Memorandum from the Joint Council for
Qualifications (DDB 142)
INTRODUCTION
The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) was
established in January 2004 and supersedes the Joint Council for
General Qualifications (JCGQ, 1998-2003). The JCQ welcomes the
opportunity to comment on the draft extension to Part 2 of the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).
It is important to be clear regarding the current
position:
— Awarding bodies that offer general
qualifications are not currently covered by the DDA or by this
extension to Part 2 which comes into force on 1 October 2004 (except
as employers). General qualifications include GCE, AEA, VCE, GCSEs,
GNVQs, Key Skills and Entry level.
— Awarding bodies, qualification bodies
and trade organisations that offer professional or trade qualifications
are covered by this extension to Part 2 of the DDA.
The dilemma is that some of the awarding bodies'
qualifications do facilitate access to particular trades or professions,
for example Diplomas in Counselling.
There are many aspects of the Act that the JCQ
and its members support as employers. However, our response focuses
on the implications of any proposed changes in relation to the
delivery of the assessment and qualifications process. In our
response we have taken this opportunity to explain to the Joint
Committee:
1. Our commitment to special arrangements
for candidates with disabilities in relation to all qualifications.
2. Details about the current regulations
and guidance including an explanation of special arrangements
and special consideration for qualifications and the scope and
scale.
3. The current issues—including implications
of the work we are currently undertaking in relation to the Advisory
Group for Access to Assessment and Qualifications and the examinations
modernisation programme.
4. Our conclusions regarding the draft extension
to Part 2 of the DDA.
1. OUR COMMITMENT
TO SPECIAL
ARRANGEMENTS
For a number of years the JCQ and predecessor
organisations have produced regulations and guidance in relation
to candidates with particular requirements. As far back as "O"
levels, special arrangements including extra time, word processors
and modified papers, have been made available to candidates. Since
the introduction of GCSE in 1988 the awarding bodies have sought
to work together in developing and applying the regulations and
guidance.
The regulations are reviewed annually with input
from the regulators (ACCAC in Wales, CCEA in Northern Ireland
and QCA in England) and a number of professional bodies. Comments
from centres, professional bodies and regulators will continue
to help to shape the regulations and we continue to welcome this
input. This year the regulations are being restructured with the
intention of making them easier to understand and administer.
The regulations will continue to be developed in light of best
practice.
Our role is to ensure that all candidates have
equal access to assessment and qualifications. We have been doing
this for many years whilst ensuring that the "—validity,
reliability and integrity of the assessment are preserved and
that certificates accurately reflect candidate attainment."
(Code of Practice 2004-05, p37)
Our current regulations and guidance focus on
special arrangements as well as on specific disabilities. Whilst
this has been one of its strengths, we recognise that, there are
some disabilities that are widely recognised and some that are
less than universally acknowledged.
2. DETAILS ABOUT
THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS AND
GUIDANCE
There are a number of misconceptions regarding
the current system. The current regulations and guidance refer
to particular disabilities and also refer to areas dealt with
under the SEN Code of Practice: Communication and Interaction;
Cognition and Learning; Sensory and Physical Needs; and Behavioural,
Emotional and Social Needs.
In making special arrangements the awarding
bodies work to a number of principles. They seek to:
— Approve valid special arrangements
for access to examinations and assessment.
— Give special consideration to the
performance in assessment where specific circumstances have arisen
at or near to the time of assessment that were not provided for
by prior special arrangements.
— Ensure that neither a special arrangement
nor special consideration gives an unfair advantage over other
candidates.
— Ensure that special arrangements
do not reduce the validity or reliability of the examination or
assessment.
— Ensure that the provision of special
arrangements and special consideration does not mislead the users
of the qualifications about the candidate's level of attainment.
— Ensure that the provision of special
arrangements and special consideration does not compromise the
integrity or credibility of the qualification.
— Determine special arrangements and
special consideration in relation to the defined needs of individual
candidates.
— Consider the candidate's usual methods
of learning and producing work when making decisions on special
arrangements.
