Home » Education and people who stammer in Britain » Schools and disability discrimination for pupils who stammer » GCSEs, A-levels and stammering/stuttering

GCSEs, A-levels and stammering/stuttering

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 12th February, 2026.

Exam boards are subject to the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) in respect of GCSEs, A-levels and similar.

Summary

Access arrangements in practice

Before summarising the legal position under the EqA, I should say something about exam board practice on access arrangements. Also schools sometimes have leeway to make adjustments outside of formal access arrangements. What I say here should be approached with even more caution than usual, as practicalities of access arrangments and exams are not something I know that much about.

“Access arrangements”

Reasonable adjustments to GCSEs, A-levels and the like are normally called “access arrangements” (unless perhaps it is something the school itself has discretion to do). The JCQ (below) says:

Access arrangements are agreed before an assessment. They allow candidates with specific needs, such as special educational needs, disabilities or temporary injuries, to access the assessment and show what they know and can do without changing the demands of the assessment. The intention behind an access arrangement is to meet the needs of an individual candidate without affecting the integrity of the assessment. Access arrangements are the principal way in which awarding bodies comply with the duty under the Equality Act 2010* to make ‘reasonable adjustments’.
Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk), page 13

JCQ regulations and guidance

Each year the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) publishes “regulations and guidance” www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/access-arrangements-and-special-consideration/regulations-and-guidance/, including for 2025/26 Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk).

The JCQ “regulations” do not have the effect of law. They are not binding on courts etc, and are subject to the EqA. The JCQ is a membership organisation formed by the largest Ofqual-approved exam bodies (below). There may be some differences between how different exam boards apply access arrangements.

Some broad points on practice as I understand it (but it’s not something I know much about):

  • It may be advisable to make enquiries into access arrangments a long way ahead, perhaps the start of the acadamic year before that in which the exams are to take place.
  • The school’s SENCo or exams officer etc will often need to apply for access arrangements well in advance of the exam.
  • The JCQ seems to expect the access arrangements to reflect the support given to the candidate in the school for some time previously (“normal way of working”). This may be a reason to consider them early. See, for example, para 4.2.5 of the Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk).
  • It may help that the child is being supported within the SEN framework, with any access arrangments being included in the pupil’s “plan” to build up skills.
  • There is scope under the JCQ guidelines to apply for adjustments other than those specifically covered in the guidance. I give examples of possible adjustments – in the context of universities and FE colleges – at Oral exams and assessed presentations, including adjustments>Examples of how assessments can be altered.

As regards stammering, STAMMA has a helpline stamma.org/get-support/talk-someone.

Extra time

Para 5.2 of Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk) sets out the JCQ’s practice on 25% extra time. Subsequent sections discuss the possibility of greater time that this, up to 100% extra. (It says “extra time of over 100% is likely to be counter-productive in terms of fatigue…”). There is an example specifically on applying for 100% extra time in relation to a stammer, in a modern languages oral assessment:

A candidate with a stammer

  • A Year 11 GCSE candidate who stammers cannot answer the questions in his GCSE Spanish Speaking assessment within the time allowed. Taking substantially more time to talk is his normal way of working. He stammers even more when there is a strict time limit for a speaking task or when he is judged on his words. He also stammers more on words he needs to say on demand, such as key exam vocabulary.
  • The SENCo completes Form 9 confirming that 100% extra time was applied in his recent mock GCSE Spanish Speaking assessment as well as providing feedback from his Spanish teacher. The SENCo requests 100% extra time to give the candidate the time he needs to work through his GCSE Spanish Speaking assessment, as he will invariably stammer during the assessment.
  • An online application for 100% extra time is automatically rejected by the online system. The SENCo refers the application to the relevant awarding body who will consider the application in light of the candidate’s needs.

Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk), para 5.4

Less formal arrangements within the school

Schools may have some flexibility allowed by exam boards, even without having to apply for “access arrangements”.

Example: If the oral exam for modern foreign languages is to be conducted by a subject tutor from the school, it may be possible to ensure this is a subject tutor known to the pupil, to enable a more relaxed atmosphere.

More generally, long-term preparation for a student can be very helpful.

Schools themselves have duties under the EqA, not just exam boards.

What qualifications does s.96 EqA apply to?

