Sam Hudson
Eyebrows have rightly been raised about the growing disparity between private and state schools in extra-time arrangements in exams.
Some argue that it is an unfair advantage which threatens to exacerbate existing disparities in attainment between the private and state sector.
Others believe it simply reflects a growing proportion of pupils with genuine special educational needs (SEND) in the private sector.
But these arguments overlook a greater problem facing those pupils in the state system: getting the right service in the first place.
It can be hard to identify children with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs). In the state system, this situation is only compounded.
Larger classroom sizes, fewer staff, and a dearth of specialist training all make it harder to pick out struggling students early on.
Assessments are no silver bullet either.
It is common for students with SpLDs with other compensatory strengths to fall within the normal distribution of results.
As these students seemingly compare well with their peers, their needs then continue to go unaddressed.
Even if a student in the state system has their needs identified, there are yet more hurdles that must be cleared before accessing extra-time.
Typically, appeals for extra-time require a formal diagnosis by an educational psychologist.
A recent report by the Children’s Commissioner found that 41 per cent of children with neurodevelopmental disorders who used community health services waited two or more years from the time of referral for their diagnosis. Two or more years!
This often means students in the state system miss out on extra-time for important exams, such as GCSEs.
Long wait times can also be circumvented by seeking a private diagnosis. But this only stacks the deck further in favour of those in the private system and the funds to pay for it.
In 2020, my (adult) assessment by an educational psychologist cost £675. Since then, a combination of inflation and demand from a crippled NHS have pushed prices even higher.
It is now difficult to find assessments for less than £800.
Such a cost is, obviously, out of reach for many parents in the state system. Furthermore, a lengthy and uncertain diagnosis timeline makes it difficult for working parents to take the time off work necessary to support their children.
My own childhood experience is testament to these obstacles — and what can be achieved by removing them.
I spent my first years of education in a Swiss state-run kindergarten in Zurich.
Unsurprisingly, for an extremely wealthy city in a very wealthy country, classroom sizes were small (well below the UK primary school average of 27) and teachers were trained to identify students with SpLDs.
A teaching assistant noticed something was amiss with my physical coordination, and I was referred to the children’s hospital.
There, I received my diagnosis for dyspraxia. I doubt my needs would have been identified so quickly had I lived in the UK for that period of my life.
The disparity in extra-time provision between the private and state systems is not new.
As is so often the case with public services in the UK, it is simply the culmination of cuts to funding pursued a decade ago.
Average classroom sizes have increased. Teaching assistants have been cut. And NHS wait times have been stretched.
The private education and healthcare systems have, naturally, been insulated from these policies.
With the pupil-teacher ratio in state schools now almost double that of the private system, it is unsurprising that many students with SpLDs are falling through the cracks in the state system.
Diagnosis is, of course, only part of the equation. Students with SpLDs also typically require additional, specialist support.
But provision for special educational needs (SEN) support has come under scrutiny recently.
A National Audit Office report found that though real terms funding has increased for SEN provision, this has not delivered better outcomes and is driving many local authorities to bankruptcy.
Although they are far from a complete solution, extra-time and other assessment-related mitigations are an important and cost-effective way of addressing some of the challenges associated with SENs.
In the meantime and when resources are so limited, the government should prioritise addressing the diagnostic side of the problem.
Smaller classroom sizes, more teaching assistants, and the provision of specialist training will help all students – not just those with SpLDs.
Equally, there is room for reform within healthcare provision.
As the Children’s Commissioner has recommended, delivering SEN health services within schools would help mitigate some of the problems associated with long wait times for diagnoses.
It would remove the need for working parents to take time off work to support their children through the process.
This could help speed-up the diagnostic process by ensuring children receive the earliest possible appointments – not ones which align with busy parents’ schedules.
However, this is still no substitute for increasing funding and the number of appointments.
The gap in extra-time provision between the private and state system is not a new development.
It is not simply an innocent result of more parents opting to send children with SENs through the private system.
Nor is it necessarily an example of private schools “gaming the system”.
It is, unfortunately, just yet another sad indicator of how previous governments have deliberately neglected the state education system, and the consequences of that failure.
Sam Hudson is a freelance reporter, who tweets @sufferingnatsci.
