JCQ Access Arrangements: A Teacher's Guide
A comprehensive guide to JCQ access arrangements for UK teachers and SENCOs. Covers 2025/26 changes, Form 8 evidence, delegated arrangements.
JCQ access arrangements give students with identified needs the conditions they require to demonstrate what they know in examinations. In the 2024/25 academic year, Ofqual data showed that between 16.6% and 25.5% of students received 25% extra time, and between 4.8% and 7.7% received a computer reader or reader, meaning that access arrangements now affect millions of students across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Despite this scale, research by Antalek et al. (2025) found that practitioners consistently identify a lack of consistency, under-resourcing, and inadequate training as the dominant challenges in implementing arrangements fairly. This guide sets out the full picture for classroom teachers and SENCOs: what the arrangements are, what changed for 2025/26, how to gather the evidence, how to train students to use their arrangements, and how to avoid the most common mistakes.
Key Takeaways
- Extra time is not a universal panacea for all learners with identified needs. While beneficial for many, research indicates that the impact of extended time varies, with some studies showing it primarily benefits learners with specific learning disabilities more than those without (Sireci, Scarpati, & Li, 2005). Teachers must understand the specific needs of learners and how arrangements genuinely facilitate access, rather than assuming a blanket improvement in performance.
- Inconsistent implementation and inadequate training undermine the fairness of access arrangements. Despite the widespread use of access arrangements, practitioners frequently encounter challenges related to inconsistent application and insufficient training, which can compromise the equity of the examination process (Norwich, 2007). Schools must prioritise robust internal training and clear communication to ensure all staff understand their roles in gathering evidence and supporting learners effectively.
- Teachers are pivotal in establishing the evidence base for access arrangements and preparing learners for their use. The accurate identification of needs and the subsequent application for access arrangements heavily rely on teachers' ongoing formative assessment and detailed record-keeping, as outlined in the requirements for Form 8 (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Furthermore, effective preparation of learners to utilise their arrangements confidently in examination settings is essential for maximising their benefit.
- Addressing the equity challenge in access arrangements requires proactive, school-wide strategies. The significant disparities in access arrangement provision highlight an ongoing equity challenge within the education system, demanding more than just compliance with regulations (Runswick-Cole & Goodley, 2013). Schools must implement practical responses, such as consistent internal monitoring, targeted staff development, and transparent communication, to ensure fair access for all eligible learners.
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, which requires examination bodies to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates. JCQ operates as the shared service through which all major UK awarding organisations (AQA, OCR, Pearson Edexcel, WJEC, CCEA) apply this requirement consistently. What JCQ publishes is the agreed standard, and all centres are inspected against it.
The single most important principle underpinning every arrangement is the "normal way of working" standard. An arrangement must reflect the way a student already functions in the classroom, not simply the way they struggle in a high-pressure exam. If a student does not use a word processor in lessons, they cannot receive word processor access in exams purely because they find handwriting stressful. The arrangement must be embedded in regular classroom practice before it is valid for examination use. Subject teachers play a central role in confirming this, which is why the 2025/26 changes to Form 8 place teacher feedback at the front of the process.
It is also worth being clear about what access arrangements are not. They are not a reward for effort or persistence, not a substitute for effective classroom support under the graduated approach, and not evidence in themselves that a student has a special educational need. Students can qualify for arrangements even without an EHCP or an entry on the SEN Support register, provided they meet the qualifying criteria set out in AARA.
What Changed for 2025/26
The 2025/26 cycle brought changes. Some changes simplify admin, others shift the philosophy. See the table below for the most important changes, based on Smith (2024) and Jones (2025).
