JCQ AARA March 2026 Update: What Changed, What Still Applies, and How to Evidence Normal Way of Working with Confidence

In March 2026, JCQ issued a mid-year amendment to the Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments (AARA) 2025/26 document. For SENCos, ALNCos and Access Arrangements Coordinators already deep into applications for the summer series, a mid-cycle change is never ideal — and JCQ has acknowledged as much, committing to give schools a full year’s lead time on future updates and skipping the usual September 2026/27 release while they review how they consult and communicate.

So what actually changed? What stays exactly as it was? And — given the summer exam window is now close — how do you evidence a candidate’s normal way of working (NWoW) with real confidence, particularly where assistive technology is involved?

Here’s the practical breakdown.

What actually changed in March 2026

JCQ has made three specific amendments to the 2025/26 AARA, plus added significant new exemplification around evidence for 25% extra time applications. All three changes are live immediately and apply to the March 2026 version of the document.

1. The Introduction has been softened

References to access arrangements “preparing candidates for the workplace” have been removed from the Introduction. JCQ has clarified that the fundamental requirement is to implement reasonable adjustments which remove or reduce barriers in assessments, so candidates can demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding.

This is a philosophical tightening rather than a practical one. Thinking about long-term independence and technology use is still good practice — it just isn’t the regulatory purpose of an access arrangement. The job of the arrangement is to give the candidate fair access to the assessment in front of them.

2. Section 5.1 — Supervised rest breaks before 25% extra time

The previous wording required SENCos to “trial and exhaust” supervised rest breaks before applying for 25% extra time. That created awkward cases where exhausting rest breaks simply wasn’t practical or appropriate — particularly for candidates whose primary difficulty was processing speed rather than fatigue or concentration.

The revised wording now states that where a candidate has an impairment other than a learning difficulty, the SENCo should consider the option of supervised rest breaks before applying for 25% extra time. It’s a softer test — and JCQ has explicitly restored professional judgement to SENCos, with decisions informed by classroom observations, teacher feedback and the candidate’s own views.

If you have any pending Form 9 applications where you were documenting rest breaks as a precondition, review those entries in light of the new language.

3. Section 5.16 — Alternative room with 1:1 invigilation

The clarification here is about purpose. Use of an alternative room with one-to-one invigilation applies where the candidate has a serious medical condition — examples given include frequent seizures, Tourette’s syndrome, or significant behavioural issues — which would disturb other candidates in the examination room.

The focus is on the impact on others in the exam room, not the needs of the individual candidate in isolation. SENCos, supported by senior leaders, should exercise professional judgement in deciding when 1:1 invigilation is required.

New: worked examples for 25% extra time evidence

Alongside the three amendments, JCQ has published supplementary guidance with worked examples and a clear message: when collating evidence to support a 25% extra time application, focus on the quality of evidence, not the quantity. A small, representative sample is sufficient — a full subject portfolio is not expected.

The exemplification covers:

• A GCSE candidate studying nine subjects — one marked assessment from an extended-writing subject, one from a numerical subject, and one from a subject with a different format (e.g. short-answer MFL).
• A three-subject A-level candidate — one marked assessment per subject.
• Level 3 vocational candidates — one to two marked assessments across the qualification.
• Level 2 candidates studying mixed qualifications — one marked assessment from either.
• Resit and transition cases — existing Form 8 or Form 9 evidence may be carried over, with discretion to add further supporting evidence if the assessor judges it helpful.

Private candidates are covered separately with their own evidence options: past-paper assessments, working logs, short timed tasks, and samples of work showing difficulties or support strategies.

What still applies — the unchanged foundations

It’s easy to read a mid-year update and start wondering what else has moved. The answer: very little. The core architecture of the 2025/26 AARA stands.

• Normal way of working remains the foundation. Every non-delegated arrangement must reflect how the candidate routinely works in class and in internal assessments. This has not changed.
• Form 8 Part 1 must not be a “skeleton.” This 2025/26 requirement still applies. Part 1 must include teacher feedback and evidence of the candidate’s NWoW before the assessment takes place, regardless of whether a centre-based or external assessor is used.
• Parent comments remain excluded from Form 8 Part 1 and Form 9 Part 1. Parent voice can sit elsewhere in the evidence picture, but not in these sections.
• The 22 centre-delegated arrangements are unchanged. Supervised rest breaks, a word processor (with spelling and grammar check disabled), bilingual dictionaries, coloured overlays, prompters, separate invigilation within a same-day sitting and the rest remain centre-delegated. The SENCo, supported by senior leaders, determines appropriateness locally.
• Technology is still JCQ’s preferred route. The 2025/26 document, unchanged in this respect, encourages centres to consider computer readers, speech recognition software and word processors ahead of human readers and scribes where a candidate can use the technology competently.
• The consent forms withdrawn in 2025/26 are still withdrawn. The Candidate Personal Data Consent Form and the Data Protection Confirmation form remain removed from the process, with consent now captured through AAO.

