Every year, many schools find themselves under significant pressure during access arrangement season. Not because staff are unprepared or systems are ineffective, but because assessment pathways can gradually become reactive under the weight of competing priorities, timelines, and growing student need.
Over time, we’ve noticed a number of common patterns across schools where pressure tends to build earlier than expected, particularly around screening, evidence collection, and assessment timing.
In most cases, these challenges are not caused by a lack of care or a lack of expertise. They are usually the result of timing, process, and the difficulty of managing complex systems under pressure.
The schools that tend to navigate this process most smoothly are rarely doing dramatically different things. More often, they have simply built clearer assessment structures earlier in the school journey. Here are some of the most common pressure points we see, and the approaches that often help reduce the
Why Access Arrangements Feel More Complicated Than They Should
Access arrangements or exam arrangements exist to level the playing field for students with learning difficulties, disabilities, or other needs that affect their performance under standard exam conditions. In the UK, the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) sets out the requirements for evidence. In Ireland, the State Examinations Commission (SEC) governs equivalent processes for the Leaving Certificate and Junior Cycle.Â
Both systems require schools to provide evidence that is current, standardised and reflective of the student’s normal way of working. For many SENCOs and learning support teams, the operational challenge is not understanding the importance of this evidence, it is managing the systems, timelines, referrals, observations, and assessment processes needed to maintain it consistently across the school year.
What we often notice is that pressure builds gradually rather than suddenly. By the time exam deadlines become visible, schools may already be trying to:
- update older evidence
- organise referrals
- gather classroom observations
- coordinate assessments
- manage waiting lists
- support students already under pressure
The schools that tend to manage this most effectively are not necessarily better resourced. More often, they have simply created earlier and more structured assessment pathways that reduce the need for reactive decision-making later.
The Six Things Schools Most Often Miss
1.Screening happened too late in the secondary school journey
One of the most common patterns schools describe is that screening only becomes a priority once exam pressure has already started building.
JCQ guidance requires evidence to reflect a student’s current need and normal way of working. In Ireland, the same principle applies through the RACE process, where evidence is expected to demonstrate an established and ongoing need rather than a concern identified shortly before exams.
Where pressure often increases is when assessment pathways begin reactively rather than proactively. A referral is triggered because concerns have become urgent, not because a planned assessment point already existed within the school calendar.
The schools that tend to experience less pressure in this area usually approach screening earlier and more systematically. Whole-cohort screening at transition points, such as Year 7 or First Year, creates a baseline that can be monitored, revisited, and built upon over time
2. Evidence exists, but it does not build into a consistent picture
Access arrangement evidence is often strongest when it develops gradually across multiple points of assessment and observation. A single assessment result rarely tells the whole story on its own. What usually strengthens evidence is consistency across tools, contexts, and stages of the student journey.
One challenge many schools describe is that assessments may have been completed at different times, using different measures, with no clear pathway connecting the evidence together.
The result is that SENCOs can find themselves trying to bring fragmented information into a coherent picture under significant time pressure.
The schools that tend to reduce this pressure usually have clearer internal assessment pathways. Systems that define which tools are used, when they are used, how evidence is reviewed and how information builds progressively over time.
3.The evidence exists, but it no longer reflects current need
Another common challenge is that assessment evidence already exists, but no longer reflects the student’s current functioning. This is particularly difficult because older documentation may still appear useful operationally, even when updated evidence is required under current guidance.
Across both JCQ and SEC processes, the principle remains the same: evidence should reflect current need and present-day functioning rather than a snapshot from several years earlier. Where schools often experience increased pressure is when assessment becomes a one-time event rather than an ongoing process.
The schools that tend to manage this more smoothly usually routinely build reassessment and progress monitoring into their assessment systems, helping keep evidence current as students move through the secondary school journey.
4. Classroom and teacher observations are difficult to gather retrospectively
Standardised assessment data is only one part of the evidence process. Access arrangement applications also require schools to demonstrate that support reflects the student’s normal way of working in everyday classroom settings.
One challenge schools frequently describe is that teacher evidence becomes difficult to gather retrospectively under deadline pressure. General statements may reflect genuine concerns, but stronger evidence usually comes from structured observations gathered consistently over time and across subjects.
The distinction matters. The schools that tend to reduce pressure in this area often build evidence collection into normal teaching and review processes rather than requesting it only during access arrangement season.
Over time, this creates a more detailed and defensible picture of student need that already exists before deadlines arrive.
5. The referral process become reactive under pressure
Many schools continue to rely heavily on referral-driven assessment processes. A concern is raised. A referral is submitted. An assessment is arranged.
The difficulty is that concerns often emerge at the same point in the academic cycle, usually when assessment waiting lists are already growing, and timelines are becoming compressed. This can create a cycle where schools constantly feel they are trying to catch up.
The schools that often experience less pressure in this area tend to build screening and review points directly into the academic calendar, allowing needs to be identified much earlier and reducing reliance on urgent referrals later in the process.
The shift is subtle but important: the assessment becomes proactive rather than reactive.
6. The process depends too heavily on individual knowledge
In many schools, access arrangement systems are held together through the experience and organisational ability of one person, often the SENCO.
When that person is highly experienced, systems can function extremely effectively. But when workloads increase, staffing changes occur, or competing priorities intensify, the process itself can quickly become fragile.
One of the most effective ways schools reduce this pressure is by creating clearer internal systems around assessment timelines, evidence collection, referral process, review points, and the areas of responsibility
Not because professional judgement is unimportant, but because strong systems reduce operational pressure for everyone involved, including the SENCO.
What the Schools That Manage This Well Do Differently
It is worth being specific about this, because the answer is not simply “start earlier”, though that is part of it. Â The schools that navigate access arrangement season without crisis tend to have a few things consistently in place:Â
Whole-cohort baseline screening at Year 7 or First Year
Not just students who have already been flagged. Every student, using a standardised digital screening tool, at the point of transition into secondary school. This creates a baseline for every student in the year group, one that can be referenced, built on, and updated.
Clear re-assessment intervals
Students identified at Year 7 are re-assessed at Year 9 or Year 10, not because something has changed, but because current evidence is required. This is built into the calendar, not triggered by a crisis.Â
Structured teacher evidence collection.
Not a request in April for documentation of what happened in September. A consistent, term-by-term process for gathering and recording observation evidence across subjects.
Diagnosis when it is needed, not when it is urgent.
For students whose screening results indicate a need for further diagnostic assessment, referrals go in early. Schools with established relationships with qualified assessors or in-house assessment capacity can act on screening results without joining a waiting list in exam year.Â
Importantly, these systems are usually designed to reduce pressure over time rather than solve problems at the point they become urgent. The goal is not simply to gather more assessment data. It is to create a clearer and more sustainable understanding of student need throughout the school journey.
Because access arrangement evidence works best when it reflects what a school already knows about its students, not what it is trying to assemble quickly under deadline pressure.
How Education Elephant Supports Schools
The schools that manage access arrangement processes most effectively usually have one thing in common: assessment is built into the system long before pressure arrives.
Education Elephant supports schools in building those systems through whole-cohort screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic assessment pathways, and practitioner training designed around real school realities rather than reactive exam pressure.
SWIFT helps schools identify potential areas of need earlier through structured digital screening and standardised reporting, while the CCET qualification supports practitioners in developing in-house diagnostic assessment capability aligned with current JCQ and SASC guidance.
Because access arrangement evidence should reflect what a school already understands about its students — not what it is trying to assemble at the last minute.