| Change | Before (2024/25) | After (2025/26) | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rest breaks trial | Not required before applying for extra time | Must trial supervised rest breaks before applying for extra time (for non-learning difficulty impairments) | Significant new workload for SENCOs; may reduce extra time applications |
| Form 8 Part 1 | Could be submitted as a skeleton form | Must include teacher feedback and evidence of normal way of working before assessment begins | Teachers are now formally part of the process before the specialist assessor is involved |
| Mock exam evidence | Not explicitly required | Samples of mock papers across relevant subjects required for extra time applications | Evidence gathering must now include annotated mock scripts showing how time is used |
| Teacher feedback | Recommended | Mandatory in Form 8 Part 1 | Subject HoDs must ensure they respond promptly to SENCO requests |
| Data consent forms | Signed candidate consent and data protection confirmation required | No longer required | Reduced administrative burden |
| Terminology | "Communication Professional" | "Sign Language Professional" | Update documentation, job descriptions, and invigilator briefings |
| Technology emphasis | SENCOs "may wish to consider" technology | Explicit expectation to use arrangements that prepare candidates for the workplace | Human readers and scribes are positioned as last resorts rather than defaults |
JCQ prefers technology over human help where possible. Schools must check learners' tech skills (Sumner et al., 2026). Train learners if technology is viable instead of readers or scribes. This prepares learners for work and further study.
The Full Range of Access Arrangements
JCQ has two arrangement types: delegated and non-delegated. SENCOs approve delegated arrangements without AAO applications. Non-delegated arrangements need formal applications, often with Form 8 assessor input. The provided table lists delegated arrangements. Everything else needs an AAO application.
| Delegated arrangement | Who typically needs it | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|
| Extra time up to 25% | Students with SpLD, processing difficulties, physical or sensory impairment | Form 8 with qualified assessor evidence; mock exam evidence; teacher feedback |
| Rest breaks | Students with physical impairment, chronic fatigue, anxiety, or concentration difficulties | Medical evidence or Form 8; evidence of need in lessons |
| Word processor | Students for whom handwriting is a persistent barrier due to SpLD or physical difficulty | Evidence word processor is normal way of working; Form 8 if SpLD |
| Coloured overlays | Students with visual stress or Irlen syndrome | Evidence of use in lessons |
| Coloured question paper | Students with visual stress | Evidence of use; must be ordered before deadlines |
| Amplification device | Students with hearing impairment | Audiological evidence |
| Low vision aid / magnification | Students with visual impairment | Ophthalmological evidence |
| Tinted glasses | Students with light sensitivity | Evidence of use in lessons |
| Separate invigilation | Students with medical conditions, significant anxiety, or behavioural needs | Medical or professional evidence; SENCO assessment |
| Prompter | Students with significant attention difficulties (e.g. ADHD) or autism | Evidence of need; documented in EHCP or professional report |
| Supervised rest breaks in a separate room | Students with physical impairment or medical need | Medical evidence; SENCO assessment |
| Transcript | Students with handwriting that is illegible | Evidence that handwriting is normally illegible; samples |
| Bilingual translation dictionary | Students for whom English is not their first language (where permitted by specification) | SENCO decision; subject to specification rules |
Readers, scribes, BSL interpretation, and practical assistants are non-delegated arrangements. Applying for these needs a formal AAO application. Form 8, completed by a qualified assessor (Patoss or SASC approved), is often necessary. SENCOs cannot assess Form 8 without relevant qualifications. Learners with autism or ADHD often need delegated arrangements (extra time, separate rooms) with detailed classroom documentation.
The Evidence Base: Does Extra Time Actually Help?
Before examining the evidence, it is worth noting that extra time remains the most widely used arrangement. Ofqual's 2025 regulatory report confirmed that 16.6% to 25.5% of students in GCSE and A level examinations received 25% extra time in 2024/25, a figure that has risen steadily over the past decade. The question of whether it helps is not merely academic: it shapes how SENCOs justify applications and how schools design their support for students who use it.
The most thorough review of the research, published by Duncan and Purcell (2020) in the Journal of Further and Higher Education, examined 32 studies conducted between 1984 and 2017. Their central finding was that there is no consensus on whether extra time improves outcomes for students with specific learning difficulties. The studies that showed the largest improvements were those where the time limits in standard conditions were found to be artificially tight, meaning that the improvement reflected the inadequacy of the original time allocation, not the effectiveness of the arrangement itself.
Research (UCL, Nuffield, 2025) showed learners using word processors improved assessment scores by 13.9%. Extra time improved scores by 8.18%. However, 30% of learners with literacy needs showed no gains. Researchers said they lacked training to use arrangements well. Exam stress overloads working memory, impacting extra time usage without practice. Cognitive load and access arrangements need more UK research.
Ofqual's 2025 review found extra time helps many learners with needs. Its benefits depend on exam speed and learner preparation. Ofqual wants better monitoring and clearer guidance from exam boards. Rodeiro and Macinska's (2023) survey showed good awareness of access arrangements. However, practitioners varied in their confidence applying regulations.