If your policies and procedures were aligned to the summer-2025 AARA release, the March 2026 amendments require only targeted edits, not a rewrite.

How to evidence normal way of working with confidence

NWoW is the piece that generates most SENCo anxiety — particularly now that Form 8 Part 1 must stand on its own feet with teacher feedback and evidence included from the outset. The March 2026 exemplification is actually a gift here, because it tells you explicitly what “enough” looks like.

Three principles to work to:

Quality beats quantity

One marked mock paper showing clear use of the arrangement, with a short teacher comment explaining why the candidate needs it and how they use it, is worth more than a folder of thin evidence. JCQ has said this plainly in the March 2026 guidance.

Evidence the arrangement in use — not just the difficulty

The candidate’s need is one half of the picture; the arrangement genuinely making a difference is the other. Use a change of pen colour or a different font to mark the 25% extra time portion of a mock script. Ask subject teachers to note whether extra time, a computer reader or a word processor improved the completeness, accuracy or quality of the work. Invigilator logs from internal assessments are acceptable evidence.

Use a simple teacher proforma

A short, standardised sheet with three prompts — did the candidate require the arrangement, did they use it effectively, did it make a measurable difference — gives you clean evidence across subjects with minimal teacher burden. Add a brief candidate comment where age-appropriate.

For private candidates, the evidence can look different: work logs, timed tasks set by the centre, past-paper extracts with time markers, and samples showing legibility, spelling or dictation use. The standard is the same — a coherent picture of how the candidate works, not a portfolio.

Key points around assistive technology

Assistive technology is where NWoW evidence really has to do the heavy lifting, because the arrangement is only valid if the candidate actually uses the tech as part of their routine way of working.

A few practical pointers for 2025/26, which the March 2026 update has not changed:

Computer readers

Still a non-delegated arrangement. An application must be processed through AAO — Form 8 if extra time or a scribe is also needed, Form 9 if a computer reader is the only arrangement or where the candidate has a current EHCP/IDP. NWoW evidence should show the candidate using a computer reader in class and in mocks, not just having access to one.

Exam reading pens

Where a candidate only needs occasional words or phrases read aloud, an examination-compliant reading pen is permitted without an AAO application. The pen must be an examination-compliant model without dictionary, thesaurus or data storage functions — the C-Pen Exam Reader 2 is the most widely used compliant device in UK exam rooms. Make sure the candidate has used the pen routinely in class before exam day.

Word processors

A word processor with spelling and grammar check disabled remains a centre-delegated arrangement where it is the candidate’s NWoW. No AAO application is required — but the SENCo is still responsible for being satisfied that the arrangement reflects how the candidate routinely works.

Speech recognition and dictation software

Still requires Form 8/8RF. NWoW evidence should show the candidate dictating extended work with the same software they plan to use in the exam, ideally in timed conditions.

Train, don’t just provide

This is not a new rule, but it is the single biggest reason applications fail inspection. The candidate must have had enough training and supervised practice to use the technology confidently and competently. A computer reader issued the week before mocks is not part of NWoW — it’s a workaround.

A short checklist for the next few weeks

Before the summer exam window closes in, a quick audit pass is worth the hour it takes:

• Review any Form 9 applications that referenced rest breaks being “trialled and exhausted” — re-frame to reflect the softer “consider” wording where appropriate.
• Audit your Form 8 Part 1 entries for anything that reads as skeletal — add teacher comments and NWoW evidence where needed.
• Check that assistive technology arrangements are backed by real classroom and mock evidence, not just a policy entry.
• Confirm that any 1:1 invigilation cases have documented reasoning about disturbance to other candidates, not simply candidate needs.
• Keep a representative sample of marked assessments accessible for inspection — quality over volume.

A final word on timing

JCQ’s commitment to a full year’s lead time on future changes is a practical win. The trade-off is no new AARA release in September 2026/27 — so the March 2026 version is the document to work to until JCQ signals otherwise. Keep an eye on the monthly JCQ newsletter for confirmation of timelines, and contact your awarding organisation directly for any qualification-specific queries that fall outside the core AARA guidance.

The mid-year update isn’t a handbrake turn. It’s a small, sensible set of clarifications — the bones of the 2025/26 framework are unchanged. Solid NWoW evidence, honest professional judgement, and a technology-first mindset where the candidate can use it confidently will carry you through the summer series without surprises.