect the assessment if used incorrectly. Some require online applications; some related supports do not. The safest operational rule is simple: use the current JCQ AARA document for the route, keep evidence of need and normal way of working, and train adults so they do not provide more help than the arrangement permits.

‍

The Evidence Base for Extra Time

Before examining the evidence, it matters to note how common extra time is. It remains the most widely used exam-board-approved arrangement. Ofqual's 2024/25 statistics reported 25% extra time approvals for 16.6% to 25.5% of learners being assessed in GCSE, AS and A level qualifications in England. The report uses ranges because the methodology is still developing, and Ofqual expects upper values to decrease when the statistics are updated.

A review by Duncan and Purcell found no clear agreement on the impact of extra time for learners with specific learning difficulties. Ofqual's 2025 research review takes a similar, careful view. Extra time can help when access needs affect working speed. But its impact depends on the assessment design, the learner's need and whether the standard time is already speeded.

The UCL and Nuffield-funded PAASS report adds a useful school-level caution. In staged writing tasks, learners with identified literacy difficulties showed an average 13.9% score improvement when using a word processor and an average 8.18% improvement when handwriting with 25% extra time, but close to a third did not improve with one of the tested arrangements. The practical conclusion is not "extra time works" or "extra time does not work". It is that schools must match the arrangement to the barrier and teach learners how to use it under timed conditions.

Vidal Rodeiro and Macinska's Research Matters article reports teachers' and learners' views from 258 centres across eight countries. It makes a practical point about implementation: staff and learners may know about arrangements, but confidence, resourcing and views about fairness can still vary. This is why evidence gathering, learner training and invigilator briefing matter as much as the application itself.

‍

Gathering the Evidence: Form 8 and Teacher Responsibilities

Form 8 is the main evidence document for candidates with learning difficulties when an arrangement needs assessor evidence. For 2025/26, Part 1 must be completed before assessment. It must include the candidate's current classroom difficulties, teacher feedback, timed internal-test or mock-exam evidence, and their normal way of working. JCQ is clear that a skeleton Part 1 completed before assessment is not acceptable.

Subject teachers are now formally part of this process. When a SENCO requests teacher feedback for a learner being considered for access arrangements, this is not a formality. The feedback needs to describe specific, observed behaviours: how long it takes the learner to complete written tasks compared to peers, whether they lose track of their place when reading, whether they frequently re-read instructions, how they perform under timed conditions.

Vague statements such as "struggles with exams" or "finds writing difficult" are insufficient. What JCQ inspectors are looking for is evidence that the arrangement reflects a genuine and persistent pattern of need that is visible across the school day.

For learners applying for extra time, mock examination evidence is now required. This means that schools need to use at least some internal assessments under timed conditions. The learner's access arrangements must be in place, and the scripts must show how the learner used the time.

If a learner consistently finishes well within their extra time, that is relevant evidence. If a learner uses every additional minute, that is equally relevant. Evidence should be collected across multiple subjects where the arrangement applies. This means the exams officer, SENCO, and subject teachers must coordinate earlier than usual.

The centre's appointed assessor completes the relevant assessment sections of Form 8 and the centre must hold evidence of the assessor's qualification where required. Independent reports are useful only when they provide the current, relevant scores and evidence that JCQ asks for. A broad diagnostic label, on its own, is not enough to justify an exam arrangement.

Where a learner holds an Education, Health and Care Plan, that document can serve as evidence, but it does not eliminate the need to confirm that the arrangements remain appropriate and reflect current need. learners' needs evolve between the time an EHCP is written and the time they sit examinations, particularly at KS4 and post-16. The SENCO must confirm, in writing, that the proposed arrangements are consistent with what is described in the EHCP and that they remain the learner's normal way of working.

‍

A SENCO Calendar for Access Arrangements

Plan access arrangements early in the school year for all learners. The calendar below is written for the June 2026 series: JCQ lists 31 January 2026 as the modified-paper deadline and 21 March 2026 as the deadline for processing access-arrangement applications through Access Arrangements Online. Internal school deadlines need to sit earlier so evidence can be gathered and checked.

