Should people with Dyslexia (or anybody for that matter) get extra time in exams?

[Red]

I think it's fairly obvious that somebodies marks will improve if they are given more time to spend answering questions...

Exam conditions are the same for everyone so that everybody's results/ability can be compared. Giving somebody different exam conditions because they are slower than others is extremely unfair and renders exams pointless.

Of course their marks are going to be better if you are given extra time. However, this just brings them up to the same level of people without dyslexia. It is a registered disability and if I had it, I would want the extra time. However, I think each person should be assessed individually as it might not be as severe as in other cases.

[The Don]

Of course their marks are going to be better if you are given extra time. However, this just brings them up to the same level of people without dyslexia. It is a registered disability and if I had it, I would want the extra time. However, I think each person should be assessed individually as it might not be as severe as in other cases.

So are you also in favour of giving people with lower IQ's extra time too? that just brings them up to the same level as people with higher IQ's... We could also do what @FlyingJesus; mentioned and give people who are bad at maths calculators so that they are equal to those who are more capable...

[Kardan]

People with a broken arm/blind don't write for themselves, they receive a scribe, they have extra time because it takes longer to communicate with someone else and tell them what you want them to put than writing it yourself. People with dyslexia have nothing preventing them from writing or doing anything themselves, they simply take longer than other people to read/write. Since the exam time is restricted so that everybody has the same conditions as each other, giving them extra time is unfair.

More time doesn't always equal better marks but it usually does. If you give a crap person an extra hour in an exam they most certainly will have the conditions to do better than if they didn't receive that extra time, they will have more time to plan out their answers and respond to the questions, so yes, time does usually equal better marks.

This is the thing, they don't have the extra time for planning their answers, they are using the extra time to read the question. Just like the people with a broken arm are spending the extra time talking to their scribe, not planning their answers.

[The Don]

This is the thing, they don't have the extra time for planning their answers, they are using the extra time to read the question. Just like the people with a broken arm are spending the extra time talking to their scribe, not planning their answers.

I'm pretty sure they can use the extra time for whatever they like lol. Again, should we give people who don't have a disability but are rubbish at reading extra time?

[Kardan]

I'm pretty sure they can use the extra time for whatever they like lol. Again, should we give people who don't have a disability but are rubbish at reading extra time?

No, we shouldn't.

People with a registered disability should be given extra time if it has an effect on their exam work in such a way that it does not reflect their intelligence.

[Red]

So are you also in favour of giving people with lower IQ's extra time too? that just brings them up to the same level as people with higher IQ's... We could also do what @FlyingJesus; mentioned and give people who are bad at maths calculators so that they are equal to those who are more capable...

Obviously not but they have a registered disability, not a lower IQ :S They have the knowledge, they just need a little more time to process their thoughts and put it down on paper.

[The Don]

No, we shouldn't.

People with a registered disability should be given extra time if it has an effect on their exam work in such a way that it does not reflect their intelligence.

Giving them differing exam conditions doesn't truly reflect their capability. Exams are timed for a reason, if only knowledge was important, there wouldn't be a time limit. Since the time taken to read/write is a key factor in exams, it is unfair to give people with dyslexia bonuses. If they take longer to read/write, it should be reflected in their marks, the same way as people who are bad at spelling lose marks, or how people who read slowly but aren't diagnosed with dyslexia take longer yet get no extra privileges and therefore lose marks. It's like saying people with Asthma should be given a head start in a marathon.

[Kardan]

Giving them differing exam conditions doesn't truly reflect their capability. Exams are timed for a reason, if only knowledge was important, there wouldn't be a time limit. Since the time taken to read/write is a key factor in exams, it is unfair to give people with dyslexia bonuses. If they take longer to read/write, it should be reflected in their marks, the same way as people who are bad at spelling lose marks, or how people who read slowly but aren't diagnosed with dyslexia take longer yet get no extra privileges and therefore lose marks. It's like saying people with Asthma should be given a head start in a marathon.

If people take longer to read/write it will be reflected in their marks. Generally people with dyslexia get lower marks on average than people without dyslexia - even with the extra time. Giving dyslexics extra time allow them to perform on the same level as non-dyslexics - it doesn't mean they will get better or even similiar grades, it just makes the system more fair.

[Kyle]

I don't see how you can justify giving someone extra time in say an English exam where their ability to read and write is being assessed. It just means they'll end up with a higher grade than they're capable of. Sure they've been knocked back by their condition but if you're being hired by a newspaper because of your english language exam result they're assuming you can read and write to that standard which simply is not true.