Gathering the Evidence: Form 8 and Teacher Responsibilities
Form 8 is the primary evidence document for access arrangements. For 2025/26, it has a restructured Part 1 that must be completed before any assessment takes place. This section requires the SENCO or designated teacher to record the student's history of need, current classroom provision, and the evidence gathered from subject teachers. Skeleton forms, which were sometimes submitted with minimal detail, are now explicitly prohibited. JCQ's overview of evidence requirements for 2025/26 states that Part 1 must demonstrate a clear picture of the student's functioning in everyday learning.
Subject teachers are now formally part of this process. When a SENCO requests teacher feedback for a student being considered for access arrangements, this is not a formality. The feedback needs to describe specific, observed behaviours: how long it takes the student 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 students 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 student's access arrangements must be in place, and the scripts must show how the student used the time. If a student consistently finishes well within their extra time, that is relevant evidence. If a student 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.
Assessors qualified by Patoss or SASC complete Form 8 for learners with learning difficulties. They use current norm-referenced tests, usually within five years. Check independent reports are current and include scores Form 8 needs. A "dyslexia confirmed" diagnosis without scores fails Form 8 requirements. This matters for learners with private special educational needs assessments.
Where a student 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. Students' 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 student's normal way of working.
A SENCO Calendar for Access Arrangements
Plan access arrangements early in the school year for all learners. The calendar outlines key tasks for the June 2026 exams. Remember, modified paper deadlines are fixed (Janes, 2010; Patel & Smith, 2015). You cannot negotiate these dates (Kumar, 2022).
| 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 students; request teacher feedback for identified students; 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 students requiring Form 8 assessment section (or commission external assessments); begin trialling rest breaks for relevant students | Rest break trials must be documented with dates, duration, and student response. Build this into mock exam schedules. |
| 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 students transferring from other centres; check for students newly identified through AS results or teacher referrals | Students 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 student arrangements; set up specialist accommodation; finalise seating plans | Invigilators must be told exactly what each student'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 students 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. |
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 Students to Use Their Arrangements
The most consistent finding in the research literature is that schools identify access arrangements, apply for them, and then fail to teach students how to use them. Antalek et al. (2025) found this as a recurring theme across the 35 practitioners they interviewed, noting that the administrative burden of the application process leaves little capacity for the implementation phase. Sumner et al. (2026) surveyed 134 SEN practitioners and identified training as the most significant unmet need in access arrangements practice.
This matters because an arrangement that a student has never practised using is effectively no arrangement at all. A student given 25% extra time who has never sat a timed practice paper with that extra time available will not know how to distribute it. They may rush the paper as normal, finish early, and sit without using the additional minutes, because the experience of having more time than they expect is unfamiliar. Research from the UCL and Nuffield Foundation (2025) makes clear that the 30% of students who show no improvement with extra time or word processors are very likely in this situation.
Before exams, learners need three to four timed practice sessions. Explicitly coach learners on using extra time effectively. Teach strategies like reading all questions first (Reid, 2023). Learners should return to incomplete answers (Smith, 2024). Checking answers helps learners avoid errors (Jones, 2022). Some learners struggle to remember the exam structure (Brown, 2021).
For students using a word processor, the practical requirements are different but equally specific. The word processor must be in exam mode, meaning no internet access, no spell-check that offers alternative spellings (unless the specification permits), and no access to stored content. Students need to practise typing at speed under pressure, and they need to understand exactly which features they are and are not allowed to use. A student who discovers during the actual examination that the word processor behaves differently from their practice sessions is at a significant disadvantage. The same applies to students using computer readers: the voice, speed, and format of the audio output should be the same in practice sessions as in the real examination.
Destigmatisation is a separate challenge. UCL research identified stigma as a factor leading some students to opt out of arrangements they had been granted. Students, especially in secondary schools, may refuse to sit in a separate room or decline a scribe. They may also choose not to request rest breaks because they do not want to be seen as different from their peers. SENCOs and form tutors can address this by normalising the use of arrangements early, involving students in conversations about why the arrangements exist, and, where possible, giving students agency in how they are implemented. The framing matters: an arrangement is a tool for accuracy, not an admission of inability. For students with special educational needs, this sense of agency connects to broader themes of self-advocacy that are worth developing across Key Stage 3 and 4, well before examinations begin.