Month	Task	Notes
September	Download and read new JCQ AARA document; identify Year 10/11 and Sixth Form exam cohort; check AAO system access	JCQ publishes new regulations in August each year. Never apply last year's rules to this year's cohort.
October	Begin screening Year 11 and Year 13 learners; request teacher feedback for identified learners; begin Form 8 Part 1 evidence gathering	Use a standardised referral form so teacher feedback is consistent and detailed enough for Form 8.
November	Assess learners requiring Form 8 assessment sections, or commission external assessments; consider supervised rest breaks for relevant learners where this is appropriate	Where rest breaks are being considered, record the evidence, dates, duration and candidate response. Build this into mock exam schedules where appropriate.
December	Run mock exams with access arrangements in place; collect annotated mock scripts as evidence; complete delegated arrangements	Ensure invigilators are briefed and that access arrangements are recorded on seating plans for JCQ inspection readiness.
January	Submit modified paper orders by 31 January deadline; complete AAO applications for non-delegated arrangements where possible	Modified papers (Braille, enlarged print) have a hard 31 January deadline. Missing this cannot be remedied.
February	Continue AAO applications; review any learners transferring from other centres; check for learners newly identified through AS results or teacher referrals	learners who transfer from another centre do not automatically bring their arrangements with them. Check JCQ guidance on centre transfers.
March	Complete all AAO applications by the 21 March deadline for the summer series; confirm all Form 8s are fully completed and stored	Post-deadline applications require awarding organisation approval and are not guaranteed.
April	Brief all invigilators on individual learner arrangements; set up specialist accommodation; finalise seating plans	Invigilators must be told exactly what each learner's arrangements are and how to use them. Generic briefings are not sufficient for JCQ inspection.
May-June	Run examinations with arrangements in place; keep attendance and incident records; prepare for potential JCQ inspection	JCQ can inspect any centre at any time during the exam series. Have Form 8s, AAO confirmations, and seating plans immediately accessible.
July	Archive all access arrangements documentation for the required retention period; begin identifying Year 10 learners for the next cycle; review what went wrong and what needs improving	JCQ requires retention of Form 8s and supporting evidence for at least six months after results day (JCQ, 2026).

This calendar suits schools using June exams. Schools with November or January exams must adjust dates. Deadlines move, usually to September for November series. The SENCO calendar shows access arrangement deadlines with other duties.

‍

Training learners to Use Their Arrangements

The UCL and Nuffield-funded PAASS project found that arrangements work best when learners understand them and have had realistic opportunities to practise. The project report and UCL summary also identify stigma, resourcing and training gaps as barriers to effective use. This is a safer evidence base than the fabricated journal citations previously used in this article.

A learner given 25% extra time who has never practised a timed paper with that extra time available may not know how to distribute it. A learner using a word processor may lose the benefit if they are unfamiliar with the exam-mode setup. Training should therefore include practice papers, explicit time-planning routines, a check that the tool is the normal way of working, and a short conversation with the learner about what helps and what feels difficult.

For learners using a word processor, the practical requirements are specific. The word processor must be in exam mode, with no internet access and with features such as spell-check controlled according to the specification and JCQ rules. learners need to practise typing under pressure and should see the same setup in practice that they will use in the real examination. The same principle applies to computer readers, prompters, rest breaks and separate-room arrangements.

Destigmatisation is a separate challenge. UCL research found that stigma led some learners to opt out of arrangements they had been granted. SENCOs and form tutors can respond by talking about arrangements early and in a normal way. Where possible, they should involve learners in decisions and present an arrangement as a tool for accurate assessment, not as an admission of inability.

‍

Common Mistakes Schools Make

JCQ inspection findings and the practitioner research both point to a consistent set of errors. Identifying these in advance allows schools to put systems in place rather than discovering problems during an inspection.