More specifically, the regulations are designed
to assist candidates who have particular requirements, which are
set out in two categories:
— Special Arrangements—which
are approved before an examination or assessment and are intended
to allow attainment to be demonstrated by a candidate. An example
of a Special Arrangement would be a candidate with a visual impairment
who needs a modified paper.
— Special Considerations—which
may be given following an examination or assessment to ensure
that a candidate with a temporary illness, injury or indisposition
at the time it is conducted is given some recognition of the difficulty
they have faced. Examples would include a candidate suffering
a broken arm or bereavement. Clearly, any Special Consideration
granted cannot take away the difficulty the candidate has faced
and can only provide relatively minor adjustments to ensure that
the integrity of the standard is not compromised. There will be
instances when a candidate is either too unwell or distressed
to cope with an assessment and this must be borne in mind.
Special arrangements are not intended to alter
the assessment demands of qualifications. However, it is clear
that some forms of impairment will entitle the candidate to an
appropriate adjustment which the awarding body can reasonably
allow and which will not affect the assessment criteria. Those
with physical disabilities, for example, profound hearing impairment
or who are registered or certified as being blind or partially
sighted (ie not those whose sight is corrected by spectacles or
lenses) will be eligible for appropriate arrangements.
Where the disability is not obvious, for example,
in learning difficulties, the awarding bodies seek to work with
teachers to assess eligibility and agree appropriate arrangements
in order for these candidates to access assessment.
In order to ease the administrative burden and
speed-up the process a number of arrangements are delegated to
the centre. For example, a Head of Centre (Head teacher, Principal
or other nominated person) acting on the advice of an Education
Psychologist or Specialist Teacher is empowered to grant additional
time up to a maximum of 25% of the examination time if this is
judged to be an appropriate arrangement to provide access to assessment.
In some areas the regulations go beyond the
current or proposed legislation. For example, the regulations
include arrangements for candidates whose first language is not
English. The use of bi-lingual translation dictionaries between
a candidate's first language and English, Gaelige or Welsh (without
an explanation of terms) is permitted in order to ensure that
they have access to assessment and qualifications.
Examples of some of the current arrangements
available including who they might be used for and how, is included
in Table 1.
Table 1
EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS
AVAILABLE
|
| Arrangement made | Example of Need
|
|
| Up to 25% Additional Time | A candidate with substantial learning difficulties. He is permitted up to 25% extra time in his multiple-choice examination.
|
| Additional Time above 25% | A blind candidate is using braille papers. There is a great deal of text to scan in some of the written A level papers and some papers also include many diagrams and tables. The school makes an application for, and the candidate is allowed, 100% extra time to complete her examinations.
|
| Practical Assistant | A candidate who uses a wheelchair cannot attend a field trip. The practical assistant collects specimens and brings them back to the laboratory. The candidate is credited with marks for planning, analysis and evaluation but does not get any marks for implementation because the practical assistant collected the data. The candidate does a laboratory-based experiment and derives implementation marks from the laboratory experiment.
|
| Prompter | A candidate with Asperger's syndrome has no sense of time. In the exam the prompter sees that the candidate is doing nothing. She taps on the desk to bring his attention back to the answer he was writing.
|
| Reader | A candidate with substantial reading difficulties is permitted the help of a reader. The reader reads the questions for the candidate.
|
| Amanuensis or Scribe | A candidate with severe cerebral palsy has no use in his hands. He cannot use speech recognition software because his speech is indistinct. It is too difficult for him to spell out each word letter by letter. He is permitted a scribe in all subjects except Modern Language writing papers, where writing in the language is being tested.
|
| Transcript | A candidate with dyslexia writes phonetically. The words are clear and understandable but it takes some time to decipher. The Examiner is assisted by the fact that a full transcript is attached to the script. She marks the original but refers frequently to the transcript for clarification.
|
| Word Processor | A candidate who cannot write legibly because she has severe dyslexia applies to use a word processor in examinations. It is her normal means of producing written work because her teachers cannot read her writing. She is allowed to use a word processor.
|
|
Over 22 other arrangements are currently available including
coloured overlays, supervised rest breaks, modified papers and
voice-activated computers.
