Rise in exam extra time: a sign of over-diagnosis

School exams should be the great leveller: children ought to be assessed on their knowledge, not who they are or where they come from. But many people are rightly concerned about growing unfairness in the system. New figures reveal that a record 420,000 pupils in England now receive extra time in their GCSEs and A-levels — four times as many as a decade ago. This staggering rise is also particularly acute in independent schools, where 42% of pupils now qualify for extra time, compared to 27% in state schools.

It’s easy to accuse private schools of gaming the system, but there are many potential explanations for the discrepancy. Firstly, some independent schools are special schools, where almost all pupils may have additional needs. Secondly, private schools are often smaller and have more resources to identify and refer pupils who may need extra support. Parents at these schools are more likely to pay for private diagnoses — a private autism assessment can cost up to £2000 — and skip years-long waiting lists. They may also send their neurodivergent children to private schools if they feel that they cannot cope in the overstretched state sector.

Private schools are also more likely to have bigger budgets for their SEN departments. Special exam arrangements require a significant amount of labour and evidence collection, and state schools may not have as much capacity when it comes to processing applications.

However, quibbling over the difference between private and state schools misses the wider point: how have we reached a situation where almost a third of pupils across all schools require extra time in exams? If close to half a million children genuinely have a significant impairment which means they are at a serious disadvantage when completing exams, then surely we must have a fundamental problem with the format of our assessments. At what point do we consider whether we need to restructure exams entirely? When those who don’t have extra time become the minority?

Alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously, we need to question how we move away from this tendency to over-diagnose. Too often, we overlook the parental, educational, social and online causes of challenging behaviour and learning difficulties, and mistake normal childish and adolescent behaviours for something more sinister and permanent. For example, research has shown that students born in August — the youngest in their academic year — are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than those born in September, which suggests that temporary immaturity can often be misinterpreted as debilitating hyperactivity. This is particularly problematic for boys: nearly half of summer-born male pupils are categorised as SEN when they are in primary school.

We can criticise overanxious parents or overzealous schools, but they are all working legitimately within the system: if you don’t ask, you don’t get. The problem is the system itself, with its ever-widening assessment and diagnostic criteria. For example, in 2013 four separate categories of autism were consolidated into the umbrella term “autism spectrum disorder”, and this broader definition could partly explain why autism diagnoses increased by 175% between 2011 and 2022.

We need to ensure that the process for extra time is as rigorous, and therefore trustworthy, as possible. Without this, we risk discrediting the validity of exams, the needs of genuinely disadvantaged students, and the success of our whole education system altogether.

view comments