Skeleton Form 8s. This is the most common and now most clearly prohibited error. A Form 8 that records a learner's name, date of birth, and proposed arrangements without substantive evidence of need will not withstand JCQ scrutiny.

Each section of the form must be completed in full, with specific reference to the learner's profile and history. The prohibition on skeleton forms in 2025/26 regulations makes this a compliance issue, not merely a quality concern.

Failing to demonstrate normal way of working. Approving an arrangement and documenting that it reflects normal way of working are not the same thing. The evidence must show that the learner regularly uses the arrangement in classroom settings.

If a word processor was granted but the learner never uses one in lessons, the evidence trail will not support the arrangement. SENCOs should check that subject teachers are actively providing the documented accommodation.

Arrangements not updated after centre transfer. learners who move from one school to another, or who transfer to a sixth form college, do not automatically carry their arrangements with them. The new centre must establish its own evidence base and submit new applications where required. JCQ's guidance on arrangements when a candidate changes centre sets out the process (JCQ, 2025). Schools that assume arrangements transfer automatically are at risk of running examinations without valid authorisation.

Over-reliance on extra time when rest breaks are more appropriate. The March 2026 JCQ update says SENCOs should consider supervised rest breaks before applying for 25% extra time where a candidate has an impairment other than a learning difficulty. That is not the same as a compulsory trial-and-exhaust rule. A learner with chronic fatigue, anxiety or attention difficulty may need rest breaks, extra time, or both, depending on the evidence and professional judgement.

The modified paper deadline is 31 January, and it is inflexible. Schools need to identify learners who need Braille or large print early. Identify learners needing modified papers in September, not February. If this does not happen, learners may not have suitable materials.

Not involving learners in the process. JCQ requires learners to know about and agree to their access arrangements. Learner voice is also mentioned in the 2025/26 regulations.

This helps make sure arrangements reflect the learner's own experience of their need. If a SENCO completes the whole process without talking to the learner, the documents may not accurately show how the learner functions.

Using outdated assessment tools. Norm-referenced assessments must be based on current norms. An assessment tool that was last re-normed over five years ago may not meet JCQ requirements.

Assessors are responsible for checking this, but SENCOs who commission external assessments should confirm that the tools being used are current. Assessments completed when a learner was in Year 7 will not reflect their Year 11 profile and will not meet the requirements for current need.

Treating EHCP as a substitute for Form 8. An EHCP is evidence of an identified need at the time it was written. It does not automatically entitle a learner to any particular access arrangement, and it does not substitute for Form 8 where Form 8 is required.

The SENCO must still confirm that the proposed arrangements reflect current need and are the learner's normal way of working, even where an EHCP exists. This is particularly relevant where the EHCP was written at primary school and the learner is now in Year 11. The connection between the annual review process and access arrangements evidence should be actively managed.

Not training invigilators on individual arrangements. An invigilator may not know a learner is entitled to a prompter. They may also not know what a prompter can say. This means they will likely give too much support or too little support.

Invigilator briefings must be specific to individual learners, not generic. This includes ensuring that invigilators know how rest breaks work (the clock stops; the learner must not discuss the examination), and how word processors should be set up in exam mode.

‍

Delegated vs Non-Delegated Arrangements: The Practical Distinction

It is useful to know the difference between online applications and centre-delegated arrangements. This helps centres plan the workload before learners enter exams. Check the current JCQ list first: 25% extra time, computer reader/reader and scribe or speech recognition technology must be processed online. Other arrangements, such as word processors, supervised rest breaks and prompters, do not need online processing, but still need evidence and normal-way-of-working records.

The 21 delegated arrangements can be approved by the SENCO, or by a teacher they have designated, without an online application. However, delegated does not mean undocumented. Every delegated arrangement needs Form 8 Part 1 evidence where required, must be recorded in school records and must be the learner's genuine normal way of working. The SENCO takes full professional responsibility for accuracy, and in a JCQ inspection the inspector will ask to see the evidence for every arrangement in use, delegated or not.