The rules considered on this page – in s.96 Equality Act 2010 (EqA) – apply to examination/awarding bodies which provide qualifications such as GCSEs, A and AS levels, and various other non-vocational exams, including Scottish and Welsh equivalents. The EqA calls these bodies “general qualifications bodies”. On this page I will call them “exam boards”. Examples include AQA, OCR and Pearson (previously Edexcel). Regulations set out details of the qualifications covered by s.96:

S.96 does not apply to National Curriculum Assessments, but there is guidance on access arrangements for those. For example, try an online search for key stage 2 access arrangements.

EqA duties on exam boards

Under ss.96-97 EqA, the full range of discrimination claims applies to exam boards as regards GCSEs, A-levels and such like. Though the reasonable duty is the best known, claims are not limited to this. Types of discrimination claim can include the following:

Reasonable adjustment duty (s.20 EqA)

The reasonable adjustment duty, below, is subject to limited exceptions called “specifications”.

Apart from that, unlike other EqA rules on exams (by universities and professional bodies), competence standards (below) are not excluded from the reasonable adjustment duty here.

Indirect discrimination (s.19-19A EqA)

Indirect discrimination is broadly where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) is applied generally, but puts people with a disability at a particular disadvantage, and is not sufficiently justified.

The PCP might be a particular competence standard, assessment objective, or time limit in an exam. Or might be the way an exam is conducted.

For the PCP to be lawful, the exam board must be able to show objective justification, ie that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It would be important whether the aim can be achieved in a less discriminatory way, and whether the aim is outweighed by the discriminatory effect on disabled pupils.

Under s.19A, it may now be possible to claim even if one does not have a disability within the EqA definition.

There is more detail, in the context of exams in further and higher education, at Oral assessments at university: the rules>Indirect discrimination (s.19).

Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA)

Discrimination arising from disability is unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of a disability, unless the exam board shows it is justified.

An obvious example is being marked down for something related to the stammer.

Again it is not unlawful if the exam board shows objective justification, ie that the unfavourable treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

There is a knowledge requirement, so the exam board would probably need to have been told of the disability.

There is more detail, in the context of exams in further and higher education, at Oral assessments at university: the rules>Discrimination arising from disability (s.15).

Other types of claim

Other types of claim are “direct discrimination” (s.13) for which there is no objective justification defence, “harassment” (s.26), and “victimisation” (s.27): More on types of claim.

Reasonable adjustment duty

The normal three limbs of the reasonable adjustment duty in s.20(3)-(5) EqA apply to exam bodies, with minor modifications. For stammering, the most important limb is normally the first, namely where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) – such as a time limit for an oral exam – puts the pupil at a more than minor or trivial disadvantage compared with non-disabled pupils. The exam board is required to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. The other two limbs of the reasonable adjustment duty relate to auxiliary aids and services, and physical features of a permises.

The reasonable adjustment duty on exam boards is similar to that on employers (detail at Reasonable adjustment rules: employment), in that the duty is owed to the individual (technical reason below) rather than being anticipatory (compare the two types of duty). However:

  • Unlike the duty on employers, “specifications” (below) made by Ofqual or (in Scotland and Wales) other designated bodies contain some specific exceptions from the reasonable adjustment duty on exam boards.
  • Unlike various other exams, for exam boards competence standards are also subject to the reasonable adjustment duty, not just how these standards are assessed. See below Competence standards are also subject to the Equality Act. Technically this is because in EqA Sch 13, para 9 applies para 4(1), but does not apply para 4(2)(3).
  • Unlike the duty on employers (Reasonable adjustment rules: employment>Employer’s knowledge – defence), there is no express defence for the exam board if it does not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and disadantage. Perhaps a court would say that what the exam board knew or could reasonably be expected to know should be taken into account in deciding what adjustments are reasonable, as indicated by the High Court (regarding different EqA provisions) in University of Bristol v Abrahart: Universities: Knowledge of disability>Abrahart. (The claimant must be an “interested disabled person” as defined in Sch 13 para 4(1), but this does not require the exam board to know of the disability etc.)

This reasonable adjustment duty for GCSEs, A-levels and the like is in EqA s.96(6), s.20, and EqA Schedule 13 para 9, which applies Sch 13 para 3 and 4(1). The technical reason for saying the duty is owed to the individual rather than being anticipatory is that Sch 13 para 9 applies para 3 “so far as relating to qualifications”. Therefore the relevant provision is para 3(c)(iii), which specifies the individual interested person, unlike para 3(c)(i) and (ii) which specify “disabled persons/students generally”. (On EqA Sch 13 para 3 more generally, as it applies to universities, see University and FE: the rules>Reasonable adjustments.)