To put all of this into perspective, it is necessary to appreciate
the size and complexity of the public examinations system and
the very tight timescales applying to the processing of assessments
and production of results. In 2003 over 26 million separate examination
scripts and items of coursework were submitted by students. Students
have a choice of over 64 qualifications at GCSE level and 54 at
AS/A level, an important fact as subject requirements must also
be taken into account when making special arrangements. GCE results
have effectively to be finalised only five weeks after the last
papers are taken. During 2003 awarding bodies processed and monitored
in excess of 392,500 special arrangements and special considerations.
This included over 20,000 applications for modified papers.
At present these arrangements are manageable, largely due
to the fact that the application and implementation of the actual
arrangements are undertaken by an institution on behalf of the
candidate(s). It would not be possible for awarding bodies to
deal with individual candidates on such a scale nor within the
time limits, particularly in view of the fact that approximately
40% of all applications are received after the respective deadlines
for special arrangements and special consideration. This volume
of late applications adds considerably to the pressure prior to
the issue of results. The desirability of the aim of further personalising
the approach has to be weighed against such practical considerations
based on current experience.
3. THE CURRENT
ISSUES—INCLUDING
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE WORK
WE ARE
CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING
IN RELATION
TO THE
ADVISORY GROUP
FOR ACCESS
TO ASSESSMENT
AND QUALIFICATIONS
AND THE
EXAMINATIONS MODERNISATION
PROGRAMME
The Advisory Group for Access to Assessment and Qualifications
In December 2003 a report on access to assessment and qualifications
was sent to the Chief Executives of all JCQ, Key Skills and Entry
level awarding bodies. Chief Executives were invited to discuss
the report within their organisation and respond to the report's
recommendations. As a result of support from the Chief Executives,
the JCQ and our members are currently working with the regulators
and other organisations to implement a joint action plan to ensure
that there is fair and appropriate access to assessment and qualifications.
Current joint action includes:
— Framing assessment objectives and modes of assessment
to ensure maximum inclusiveness and avoid creating unnecessary
barriers to access, including developing guidance (possibly including
checklists of "do's and don'ts") and examples of good
practice on developing accessible specifications.
— Training for key staff across the regulators and
awarding bodies in relation to the framing of assessment objectives
to ensure maximum inclusiveness. Team of trainers to be identified
and training to take place 2004-05.
— The revision of the JCQ regulations and guidance.
The consultation on the draft is scheduled for May 2004.
Action already completed includes:
— Jointly reviewing the procedures currently in
place for ensuring the production of high quality modified materials.
The RNIB has drafted revised guidance on behalf of and for JCQ
awarding bodies.
— Continuing to improve the consistency of arrangements
between key stage tests and external qualifications. A revised
mechanism for maintaining and improving harmonisation was agreed
31/03/04 by the regulators and JCQ.
The JCQ will continue to work with the members of the group
to develop and deliver the action plan.
The Examinations Modernisation Programme
Special arrangements and special consideration are seen as
key activities within the examinations modernisation programme.
The current systems and procedures are to be brought together
and by June 2007 there will be one system in place. The JCQ is
fully committed to this process and members are currently supplying
the information needed to action this development.
Guiding principles
There are two guiding principles that we believe must be
the mainstay of the assessment process:
— ustaining the value of all qualifications;
— Treating all candidates fairly.
The latter means treating all candidates with a similar disability
or range of disabilities in a comparable way which meets their
needs within a framework of provision designed to be fair to all.
The current regulations and guidance refer to the specific
arrangements required by individuals as a result of their disability,
using specific arrangements to meet specific needs. Each request
is considered on an individual basis but within a framework of
appropriate provision.
Any move to deal with each person in isolation will undermine
these principles and may well lead to unfairness for some disabled
students compared to other disabled students.
There is a distinct danger that those that will gain most
"benefit" from such a system will be those supported
by the strongest medical and/or legal opinion as opposed to those
with the greatest need.
