Levelling up the Playing Field by Virginia Betts

                                        

 

I recently read an article in the Guardian where it ‘admits’ it had ‘massively exaggerated’ the number of students who had access arrangements in examinations this year. They had apparently double-counted and wrongly reported. They seemed to feel they needed to apologise for this ‘mistake’ in case some people thought it would be offensive to suggest that students who needed help to get through exams should get it. The idea that some students receive extra time, scribes, laptops or other additional support seems to stir up controversy – even in 2025, and the comment I read on the article predictably brought out the loonies and extremists – but also worrying comments from apparent educational professionals and psychologists. The attitude amazed me, and may explain why it is still, in reality, a very big fight to gain fair and equal access to examinations which are geared in favour of Neurotypical, able-bodied students in a system which has barely been revised since the Victorian era; where speed, time management and memorising useless facts by rote is the predominant way of testing ability. Sometimes I think the examination system bears little resemblance to real life.

 So, let me be very clear: Access arrangements are there to level up the playing field. If your brain is clever, but processes information in a different way; if you are clever, but words literally swirl around on the page; if you are clever, but you need a bit longer to process; if you are clever, but your brain cannot process words to spell correctly without analysing the shape of the word; if you are clever, but numbers look like hieroglyphics; if you are clever, but you broke your arm and can’t write; or you had a brain injury at birth making it work a bit differently – all of these conditions and more disable you if you are being forced to compete with those who simply just fit the ‘standard’ majority. The herd. 

 

The guardian article had also implied that originally, they may have implied that Private School parents were paying to get a diagnosis of conditions and so their cohort had a greater number of students receiving exam access. They ‘admit’ they mis-calculated. Now there are a number of things to consider here. Their initial estimate was that around 30% of students were receiving access arrangements and they now state it is closer to 16%. According to a study by Birmingham University in 2024, that figure is in fact closer to 40%. But if we consider those who are ‘officially’ diagnosed, it’s probably safe to say it would reflect in schools at somewhere between 20 and 30%. So not that far out in the first place then. Secondly, the idea that Private Schools had a large ‘SEN’ population may well be true. Many Private School pupils with additional needs have found that mainstream, or overcrowded and underfunded state schools do not serve them well. If their parents are lucky enough to be able to pay, or they are receiving funding for their most appropriate education, then it is likely that they will be in a Private School. But surely this is all the private business of the families? Why, then, the need to pacify the readers? Well – cue the comments section! 

 

Here are some of the reactions to this story:

 

A good deal of the negative comments focussed on the idea that parents, especially the Private School parents, were ‘playing the system’. There was the assumption that all the ‘GP’ parents knew how to get the diagnosis which would give their little darlings the ‘advantage’ over everyone else, and one even suggested that the private psychologists were only ‘so-called professionals’ who would give any diagnosis for the money… This is an extremely ill-informed response. Firstly, many parents of private school children are ordinary working parents who choose to send their children to those schools by making the sacrifice of perhaps a smaller house, or no holidays. I know this from lived experience. I sent my son to the private school where I taught for a few years. I have also taught at state schools, and he finished his education in the state sector. It’s one reason why I think parents should have the choice because the families are not always over- entitled or well-off – and many assisted places are enabled by those who do have the income to pay more towards the school. What I will say is that private schools in the past were not always the best at supporting or recognising disabilities and additional needs – a one-size-fits-all system was certainly the case in my day – thankfully I can see from my many private tutees that this is no longer the case. This may, though, be a reason why many private school parents have chosen to pay for assessments their school is not obliged to offer due to not being part of the state-run system. 

 

Secondly, of course, it certainly isn’t easy to get a diagnosis of any hidden disability. Waiting lists for ADHD for example are around at least two years’ long – not in time for those who get picked up in year 9 and then not allowed the provisions in mocks until year 10 in some schools, because these things do cost money in extra invigilators, or laptops for example. The professionals who give the diagnosis nearly always charge a fair fee for their time and expertise. They won’t give a diagnosis if it is not correct – this would be unethical and unprofessional. Some people balk at my hourly cost – forgetting the years of study, training, work, experience, and the time spent out of hours as well as doing the hour with the client. So professional fees are generally not excessive. But whatever the reason, we should not invalidate private assessments by professionals, nor should we invalidate people’s experiences. The NHS system is sometimes the only one ‘officially’ recognised anyway, but I don’t believe this should be the case, given the obstacles to diagnosis these days. 

 

The very idea though of playing the system, and extra time not being ‘fair’ on ‘normal’  students is ludicrous! Some of the comments I read: ‘I find in our area it is the medic parents who are wise to it… invariably they do not have any of these conditions, they are just not academic.’ … ‘it is not fair to the normal children.’… ‘it should be annotated on their grades that they got extra time so employers can see they had an advantage.’ NO! It allows bright people to pass the exams set for neurotypical brains. It levels up, so the extra time is really only giving them exactly the same chance as those people wired-up like the majority. It need not be in every subject. For example, I finished my 2.5 hour English O level papers in 1 hour but got the top grade. However, in maths, I did not finish in the time but failed it. If I had been awarded extra time, I would have passed because I probably had dyscalculia, and my brain did not process numerical data. My IQ is 142. My maths brain at the time was possibly around age 10! (note: I passed it aged 28 when my brain caught up, I had real-life money experience, and I had a good teacher – but numbers still look like gobbledygook!) 

 

The other comments were even more harmful. Here are some of them: ‘you’re literally giving a leg up to someone because they’re retarded. Let the retards fail. That’s their grade. They’re not as capable as everyone else, and that’s fine…’  ‘every normal parent – my kid’s not got adhd – he’s just thick.’ Well Mr Bigot, may I introduce to you the autistic and adhd and irlens teachers, lawyers, detectives, doctors, artists, writers, CEO’s, computer specialists, scientists, mathematicians, wartime code-breakers, who are just that little bit more ‘capable’ than you and who LITERALLY (in the correct sense) help you in your life. You depend on those people. But then I read later that this person is an anti-vaxxer, and he did suggest to me that ‘women having to work is just one more negative consequence of women’s libbers and feminism’, so I think we can discount his opinion straight away. However, there were still a number of people who seemed to think it was unfair to aid those with disabilities. I wonder if they would try to tell a wheelchair user to walk down the stairs in a fire because it would be unfair on those who could walk to have to do it? 

 

I hope I have made my point clear though – if ‘there weren’t all these conditions in my day’ you are wrong. There were. But sadly, you just had to get on with it – and to that end, how many people missed out on fulfilling their potential? How many doctors, lawyers, great entrepreneurs etc did we NOT have because we thought that everyone should be the same? 

 

If you think being genuinely fair is unfair – think again; think outside your narrow little box, and make the world rounder.