“Specifications”: Exceptions to reasonable adjustment duty

Designated bodies have power to specify exceptions to the reasonable adjustment duty on exam boards (s.96(7)-(9) EqA 2010). These bodies are:

The regulator must publish any specifications on its website (SI 2010/2245, reg 2). Links to specifications are:

Some general specifications may be relevant to stammering, including on being exempted from an exam component, and grade boundaries and pass marks not being altered.

Of course, the fact that a particular adjustment is not exempted in the specifications does not mean it must be made. For adjustments not in the specifications, the normal test of whether it is a reasonable adjustment will apply.

Specifications provide exemptions from the exam board’s duty to make reasonable adjustments, but not from other types of EqA claim such as indirect discrimination (s.19) and discrimination arising from disability (s.15). Inclusion of something in a specification may perhaps be an argument (though not a conclusive one) that the objective justification defence applies in these other types of claim.

The Explanatory Notes to the EqA set out the background to specifications:

321. … Previously [ie before 2010], awarding bodies were not required to make reasonable adjustments to a competence standard, but there was some confusion as to what was a competence standard in these qualifications. Under these provisions it is the regulator that will make the decision, after consultation, about what cannot be reasonably adjusted and – as noted in paragraph 320 above – will be under specific duties in making that decision. This will create more transparency and consistency in the application of reasonable adjustments.
Explanatory Notes to EqA 2010 s.96

Competence standards are also subject to the Equality Act

What adjustments can be reasonably made is potentially constrained by the knowledge and skills (competence standards) being tested. For example, ability to speak a language cannot be tested in writing. However this assumes that the competence standards themselves are lawful. For GCSEs, A-levels and the like, these competence standards, ie what is being assessed, are also fully subject to the EqA (apart from “specifications”). Very broadly speaking, the competence standards themselves need to be justified and reasonable.

As the Explanatory note, above says, in practice it can be difficult to decide what is or isn’t a competence standard. For the types of exam considered on this page (GCSEs, A-levels and the like), that issue should not matter as protection under s.96 EqA does not distinguish between what is and isn’t a competence standard. Indeed, from the Explanatory note, it appears to be a deliberate choice of the legislator that it is not necessary under s.96 to decide or not whether something is a competence standard. (This contrasts with other exams, below, such as university exams where the reasonable adjustment duty applies to how competence standards are assessed, but not to what competence standards can be assessed: Oral assessments at university: the rules>Reasonable adjustments: exception for competence standards. However university competence standards are still subject to ss.15 and 19 EqA.)

Example: Assessing “fluency”

Broadly speaking, if “fluency” (whatever that means in the particular case) is being assessed in a way that disadvantages people who stammer, there would be questions of whether assessing it is proportionate under the “objective justification” test in s.19, whether marking down the particular pupil who stammers for lack of fluency meets the similar test in s.15, and whether what is being assessed should reasonably be adjusted (s.20) (above EqA duties on exam boards). These questions are technically separate, though a court may view them as similar. Assessing fluency will also be unlawful if it amounts to direct discrimination.

See further example on fluency, below in a modern languages oral exam.

Example: Assessing oral persuasiveness

If oral persuasiveness is being assessed, there would be again questions of whether assessing persuasiveness is justified/proportionate and reasonable (ss.15, 19, 20).

Assuming this is justified and reasonable, there would be a question – among other things – of whether it is justified and reasonable to insist that the assessment must be of oral skills, ie that speech (or speech only) be used.

Importantly, the same issues would also arise on any more detailed criteria being used to assess oral persuasiveness.

The legal reasoning for competence standards not being excluded from the reasonable adjustment duty here is that EqA Schedule 13 para 9 does not apply Sch 13 para 4(2) to general qualifications bodies.

JCQ on competence standards

JCQ guidance takes the view that adjustments to assessment objectives will not usually be reasonable:

“In most cases it will not be reasonable for adjustments to be made to assessment objectives within a qualification. To do so would likely undermine the effectiveness of the qualification in providing a reliable indication of the candidate’s knowledge, skills and understanding. There is no duty to make adjustments which the qualifications regulators have specified should not be made. As set out in Chapter 2, there is no duty to make adjustments to competence standards within Vocational Technical Qualifications.”

Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments 2025-26 (pdf, jcq.org.uk), p13. “Vocational Technical Qualifications” (see Chapter 2 of the guidance) evidently means qualifications covered by the different EqA rules on professional exam bodies.