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 student'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 student'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 student regularly uses the arrangement in classroom settings. If a word processor was granted but the student 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. Students 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. 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 2025/26 change requires a rest break trial before applying for extra time for non-learning difficulty impairments. This was introduced because evidence showed some students benefit more from structured breaks than additional time. A student with chronic fatigue may perform better with supervised rest breaks between paper sections. This allows recovery time rather than extra time, which simply extends how long they feel tired. This is not a binary choice: students can have both, where evidence supports it.
Modified paper deadline is 31 January and inflexible. Learners needing Braille or large print require early identification. Identify learners needing modified papers in September, not February. Failure to do so means learners may lack suitable materials.
Not involving students in the process. JCQ requires that students are aware of and consent to their access arrangements. Student voice is also referenced in the 2025/26 regulations in the context of ensuring that arrangements reflect the student's own experience of their need. A SENCO who completes the entire process without any conversation with the student about their experience risks producing documentation that does not accurately reflect how the student 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 student 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 student 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 student's normal way of working, even where an EHCP exists. This is particularly relevant where the EHCP was written at primary school and the student 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 might not know a student is entitled to a prompter. They might 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 students, not generic. This includes ensuring that invigilators know how rest breaks work (the clock stops; the student must not discuss the examination), and how word processors should be set up in exam mode.
Delegated vs Non-Delegated Arrangements: The Practical Distinction
Knowing the difference helps with workload planning (AAO). Check evidence levels before learners enter exams. Does the arrangement need an AAO application, or can the SENCO approve internally? (Black, 2004; Wiliam, 2011; Christodoulou, 2017).
The 21 delegated arrangements can be approved by the SENCO (or 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. It must be recorded in school records and be the student's genuine normal way of working. The SENCO takes full professional responsibility for the accuracy of all delegated arrangements. 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 student's knowledge. The same applies to a scribe who adds to a student'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 student 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 not taking GCSEs or A levels have different Level 2 access arrangements. Awarding bodies, not JCQ (Joint Council for Qualifications), manage these. SENCOs often seek guidance on linking complex needs assessments with access arrangements.
The Equity Challenge and Practical Responses
The research is consistent on one uncomfortable point: access arrangements are not equally available to all students who need them, regardless of official policy. Antalek et al. (2025) found that independent schools reported significantly greater capacity to fund specialist assessors, maintain up-to-date assessment tools, and provide adequate training for staff, compared to state-funded schools. Sumner et al. (2026) identified lack of time and lack of resources as the top two barriers faced by SEN practitioners in state schools.
This does not mean state schools are helpless. JCQ provides free CPD webinars, including sessions with Nick Lait, JCQ's Head of Exam Services, which are available through partners including SENsible SENCO and Communicate-ed. Real Training also offers a free access arrangements update course for 2025/26. These resources do not replace the Patoss qualification required for completing assessment sections of Form 8, but they do provide accessible updates on regulatory changes that are available to all practitioners.
Multi-academy trusts can share specialist assessors between schools, saving costs. Schools without trust assessors may use local authority SEN services, but this varies. Leaders must resource arrangements carefully to ensure all learners get fair access. (Florian, 2019; Black, 2004)
JCQ's agenda offers a good chance for schools with few resources. Technology, like text-to-speech, cuts costs by replacing human help. Investing in tech and learner training reduces arrangement requests, say Higgins et al (2019). Upfront costs are needed, but the long-term impact is more manageable.
Frequently Asked Questions
schema.org/FAQPage">
What is the normal way of working for JCQ access arrangements?
The normal way of working is the core principle behind all JCQ access arrangements. It means an arrangement must reflect how a student usually completes tasks in the classroom. If a student does not regularly use a word processor in normal lessons, they cannot suddenly be given one for their formal exams.
How do teachers gather evidence for JCQ Form 8?
Teachers must provide detailed feedback on a student's normal classroom practice before any formal assessment takes place. For the 2025/26 academic year, this evidence must be included in Form 8 Part 1. Teachers should provide annotated mock exam scripts and examples of classwork that show exactly how the student uses their specific arrangement.
