Our websites:
Posted by Paul Nisbet on the 2nd March, 2020
SQA have published information on the number of requests for Assessment Arrangements in last year's external examinations. It gives an indication of the methods of support that candidates with disabilities or additional support needs are asking to use in exams.
The breakdown of requests for different types of Assessment Arrangement is in the table below but it's important to view these numbers with some caution because SQA caution that the numbers are not validated. For example, centres may request permission to use several methods of support in an examination, some of which may be for contingency; while the arrangements requested may not actually be used in the examination on the day. Therefore, SQA note that:
"the information presented should be viewed as summary information that provides minimal insight."
Nevertheless, the information is I believe still interesting to consider.
The number of requests for assessment arrangements and the number of candidates for whom arrangements are requested increased between 2018 and 2019, by 10% and 9% respectively.
|
| 2017/18 | 2018/19 |
|---|---|---|
| Number of candidates | 18,273 | 20,159 |
| Number of requests | 57,198 | 62,506 |
Extra Time and Separate Accommodation are the most commonly requested arrangements, followed by use of ICT by candidates to type up or answer questions (16,726 requests in total). The number of requests to use a word processor with spellcheck are almost twice the number of word processor without spellcheck.
Requests for Digital Question Papers (DQP) increased by 5%, to 6,014. The use of human support in the form of readers, scribes and prompter/practical helper continues and the fact that almost 10,000 requests for a human reader were made, compared to just over 6,000 for a DQP makes me ponder. Although we suspect that many centres request a human reader as contingency when asking for a DQP with a computer reader, 10,000 seems to me to be quite a large number and I do wonder how many of these candidates might be able to use the more independent option of a computer reader with digital paper. It would be interesting to carry out some research in schools to find out what candidates do actually use, when it comes to assessment arrangements.
| Assessment arrangements requested: | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | % Difference |
| Extra time | 44,111 | 46,920 | 6% |
| Separate accommodation | 35,098 | 39,045 | 11% |
| ICT with word processor with spellchecker | 10,118 | 10,852 | 7% |
| Reader | 9,342 | 9,884 | 6% |
| Digital question paper | 5,715 | 6,014 | 5% |
| ICT with word processor without spellchecker | 5,179 | 5,874 | 13% |
| Scribe | 5,715 | 5,818 | 2% |
| Coloured Paper | 2,964 | 4,071 | 37% |
| Rest period(s) | 2,716 | 3,078 | 13% |
| Prompter | 2,173 | 2,302 | 6% |
| Supervised break(s) | 1,616 | 1,918 | 19% |
| Enlarged print | 1,059 | 1,309 | 24% |
| Transcription with correction | 662 | 566 | -15% |
| Non standard paper size | 445 | 525 | 18% |
| Modified content | 389 | 451 | 16% |
| Non standard paper font | 246 | 388 | 58% |
| Transcription without correction | 334 | 375 | 12% |
| ICT with handheld spellchecker | 284 | 306 | 8% |
| Calculator | 248 | 298 | 20% |
| Enlarged certificate | 53 | 42 | -21% |
| Non standard paper orientation | 42 | 36 | -14% |
| Signed to candidate | 48 | 36 | -25% |
| Braille | 27 | 34 | 26% |
| Referral to Principal Assessor | 52 | 34 | -35% |
| Braille certificate | 25 | 30 | 20% |
| Candidate signs | 32 | 21 | -34% |
| Live presentation | 38 | 21 | -45% |
| Total | 128,731 | 140,248 | 9% |
| Any other arrangement(s) | 1,557 | 1,872 | 20% |
The system used to collect such data was not designed for statistical reporting purposes, and as a consequence, any reporting of such data should be viewed accordingly and presented alongside the appropriate data caveats.
The discrete list of options presented to centres do not contain all the options available to them. For example, a number of adjustments may be requested from the options presented alongside a request for adjustments which are not detailed in any of the discrete options (in the form of a free text field). This ensures candidates receive the adjustments appropriate to their circumstances but makes reporting challenging.
No free text fields have been recorded in the reporting data due to the associated data protection issues (as these fields can contain sensitive personal information). This means that some information on the assessment arrangements requested by a number of candidates is simply reported as ‘any other arrangement’.
Centres often submit multiple assessment arrangements within each subject/level request and also include contingency arrangements. Candidates may choose not to use the requested arrangements for their assessment or to sit the assessment. SQA do not hold information on whether assessments arrangements requested are used.
Finally, requests for assessment arrangements are made at the subject / qualification level rather than at component level. For example, a request for coloured paper in a Higher modern language qualification may be used for any (or all) of the components that involve a written assessment (‘examination paper’), but is unlikely to be required for a talking assessment component. The data recorded by SQA does not allow identification of the number of assessment components where each assessment arrangement request was used.
All of the above points combined mean that the information presented should be viewed as summary information that provides minimal insight.
10-week short study online course
Newsletter: join thousands of other peopleOnce a month we'll send you an email with news, research and thoughts, as well as training courses and free webinars you may wish to attend.
Our social media sites - YouTube, Twitter and Facebook