This guidance is the view of JCQ, or the exam boards which comprise its members. However, it is not legally authoritative on the interpretation of the EqA.

The EqA is clear that since 2010, exam boards can be required to make reasonable adjustments (and other types of discrimination can apply) to competence standards, unless a specification by Ofqual etc says otherwise. In view of the statutory wording and the legislative history outlined in the Explanatory note above, I suggest that from a legal point of view, one need not pay too much attention to what is or is not a “competence standard” or “assessment objective”.

Example: A modern languages oral exam assesses “fluency” – expressly or in effect – in the sense of lack of pauses, not saying “eh…” etc. There is no comparison with, say, how a native speaker who also had a stammer might speak.

To challenge this is not undermining the effectiveness of the exam, whether or not one calls it a “competence standard” or “assessment criterion”. It is totally legitimate to ask whether this is something it is reasonable and justified for the exam board to assess in a GCSE or A-level, given its discriminatory effect on people who stammer or those with other speech disabilities.

For more on assessment criteria relating to fluency in a foreign language exam, see Oral exams and assessed presentations, including adjustments>Assessment criteria, eg fluency.

Code of Practice 2008

There is no Equality Act Code of Practice, or EHRC technical guidance, covering GCSEs, A-levels and the like. However, so far as I know, the 2008 Code linked below has not been revoked and so continues in force under para 3(2) of SI 2010/1736, even for discrimination after October 2010. Whether or not it remains in force as a statutory Code, courts might still be willing to look at it, in the absence of newer guidance. Of course the Code is not updated for changes in Equality Act 2010.

An example from the Code on responsibility for actions of employees specifically mentions a speech impediment:

“An Examiner working for a Scottish general qualifications body refuses to allow a pupil with a severe speech impediment to have extra time to answer in a French Speaking Test. The Examiner is employed by the general qualifications body so the body will be liable for the potentially discriminatory actions of the Examiner (in failing to make a reasonable adjustment), unless it could demonstrate that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent such actions…”

Para 3.32. Under the EqA, the qualifications body would be liable for actions of its employee under s.109(1), subject to the reasonable steps defence in s.109(4).

There are further examples from the 2008 Code relating to speech on my page about professional exams.

Disputes

Hopefully any issues will be sorted out through or with the school.

If a dispute cannot be resolved, any court claim against the exam board under s.96 EqA would go to the county court (or sheriffs court in Scotland): EqA s.114.

That is unlike claims by pupils against schools, under the provisions on schools in EqA Part 6 Chapter 1, which go to the relevant education tribunal.

Ancillary liability?

A school could also potentially be liable in respect of discrimination by the exam board under s.96 EqA – through discriminating as agent of the exam board (s.110), or helping discrimination by the exam board (s.112).

It seems that a claim against the school on this basis (s.96 with s.110 or 112) would – like the claim against the exam board – go to the county court (or sheriffs court): ss.110(6), 112(5). There might be a possible alternative claim against the school in the relevant education tribunal, for breach of the separate Part 6 Chapter 1 rules on schools.

Apparently this doesn’t work the other way round: the exam board could not be liable as an agent of the school under s.110, or as helping discrimination by the school under s.112. That is because of s.110(7) and 112(6).

Another possible ancillary liability – on the part of either the school or exam board – might be for causing etc discrimination by the other, within s.111 EqA. However, this is subject to the major caveat that they would need to have a relationship within s.111(7). S.111(9) specifies what court a claim goes to.

Comparison with other exams

For exams of universities and FE colleges, the reasonable adjustment duty does not apply to what competence standards are assessed, only how a competence standard is assessed. However, other EqA obligations are not limited in this way. So in particular, there there can be a claim under ss.15 or 19 EqA if discrimination – including a competence standard itself – is not objectively justified. See Oral exams and assessed presentations, including adjustments.

In the case of professional exam bodies a competence standard itself (ie what competence standard can be assessed) can only be challenged through a claim for indirect discrimination (s.19 EqA). The duty to make reasonable adjustments can apply to how a competence standard is assessed. There is an express exception from the reasonable adjustment duty if the body did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and disadvantage. See Professional exam bodies.

As regards employers there are no limitations on EqA liability specifically for tests or assessments by them. There is an express exception from the reasonable adjustment duty if the employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability and disadvantage.

Coming back to the GCSE/A-level exam bodies as discussed on this page, there are no particular limitations on EqA liability, except for specifications, above made by Ofqual or (in Scotland and Wales) other designated bodies.

Links

25th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2024