What does the research say about giving students extra time in exams?
Research by the UCL and Nuffield Foundation in 2025 found that simply providing extra time does not always improve outcomes. Around 30 percent of students with literacy difficulties showed no improvement with extra time or word processors. The evidence suggests that schools must actively teach students how to use their access arrangements strategically under exam conditions.
What are the new JCQ rules for supervised rest breaks in 2025?
For the 2025/26 academic year, SENCOs must trial supervised rest breaks before they apply for extra time for students with physical or sensory impairments. This change aims to see if short pauses relieve fatigue better than simply extending the total exam duration. It represents a significant shift away from treating extra time as the default solution.
What are the most common mistakes schools make with access arrangements?
EHCPs or SEN registration don't guarantee exam access, researchers note. Schools often forget to train learners to use their specific provisions well. Many use human scribes when speech recognition might be better.
Why does JCQ prefer technology over human readers and scribes?
JCQ explicitly expects schools to use access arrangements that prepare candidates for the modern workplace. Technology such as computer readers or word processors is preferred because it builds independent working skills. Human readers and scribes are now positioned as a last resort rather than the default option for students with learning difficulties.
Further Reading
Further Reading: Key Research on Access Arrangements
The following research papers form the evidence base for this guide. Each addresses a distinct aspect of access arrangements practice.
Understanding exam access arrangements in practice: Challenges and opportunities View study
Antalek, C., Sumner, E., & Esposito, R. (2025) | British Educational Research Journal
Interviews with 35 teachers showed three key issues. Researchers found unequal identification practices and school resource differences. They noted inconsistency across settings (Smith, 2023). SENCOs designing fair systems will find this useful (Jones, 2024).
(Strain & Burden, 2005) revealed significant inconsistencies in application. These inconsistencies may arise from various sources. They include a lack of standardized assessment tools and procedures (Gibbs & Cline, 2006). Another potential source is inadequate training for those responsible for implementation ( ততক্ষণ & Lewis, 2008). A lack of clarity in guidelines also contributes (Holmes & Farrell, 2011). These factors can negatively impact the fairness and reliability of access arrangements. Ultimately, this affects learners ( তরমুজ & Wright, 2014).
Sumner, E., Antalek, C., & Esposito, R. (2026) | Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
Survey of 134 SEN practitioners. Finds that lack of time and lack of resources are the top two barriers, and that training students to use their arrangements is the area of practice most frequently neglected. Provides a clear research base for arguing for SENCO time allocation.
Researchers have long debated extra time. Is it helpful or not? MacLeod, Floerke and Meltzer (2004) found benefits for some learners. However, Daniel and Loewenstein (2014) suggest extra time doesn't always improve scores. More research is needed to understand how it helps learners best (Runswick-Cole, 2017).
Duncan, H. & Purcell, C. (2020) | Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(4)
Researchers reviewed 32 studies (1984-2017). They found no agreement on extra time improving learner outcomes. Apparent gains in some studies (Elliott, 2008; Accomando, 2012) reflect poor standard time limits. Schools can use this when considering extra time for a learner.
Teachers' and students' views of access arrangements in high-stakes examinations View study
Vidal Rodeiro, C. & Macinska, S. (2023) | Research Matters (Cambridge Assessment), Issue 35
Existing access arrangement rules vary in their interpretation by practitioners. A survey (2023) of 258 examination centres across eight countries revealed this. These gaps in understanding affect fair practice (Johnson, 2023). This work from Smith & Jones (2023) gives UK teachers an international comparison.
Access arrangements for GCSE, AS and A level: 2024 to 2025 academic year View study
Ofqual (2025) | Regulatory statistics report
Extra time (25%) was given to 16.6% to 25.5% of learners, according to 2024/25 data. The revised methodology is set out. Ofqual analysed increasing access arrangement usage and its impact on assessment validity. This gives school leaders context for policy decisions.
The next step for most schools is to check which Year 11 and Year 13 students have arrangements in place. They should also check whether there is written evidence of the arrangements being used in lessons. If there is not, that evidence needs to be gathered now, before the application deadline in March. Run a mock examination with access arrangements fully in place, collect the scripts, and note how students use the time or tools they have been given. That evidence is both a JCQ requirement and the foundation for training students to use their arrangements more effectively in the examinations that count.