Any employer that hires people on the basis of their exam results alone is a complete moron and even if a dyslexic wanted to apply to a newspaper, they'd more than likely have to take their work home with them to get it finished for the right deadlines - something which very few bosses would have any qualms with. So long as they get it done to a similar ability to a non-dyslexic, it shouldn't matter that it took a little more of their own time. They applied for the job so they should be willing to give up their time if they know they're going to have trouble. Exam conditions are seldom - if ever - actually applied in the world of work so there is no real reason for a dyslexic to be penalised if they struggle to process the wording in an exam so are slower because of their disability.

Pretty sure people who aren't good at maths don't get given calculators and people who can't draw aren't given stencils of A-grade work in art exams, so no there is no reason whatsoever why dyslexic people (which is essentially just being bad at reading and writing) should be given bonuses for not being as good as other people. Personally I think it's utterly awful that we focus so much on bringing up the weak to an acceptable level while totally ignoring talented people who could go so much further if they weren't held back by state inhibitions

Those comparisons aren't even remotely like giving a dyslexic extra time. Giving a stencil of an A grade art piece would be equivalent to giving a dyslexic a block of text and telling them to copy it for an A... It's not that they're 'not as good' as others, it's that their brain is wired completely differently so they can't improve where others can. If somebody without these neurological limitations wants to take some time to improve their reading/writing speed then they are perfectly able to do so, whereas that sort of thing isn't within a dyslexic's power.

This, I don't understand exactly why a medical sounding term has been applied to people who just aren't good at writing or reading. I can tell you, that if there was a term for those who are bad at mathematics then I would certainly fall under it's classification - even the most simple sums I simply cannot struggle despite having an amazing teacher for a period of 5 years. I'd also add that until a certain year in Primary School, I was absolutely terrible (one of the very bottom) at English and writing, pretty much everything.

As for genuine disabilities, I think it's sensible that somebody who has arm trouble or mobility issues is given extra time, yes.

You may think that some people are feigning dyslexia as an excuse for their poor reading/writing but in many cases it's because - like you with your maths - no matter how good the teaching is, people can't simply learn their way out of their thinking style. Dyscalculia is actually a very real disability that affects many with maths and, if diagnosed, you too could have had extra time in your exams to give you a little more of a chance to comprehend the problems you were presented with. If you were told from an early age that your maths problems meant that you were entitled to more time in maths exams would you not take it, if you thought it might level out the playing field between you and those that aren't innately inhibited by such a disability?

If somebody breaks their arm they aren't going to be able to work at their normal pace so it's only fair they get either a scribe (which is the usual case) or extra time as it makes up for them taking longer compared to how they usual work and unlike dyslexia, a broken arm is only temporary and to not give them extra help would mean their grades were not a true representation of what they are capable of.

What about dyspraxics? Their normal pace isn't fast because they have a disability that affects their motor movements. It's also not temporary!

I think it's fairly obvious that somebodies marks will improve if they are given more time to spend answering questions....

Actually not really. If someone hasn't taken the time they should have taken to revise the material required then even if they're given extra time they're gonna come unstuck and not have enough to write about anyway. Many dyslexics don't have the luxury that some have that is to be able to easily read a block of text and mentally construct an answer so they're given extra time to enable them to do so.

So are you also in favour of giving people with lower IQ's extra time too? that just brings them up to the same level as people with higher IQ's... We could also do what FlyingJesus mentioned and give people who are bad at maths calculators so that they are equal to those who are more capable...

A calculator is unlikely to help somebody who is inherently bad at maths because they're not going to know what they need to punch in to get the right result. What kind of level of exam are we talking? For very low level maths, perhaps, but not for the higher stuff. I'm no maths genius though, perhaps @Kardan; can shed a little light on the usefulness of a calculator in that situation.

I'm pretty sure they can use the extra time for whatever they like lol. Again, should we give people who don't have a disability but are rubbish at reading extra time?

There is, I agree, quite a thin line separating those that really do need the extra time and those that take advantage of it but, as a dyslexic will have extreme difficulty training themselves to read and comprehend text compared to a normal person, it's fair that they're given a small boost so that they are on par.

No, some 'dyslexic' people (those that have difficulty in other areas but still qualify for the extra time) don't need it, but quite a few of them do, so to take the option away from them would mean that they'd be unable to show their true potential because they're hindered by requirements they can't meet due to their neurological makeup.

Slow readers can improve their reading speed - something that a dyslexic that has this type of problem cannot do. The same goes for your IQ argument - intelligence can be improved with training so those that simply haven't bothered (as opposed to those that physically can't) improve shouldn't be given a boost... If you want to start a nature-nurture debate on intelligence, though, then i'd be happy to continue that train of thought in a new thread.

[GirlNextDoor15]

come on lol. there's too much to consider. so, why do you narrow it down to dyslexia? the next thing people are gonna talk about might be those who suffered other diseases. but believe it or not. there's not much right or wrong here. it's just to win the votes. and i don't see the point of this argument.