Over the past few weeks, I have been thinking carefully about the direction that JCQ inspection seems to be taking. The new expectation that inspectors should have access to exam papers, to see evidence of a student’s use of extra time, has raised more than a few eyebrows among assessors and SENCOs alike. And rightly so.
Let’s be clear about what our role is. When we authorise and evidence an access arrangement, we do it based on professional assessment, consistent need, and a clear history of provision. Our reports, Form 8s, Form 9s, and centre records already provide a transparent paper trail showing that arrangements are justified, agreed, and applied. Nothing in that process requires a JCQ inspector to scrutinise a student’s exam script to see whether they “made good use” of their extra time. That isn’t inspection, it’s interpretation, and it blurs the line between procedural compliance and professional judgement.
Extra time isn’t a productivity tool or a way to write more paragraphs; for many learners with processing difficulties, working-memory challenges or anxiety, it simply gives breathing space. It offers time to reread the question for understanding, to proof-read an answer, or to pause for a moment and refocus, too short to count as a rest break, but long enough to make a difference. These small but important needs are not always visible in mock exam evidence or pen-colour changes; they are part of how a learner manages their thinking and keeps their focus.
JCQ inspectors are competent professionals, but they are not examiners, subject teachers, or educational psychologists. Their expertise lies in ensuring compliance with the AARA framework, not evaluating academic output. By extending the inspection to exam scripts, we risk creating a culture of distrust, one that implies teachers and assessors must “prove” that extra time had a visible result, rather than trusting in our evidence-based decisions. That’s not what inclusive practice should look like.
It is also worth remembering that Ofsted has deliberately moved away from this kind of evidence scrutiny. Their clarification for schools made it plain: inspectors don’t judge marking frequency or style, and they don’t expect paperwork to be created for their benefit. The emphasis is on impact, intent, and professional trust. Surely, the same principles should apply across the exam system.
If JCQ wants to strengthen quality assurance, the answer lies in collaboration, not surveillance. Support assessors, clarify grey areas, and continue to professionalise the role. But don’t undermine the expertise that already keeps the system fair, balanced, and human.
We should continue to make our voices heard, politely, firmly, and with the professional authority that comes from doing this work every day. Inclusion relies on trust. And if that trust begins to erode, we risk turning a supportive process into yet another compliance exercise. Our learners deserve better than that.
If you are an assessor, SENDCo, or work with Access Arrangements, I would love to hear your thoughts.
- Join our WhatsApp support group – https://chat.whatsapp.com/FaQObChwEyQEJsiQZUUYgT
- Connect with others through The Exams Access Arrangements Network – Inclusion Compass – EAA Network sign up
- Or if you need support, advice, or an EAA assessment, feel free to message me directly – barry@inclusioncompass.co.uk
Let’s keep the conversation focused on what really matters: fair and inclusive assessment for every learner.
#ExamsAccessArrangements #SEND #Inclusion #Assessors #JCQ #Education #ReasonableAdjustments