4. OUR CONCLUSIONS
The JCQ remains committed to making appropriate special arrangements
for candidates with disabilities to enable them to access all
qualifications wherever possible. This includes reviewing the
effectiveness of our special arrangements in the light of concerns
from individuals and organisations. We feel that the current draft
extension to Part 2 of the DDA rightly excludes awarding bodies
that offer general qualifications. A number of groups have already
submitted evidence to the Joint Committee and have taken the stance
that examination boards, awarding bodies, and more specifically,
general qualifications should be covered by the extension to Part
2 of the DDA. In a number of responses there is the assertion
that the current system is not working but the reality is that
little evidence of this has been provided to the awarding bodies.
The awarding bodies continue to focus on arrangements in
relation to disabilities and needs and have developed a framework
that can deal with the large and growing demands placed upon it.
Prior to considering any change we must ask:
— What is the objective of including awarding bodies
that offer general qualifications—has a gap analysis been
carried out, and, if any gap has been identified, is this the
best way to bridge the gap in meeting these needs?
— Is the drive to include awarding bodies that offer
general qualifications workable, particularly in view of the logistics
that could be further complicated by dealing directly with individual
candidates?
— Could the addition of any proposed changes to
include awarding bodies that offer general qualifications help
to ensure that the draft extension to the DDA achieves the right
balance between securing the rights of individuals as opposed
to imposing unmanageable additional duties, systems and procedures,
and costs on awarding bodies that offer general qualifications
and the institutions that have to request and manage the implementation
of them?
In answering these questions we have concluded that dramatically
changing the system to one that entirely focuses on personalisation
and/or dealing directly with individuals has the potential to
seriously jeopardise what can be achieved:
— There are clearly deadlines by which requests
for special arrangements must be submitted to awarding bodies.
Many requests (approximately 40%) are made after the deadlines
and reach the awarding bodies close to the examination date. The
awarding bodies still manage to deal with the vast majority of
these, partly because there is a set of standardised arrangements
which can be used effectively. The greater the requirement for
personalised arrangements or the need to deal with individuals
as opposed to an institution, the greater the lead-in time will
have to be. Many of those who are currently accommodated at short
notice may not be able to take the exam at all.
— Prior to the awarding body processing a request
for one or more special arrangements for a candidate, one or more
members of staff at the school or college will have to have completed
the details needed to make the request. Greater personalisation
will result in teachers requiring greater processing time in order
to make the requests.
— The greater the legal obligation on the awarding
bodies to deal with individuals and/or personalised arrangements,
the greater the risk if they fail to do so. Therefore awarding
bodies will be forced into making more extensive checks, lengthening
the processing time for approving special arrangements and run
the risk of not being able to deliver in time for the exams.
These consequences illustrate that, if changed, the system
may become one that disadvantages candidates as opposed to creating
greater equality of opportunity.
Maintaining the current position of awarding bodies that
offer general qualifications will help all of the parties in the
current system in terms of ensuring the stability of the system
thereby enabling us to:
— Appropriately accommodate candidate's needs within
a framework of provision.
— Work with interested parties in further developing
and strengthening the regulations and guidance (including reviewing
the concerns of individuals and organisations).
— Further reduce bureaucracy.
— Develop consistent decision-making processes based
on good practice (including the sharing of good practice).
— Deliver the agreed action plans for Access to
Assessment and Qualifications and the examinations modernisation
programme.
Notes
1. The JCQ consists of AQA, CCEA, City & Guilds,
Edexcel, UCLES (including OCR) and WJEC, the six largest providers
of qualifications nationally, offering GCSE, GCE, AVCE, GNVQ,
AEA, Entry level, Vocational and Vocationally-related qualifications.
2. The JCQ has been formed to enable the member Awarding
Bodies to act together in:
— Providing, wherever possible, common administrative
arrangements for the schools and colleges and other providers
which offer their qualifications.
— Dealing with the Regulatory Authorities; in responding
to proposals and initiatives on assessment and the curriculum.
— Dealing with the media on issues affecting all
member Bodies.
April 2004
| 
