Exam Invigilation and Access Arrangements: A Practical Primer for Teachers

Every autumn, a new crop of form tutors, NQTs and cover staff gets handed an invigilation rota and a laminated instruction sheet, with barely any explanation of why the rules are what they are. Then a parent emails asking why their child “didn’t get their extra time” in a mock, or a Year 11 pupil turns up to a real exam wearing a smartwatch, and suddenly everyone is looking at you. This piece sets out what access arrangements actually are, how the application process works in most schools, what invigilators are genuinely required to do under JCQ rules, and where things commonly go wrong. It’s written for classroom teachers and tutors, not exams officers, so it stays at the level of “what do I need to know to not cause a problem,” rather than trying to replace the full regulations.

What access arrangements actually are

Access arrangements are adjustments agreed before an exam that let a candidate with a specific need — a learning difficulty, a disability, a temporary injury, a medical condition — show what they actually know without the format of the exam getting in the way. The JCQ is clear about the boundary here: an access arrangement changes how a candidate accesses the assessment, not what is being assessed. A scribe can write down what a candidate dictates, but cannot improve, correct or add to the candidate’s own answer. Extra time gives a candidate more time to process and respond, but doesn’t change the questions they’re answering.

This matters because access arrangements sit alongside, but aren’t identical to, “reasonable adjustments” under the Equality Act 2010. In practice schools tend to use the terms fairly interchangeably, and JCQ guidance treats them as closely related: reasonable adjustments are the legal duty owed to disabled candidates, and access arrangements are largely how that duty gets delivered in an exam setting. The key point for a classroom teacher is simpler than the legal distinction: a pupil doesn’t get extra time or a reader just because a teacher thinks it would help, or because a parent requests it. It has to be agreed through a formal process, with evidence, and recorded before the exam.

How the JCQ application process actually works

Who leads on it

In most secondary schools this sits with the SENCo. JCQ guidance is explicit that the SENCo, or an equivalent named member of staff in a further education setting, must lead the access arrangements and reasonable adjustments process. That doesn’t mean the SENCo does every piece of the work alone — subject teachers are usually asked to provide evidence of a pupil’s “normal way of working” in class, and the exams officer handles the administrative and booking side — but the SENCo owns the process and signs it off. If you’re a subject teacher wondering who decided a pupil gets a reader, the SENCo is your first port of call, not the exams office.

What evidence is needed

Applications go through JCQ’s online system, Access Arrangements Online (AAO). For arrangements linked to a learning difficulty — most commonly extra time — the standard route is a completed Form 8, built around an assessment carried out by a suitably qualified assessor no earlier than Year 9. That assessment typically needs to show a specific pattern of standardised scores in areas like processing speed, reading or writing, alongside evidence from teaching staff that the arrangement reflects the pupil’s normal way of working in lessons and internal assessments — not something introduced for the first time in the exam itself. For arrangements linked to a medical condition, sensory impairment or other complex need, the relevant route is generally Form 9, which needs supporting evidence from an appropriate specialist (for example a medical consultant, CAMHS or an educational psychologist) plus evidence of impact gathered by the centre.

The “normal way of working” requirement is one of the most misunderstood parts of the process by non-SENCo staff. A pupil can’t be given a scribe for their GCSEs if they’ve never used one in a mock exam or in class. This is why SENCos chase subject teachers for evidence throughout Years 10 and 11 (or the equivalent in a sixth form or college) rather than waiting until study leave. If you teach a pupil who struggles and you suspect they might need an arrangement, flagging it early — ideally well before the exam series it would apply to — gives the SENCo time to build a proper evidence file, rather than trying to retrofit one under deadline pressure.

Timing

Applications need to be in place ahead of the exam series they cover, and processing takes time — assessments have to be booked, forms completed correctly, and in some cases applications submitted for approval before results can be relied on for the live exam. Some lower-level arrangements can be approved and recorded at centre level without a full online application (supervised rest breaks are the clearest example — more on that below), but anything involving extra time, a reader or a scribe on non-delegated grounds needs to go through the formal AAO process. Don’t assume an arrangement can be sorted the week before the exam.