Non-delegated arrangements are those where JCQ has determined that the risk of inappropriate use is high enough to require external oversight. Human readers and scribes fall into this category because they can greatly affect the assessment. A reader who rephrases or stresses certain words could give a false impression of the learner's knowledge.

The same applies to a scribe who adds to a learner's dictation. AAO applications for non-delegated arrangements are reviewed by the awarding organisation before approval, and approval is not guaranteed. Schools that assume approval is automatic are taking a risk, particularly where applications are submitted close to the deadline.

The most common non-delegated arrangements teachers need to understand are the reader (human), the scribe (human), and extra time beyond 25%. For a learner who cannot use a word processor or speech recognition software due to the nature of their impairment, a scribe may be necessary. The scribe must be trained, must not be a subject teacher for that paper, and must follow JCQ's scribing rules precisely.

The scaffolding provided by a scribe in examination conditions is tightly regulated to ensure it does not become assistance. Schools training new scribes should use JCQ's own training materials, which are available on the JCQ website.

Learners who are not taking GCSEs or A levels use different Level 2 access arrangements. Awarding bodies manage these, not JCQ (Joint Council for Qualifications). SENCOs often need guidance on how to link complex needs assessments with access arrangements.

‍

The Equity Challenge and Practical Responses

The research and statistics point to an implementation challenge, not just a compliance issue. Ofqual's 2024/25 statistics show that independent schools and colleges had higher 25% extra-time approval ranges than state-funded secondary schools. The UCL/Nuffield PAASS report also describes workload, resourcing, technology, space and training pressures in access-arrangements practice.

This does not mean state schools are powerless. They can standardise teacher referral evidence and collect mock-exam evidence earlier. They should also train invigilators on the exact limits of each arrangement, and keep a clear record of how learners use their support. Multi-academy trusts can share qualified assessment capacity where appropriate; schools outside trusts may need earlier commissioning, local partnership working or clearer internal triage.

Technology can help some learners, but it is not a cheap replacement for proper assessment. A word processor, computer reader or speech recognition setup is valid only when it removes the candidate's barrier. It must also be allowed for the assessment and reflect the normal way of working. The March 2026 JCQ update removed the workplace-preparation framing, so schools should justify technology through assessment access, not through a general claim that it is more modern than human support.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

‍

‍

Limitations and Critiques

JCQ Access Arrangements are necessary, but they do not answer every fairness question. The first critique concerns extra time. Duncan and Purcell (2020) found no consensus across studies of learners with specific learning difficulties.

Sireci, Scarpati and Li (2005) warned that an accommodation should remove a disability-related barrier, not give the same performance gain to everyone. A fixed 25% model may suit some processing-speed barriers, but it may do little for fatigue, anxiety or working memory overload.

A second critique concerns the normal way of working rule. It protects exam validity, but it can under-record need when a learner has masked difficulty for years or receives a late diagnosis. Milner et al. (2024) link camouflaging with later autism diagnosis, while Curd and Nguyen (2024) show how autistic women described school needs that adults often missed.

Third, implementation is shaped by resources. Antalek et al. (2026) and Sumner, Antalek and Esposito (2025) report that practitioner time, training and assessment capacity affect who is identified. They also affect who receives useful practice. The Sutton Trust (2025) also highlights socio-economic inequality in SEND support, raising cultural and access questions about privately funded reports and school capacity.

These limits mean schools should treat arrangements as evidence-led adjustments. They are not automatic entitlements or favours. The framework still has lasting value because it gives teachers a shared legal and practical route for reducing avoidable barriers in high-stakes assessment.

‍

References

JCQ (2026).

JCQ (2025).

Milner et al. (2024).

Further Reading: Verified Sources on JCQ Access Arrangements

The next step for most schools is to compare the current exam cohort against the evidence held on file: approved AAO applications where required, normal-way-of-working records, mock-exam evidence, modified-paper orders and invigilator instructions. If an arrangement is present in practice but weak in evidence, tighten the record before the next assessment window rather than waiting for a JCQ inspection.