Every September, SENDCos and assessors brace themselves for the arrival of the updated regulations from the Joint Council on Qualifications (JCQ) on access arrangements and reasonable adjustments. For 2025–26, the changes go beyond technical tweaks; they signal a sharper focus on preparing young people for the world beyond exams.
For me, the most important statement in the new guidelines is:
“It is important that SENCOs consider and, where appropriate, implement access arrangements that will prepare candidates for the workplace.”
In a blog last year, I raised the question of how we can help students transition more smoothly into the workforce by not only addressing their immediate academic needs but also setting them up for a life-time of success and inclusion.
The message from JCQ could not be clearer. Access arrangements are not just about getting students through an exam hall. They are about giving learners the strategies and support they will carry with them into college, apprenticeships and, eventually, the workplace.
This year’s updates also tighten the requirements for evidence, particularly for extra time, and make subtle yet significant changes to processes such as data consent, exemptions, and rest breaks. It is a reminder that access arrangements are never static; they evolve in tandem with educational policy, workplace expectations, and the need for rigorous exam standards.
As SENDCos and assessors, how do we balance compliance with JCQ criteria while also ensuring that candidates leave school or college with transferable skills that are relevant in real life?
The challenge of evidence: why it’s getting tougher
If there’s one area that will test schools, colleges, and assessors, it is evidence. The 2025/26 updates raise the bar further, particularly around extra time, but also with subtle shifts for readers and scribes. And, honestly, I welcome this. In my work, I’ve seen how a “light touch” approach to evidence in some centres can lead to inconsistencies, while others drown in paperwork. These changes aim to strike a balance, but only if we as SENDCos and assessors interpret them correctly.
25% extra time
The changes here are significant. The SENCo (or assessor working within the centre) must paint a clear picture before testing even begins. In practice, this includes:
- Teacher observations across different subjects.
- Evidence from timed classwork and mocks.
- Notes on how the candidate uses existing support in lessons.
And there’s more. For applications made after 1 September 2025 (except GCSE resits), JCQ now expects:
- Samples of mock exam papers across relevant subjects, showing how the candidate uses the extra time.
- Teacher comments explaining not just why extra time is needed, but how it is used.
For SENDCos and assessors, this may feel like an additional layer of administration. However, it’s about improving the quality of the evidence base. Stronger examples from the classroom and mocks create a clearer picture of the need, ultimately making applications more robust.
Access arrangements are never static; they evolve in tandem with educational policy, workplace expectations, and the need for rigorous exam standards
This mirrors practice in the workplace. In my role as a workplace needs assessor, if I recommend adjustments for employees, it is not enough to record a diagnosis. I need evidence of how a difficulty plays out in day-to-day tasks and what strategies have been trialled. JCQ are asking for the same evidence.
Supervised rest breaks before extra time
Sitting in silence for extended periods can feel overwhelming, and extra time often prolongs the discomfort. Rest breaks give students breathing space and usually lead to a much more productive performance in the exam. This also reflects the kind of reasonable adjustments we see in the workplace, for example, allowing short breaks during tasks, or giving staff the flexibility to pause and reset.
Music and white noise
SENCOs should also consider alternatives that reflect what a learner might use in real life, such as assistive technology, listening to music or white noise, supervised rest breaks, or the use of a visual timer.
For some candidates with ADHD or autism, having quiet background music can provide the focus they need, just as they might use similar strategies in further study, apprenticeships, or the workplace.
Readers and computer readers
The 2025 document maintains the principle: if a candidate only needs to read occasional words or phrases, an exam reading pen is permitted. But here’s the subtle shift: JCQ are nudging us towards technology where appropriate.
That makes sense in the workplace, too. Most apprentices or employees with reading difficulties won’t have a human reader sitting beside them; they will use tech. Approving a computer reader is not just a compliance exercise; it’s helping learners practice with the tools they’ll rely on in future jobs.
Prove it, record it, mirror it
The evidence requirements are more rigorous this year, but the principle is simple: prove it in class, record it in Form 8 or 9, and mirror it in mocks. That’s not just about ticking JCQ boxes; it’s about ensuring the arrangement genuinely reflects the candidate’s needs and prepares them for life beyond exams.
Whether in schools, FE, or apprenticeships, the principle should be the same, look at the individual, gather meaningful evidence, and provide adjustments that genuinely remove barriers. Just as in the workplace, the test is not the paperwork itself, but whether the adjustment enables someone to demonstrate what they can do.
These changes reduce the risk of learners being left behind by technicalities and increase the chance that reasonable adjustments prepare candidates for the next step, whether that’s A-levels, an apprenticeship, or employment.