The common types of access arrangement

There’s a longer list of possible arrangements than most teachers realise, but a handful come up repeatedly in mainstream schools.

• Extra time. The most common arrangement, usually granted as 25% additional time. Higher percentages exist — up to 50% in less common cases, and beyond that only in genuinely exceptional circumstances with strong supporting evidence — but 25% is the default most centres will be dealing with day to day.
• A reader. Someone who reads the question paper (and, depending on the subject rules, parts of the candidate’s own writing back to them) for a candidate whose difficulty is with decoding text, not with the subject content. Readers aren’t available where the exam is specifically testing reading ability itself, since that would remove the thing being assessed.
• A scribe. Someone who writes down exactly what the candidate dictates, without prompting, rephrasing or correcting. This is a heavily regulated arrangement precisely because it’s easy to get wrong: a scribe adding polish or structure the candidate didn’t provide is malpractice, not support.
• Separate invigilation. Some candidates sit their exam away from the main hall — a smaller room, sometimes alone or in a small group — usually because of anxiety, a medical need, or because their other arrangements (a reader or scribe working aloud, for instance) would be disruptive to other candidates. It’s still a formal, supervised exam under full JCQ conditions; it isn’t a softer version of the exam, just a different room.
• Supervised rest breaks. Breaks during the exam, usually for candidates with a medical condition, chronic pain, fatigue or significant anxiety, where the clock stops (or the candidate’s time is otherwise protected) while they step away and are supervised. Unlike extra time or a scribe, this one doesn’t require a separate online application — it’s agreed and documented at centre level via the same Form 8/9 evidence process, and it still has to reflect the pupil’s normal way of working, not be introduced on the day.

Beyond these, schools also use things like word processors for candidates whose handwriting is a barrier, coloured overlays or modified/enlarged papers for visual difficulties, prompters for pupils who lose focus, and bilingual dictionaries for candidates who meet the specific JCQ criteria for English as an additional language. All of them follow the same underlying principle: they support access, they don’t inflate the mark.

What invigilators are actually required to do

This is where a lot of school-level training gets vague, so it’s worth being concrete. JCQ publishes a specific Checklist for Invigilators alongside its main Instructions for Conducting Examinations, and every invigilator is meant to be trained against it. Broken down by phase, the core duties are:

Setting up the room

Before candidates arrive, the invigilator checks that any charts or displays that could help with the subject have been cleared from the walls, that a clock all candidates can see is visible, and that a board or display shows the centre number, subject, paper number, and the actual start and finish times. They need access to the current year’s Instructions for Conducting Examinations (electronic or paper copy), any subject-specific instructions, and a seating plan — and their own phone needs to be on silent, for emergency use only.

Identifying candidates

The invigilator has to know the identity of every candidate in the room. For private candidates or anyone sitting the exam somewhere other than their usual centre, that means actually checking documentary evidence that the person in the seat is the person who was entered for the exam — not just trusting a name on a list.

Before the exam starts

Invigilators check the front of the question paper for what materials are actually authorised for that specific paper (calculators and dictionaries vary by subject), warn candidates they must hand over anything unauthorised, and are explicit about what counts: earphones or earbuds, mobile phones, MP3/4 players, smart glasses, tablets, watches and any other smart device. Candidates are told to check the paper details match what they expect, fill in their details in black ink, and not to open the paper until told. Then, and only then, they’re told when to start and how long they have.

During the exam

The attendance register has to be completed accurately, and there are specific procedures for candidates who arrive late. Invigilators are required to stay vigilant throughout to prevent cheating and distraction, and critically, they cannot give candidates any information about suspected mistakes on the paper (unless an official erratum notice has been issued) or about how to answer specific questions — however tempting it is to nudge a struggling pupil in the right direction. Question papers can’t leave the room during the exam, any candidate leaving temporarily needs to be accompanied by an appropriate member of staff, and any incident has to be recorded, not just remembered.

