4.24 There are a number of inconsistencies regarding the current use of readers:

1. The lack of consistency in approach between GCSE English and Functional Skills English reading components may undermine public confidence in one or both of these qualifications, Parents, learners and schools may find it difficult to understand why different reasonable adjustments are available, even though both components assess the candidate’s reading ability.
2. There is an anomaly within current exemption guidance, which states that learners 'should be no worse off under revised arrangements than they would have been under previous arrangements'.²⁶ It is understood that this principle has been used to grant reading component exemptions to visually impaired candidates who cannot use Braille or modified papers, but who may be able to access parts of the reading component. This approach is not consistent with the other principles of exemptions, as candidates must normally not be able to access any part of a component in order to qualify for an exemption for that component. Also, the use of exemptions as a reasonable adjustment of last resort, where no other reasonable adjustment is available, does not seem to be compatible with this anomaly. This inconsistency may also undermine public confidence in the affected qualification.
3. In an everyday working and classroom environment, particularly where visually impaired learners do not attend specialist schools, Braille may not be taught or used. Visually impaired students may prefer to access written text via assistive technologies. In order to maintain public confidence it is important that the assessment context is consistent with learners’ usual ways of working as long as this does not undermine the assessment objective.

4.25 It is worth considering whether use of computer readers and reading pens should continue to be prohibited when a candidate’s ability to read is being assessed. There are two key points raised in support of the usage of computer/screen readers and reading pens during reading assessments:

1. Computer/screen readers and reading pens do not interpret text as a human reader may. Human readers can add a layer of vocal interpretation (nuance and meaning), resulting in reading assessment material being presented as if it were more akin to a listening assessment. Such interpretation could affect a candidate’s response and thus compromise the reliability of the qualification.
2. Assistive technologies allow for independence during an examination, whereas a human reader does not.

4.26 We propose that a specification is made which does not allow for the use of human readers during assessments that assess reading, but that could allow for the use of computer/screen readers and reading pens as a reasonable adjustment in assessments that assess reading. For Modern Foreign Language reading assessments it would be necessary for any computer/screen readers and reading pens to use the language being assessed.

4.27 This approach would ensure consistency across general qualifications. This should have a positive impact on public confidence. By continuing to prohibit the use of human readers for reading assessments, it would ensure that the qualifications continue to provide a reliable indication of the knowledge, skills and understanding of candidates. It would also reduce the extent to which disabled candidates are disadvantaged, as it would allow visually impaired candidates who cannot access modified or Braille papers the opportunity to demonstrate their skills, rather than having to apply for an exemption from the reading component.

4.28 This proposal would allow awarding organisations to make reasonable adjustments of a form currently not used. However, some visually impaired learners who are not able to use Braille, computer/screen readers or reading pens would remain unable to access reading assessments. The only reasonable adjustment available to them would be an exemption from the component that assesses reading ability.