After the exam

Candidates are reminded to check their scripts are complete and clearly marked, and all scripts, papers and other material are collected before anyone leaves the room. Scripts get ordered against the attendance register and stored securely before being sent on.

Where access arrangements fit in

Invigilators are specifically expected to check with the exams officer in advance which candidates in the room have been granted arrangements, understand exactly what each arrangement involves and what materials that candidate is entitled to use — a bilingual dictionary, a coloured overlay, a modified paper — and make sure those candidates are correctly marked on the seating plan. In other words, an invigilator who doesn’t know a candidate has 25% extra time until that candidate is still writing after everyone else has stopped has already failed part of the job.

Common mistakes that put results at risk

JCQ distinguishes between malpractice (a deliberate or negligent breach of the rules, by a candidate or a member of staff) and maladministration (an unintentional procedural failure), but from a school’s point of view both categories can put results at risk, and both have to be reported. Heads of centre are required to notify the relevant awarding body immediately of any suspected or actual incident, whether it involves a candidate, a teacher, an invigilator or other staff — it isn’t something a department can quietly deal with internally.

The mistakes that come up repeatedly are rarely dramatic. They’re usually one of these:

• Unauthorised devices. Smartwatches and earbuds are the recurring problem, not phones — pupils are generally used to handing phones in, but forget or don’t realise a smartwatch counts, or that AirPods left in a blazer pocket are a problem even switched off.
• Untrained or under-briefed invigilators. If invigilators haven’t been trained against the current year’s checklist, or supply/cover staff are dropped into an exam room without a proper briefing, that’s a compliance failure on the centre, not the invigilator.
• Giving candidates help with the paper. Rephrasing a question, confirming an answer’s on the right track, or commenting on the exam content — even with good intentions — is not permitted, and it’s one of the more common ways a well-meaning member of staff accidentally commits malpractice.
• Access arrangements not properly recorded or communicated. A candidate getting extra time informally, without it going through the proper application and being reflected in the room’s paperwork and seating plan, isn’t a kindness — it’s an irregularity that can affect that candidate’s result and, in some cases, the wider exam’s integrity.
• Poor room administration. No visible clock, missing start/finish times on display, an inaccurate attendance register, or a question paper leaving the room mid-exam are all the kind of “small” administrative slips that JCQ treats seriously, because they undermine the fairness of the exam for everyone sitting it, not just one candidate.
• Discussing content afterwards. Candidates and staff talking about exam content once a paper has finished, while other candidates (in a different time zone, a later sitting, or with extra time still running) haven’t yet finished, is a well-known source of malpractice investigations.

None of these need bad intent to cause a real problem. A supply teacher who hasn’t seen the current checklist, or a well-meaning invigilator who answers “is this the right approach?” from an anxious Year 11, can trigger an investigation just as easily as deliberate cheating can.

Who to ask when you’re not sure

If you’re a subject teacher or tutor and something feels uncertain, there are two people in your school who should always know the answer, or know who does:

• Your exams officer is the person who runs the administrative and logistical side of exams: entries, room bookings, the seating plan, invigilator rotas and briefings, and liaison with the awarding bodies. If a question is about process, timing, room logistics, or “is this candidate down for extra time,” start here.
• Your SENCo owns the access arrangements process itself: whether a pupil qualifies, what evidence exists, and what exactly an arrangement entitles a candidate to. If a question is about whether a pupil should have an arrangement, or what a specific arrangement actually means in practice, start here.

If you’re ever handed an invigilation slot and haven’t been briefed on which candidates in that room have arrangements, that’s a legitimate thing to ask about before the exam starts, not something to guess at once you’re in the room.

Outside the exam room itself, giving pupils — especially those with an identified access arrangement — real practice under timed, exam-style conditions well before the actual sitting is one of the more useful things a subject teacher can do; it’s also part of what “normal way of working” evidence is built on. If you’re looking for structured practice material to use for that, Learnaroo Hub’s exam-prep resources are built with that kind of timed, subject-aligned practice in mind.