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

[HotelUser]

I think if you coddle folks through Highschool (school from the ages of 15 to 18), then if they move on to post secondary education they wont be prepared at all. Already after having finished my first semester in University (I still have exams), although I did quite well, I also found that Highschool was mostly useless and didn't prepare me well at all for University. For people with dyslexia who would be coddled even moreso than regular students are in Highschool (again, school from the ages of 15 to 18; not sure what you call that), they will have a much greater chance of being totally screwed when they enter the work force or move onto post secondary education.

In a perfect world, or in countries where governments love to shove vast amounts of resources into social programs, special educational facilities for folks with dyslexia might be a good idea. Although blind people can go to public school and do fine, there are blind schools tailored towards practising learning techniques which would fall into the norms for blind people. A dyslexic educational facility could have specialized instructors which teach a different set of material in a format which attempts to maximize effectiveness to students with dyslexia. Such a school shouldn't be an embarrassment to attend. Dyslexia is unfortunate, and having a school which will focus on specialized learning techniques will make the best of a bad situation for people with dyslexia.

Going back to the fiscal consequences of having such educational institutions, in a perfect world maybe there could be an island called Dyslexia Island and everyone with dyslexia could learn how to brain bend there, and all the world powers could chip in and pay for it. Since this isn't a perfect world and that idea is utterly ridiculous, I think instead people with dyslexia who have parents that can afford to send them to specialized dyslexic schools probably already do that. In Canada such schools exist although if you live in a lowly populated region and have dyslexia and are not rich you're probably screwed. I know the government gives money to folks with dyslexia here but I doubt it's enough to be able to send your kid to live 1,700 kilometers away from you alone in the most populated area of the country.

Perhaps in England where you have such a great population concentrated on a small plot of land (or in other highly populous regions) it might be more practical and less expensive to have a government funded educational facility that could reach out to as many dyslexic students as possible.

tldr; the objective for dealing with students suffering from dyslexia or other mental or often physical problems should be to attempt to prepare them to enter the workplace and to be as successful in the work place as possible. Giving time extensions probably hurts them more than it helps them later on in life.

So are you also in favour of giving people with lower IQ's extra time too?

Not based only on their IQ, no. There could be many reasons why you score low on an IQ test. If the reason was a specific illness then the argument would be different.

Who says it inflates their marks? When does more time = better marks? And my argument about blind people is only ridiculous, because your statement was ridiculous about dyslexia not 'disappearing', well, neither does blindness

When it comes to math more time does equal better marks in a lot of circumstances. Just the other day I had a quiz where the last question was a seven digit number and we had to determine if it was divisible by 9 (no calculators clearly). If you knew about casting out nines it's clearly a two second answer, but if you didn't know about casting out nines and had enough time you could do some lovely long division, or you could easily discover a quick mathematical pattern whilst dividing numbers by 9, apply it and get the answer. The professor wanted to see if we remembered what he briefly mentioned about modular arithmetic using a divisor of (n-1) in a base n environment (which in base 10 just ends up being casting out nines), but if you had enough time you could just rip the question apart and get an answer in a lot of other ways.

[Catchy]

I think if you coddle folks through Highschool (school from the ages of 15 to 18), then if they move on to post secondary education they wont be prepared at all. Already after having finished my first semester in University (I still have exams), although I did quite well, I also found that Highschool was mostly useless and didn't prepare me well at all for University. For people with dyslexia who would be coddled even moreso than regular students are in Highschool (again, school from the ages of 15 to 18; not sure what you call that), they will have a much greater chance of being totally screwed when they enter the work force or move onto post secondary education.

In a perfect world, or in countries where governments love to shove vast amounts of resources into social programs, special educational facilities for folks with dyslexia might be a good idea. Although blind people can go to public school and do fine, there are blind schools tailored towards practising learning techniques which would fall into the norms for blind people. A dyslexic educational facility could have specialized instructors which teach a different set of material in a format which attempts to maximize effectiveness to students with dyslexia. Such a school shouldn't be an embarrassment to attend. Dyslexia is unfortunate, and having a school which will focus on specialized learning techniques will make the best of a bad situation for people with dyslexia.

Going back to the fiscal consequences of having such educational institutions, in a perfect world maybe there could be an island called Dyslexia Island and everyone with dyslexia could learn how to brain bend there, and all the world powers could chip in and pay for it. Since this isn't a perfect world and that idea is utterly ridiculous, I think instead people with dyslexia who have parents that can afford to send them to specialized dyslexic schools probably already do that. In Canada such schools exist although if you live in a lowly populated region and have dyslexia and are not rich you're probably screwed. I know the government gives money to folks with dyslexia here but I doubt it's enough to be able to send your kid to live 1,700 kilometers away from you alone in the most populated area of the country.

Perhaps in England where you have such a great population concentrated on a small plot of land (or in other highly populous regions) it might be more practical and less expensive to have a government funded educational facility that could reach out to as many dyslexic students as possible.

tldr; the objective for dealing with students suffering from dyslexia or other mental or often physical problems should be to attempt to prepare them to enter the workplace and to be as successful in the work place as possible. Giving time extensions probably hurts them more than it helps them later on in life.



Not based only on their IQ, no. There could be many reasons why you score low on an IQ test. If the reason was a specific illness then the argument would be different.



When it comes to math more time does equal better marks in a lot of circumstances. Just the other day I had a quiz where the last question was a seven digit number and we had to determine if it was divisible by 9 (no calculators clearly). If you knew about casting out nines it's clearly a two second answer, but if you didn't know about casting out nines and had enough time you could do some lovely long division, or you could easily discover a quick mathematical pattern whilst dividing numbers by 9, apply it and get the answer. The professor wanted to see if we remembered what he briefly mentioned about modular arithmetic using a divisor of (n-1) in a base n environment (which in base 10 just ends up being casting out nines), but if you had enough time you could just rip the question apart and get an answer in a lot of other ways.

Cba to read all your post and have only skimmed over a few posts in this thread because it's getting me angry. Anyways, your point about them not being prepared enough for uni... Well I know here in the UK people with dyslexia get lots of help at University. My mum's dyslexic and just because she received support during University (where it was only just flagged up there!) does that mean she doesn't deserve her degree in midwifery over someone else? No, ofc it doesn't. She worked hard for it, probably more so than anybody else without dyslexia because as @Kyle; said, it's harder for people with dyslexia to get their head around certain things. Imo if you don't have it, you wont understand.

[HotelUser]

Cba to read all your post and have only skimmed over a few posts in this thread because it's getting me angry. Anyways, your point about them not being prepared enough for uni... Well I know here in the UK people with dyslexia get lots of help at University. My mum's dyslexic and just because she received support during University (where it was only just flagged up there!) does that mean she doesn't deserve her degree in midwifery over someone else? No, ofc it doesn't. She worked hard for it, probably more so than anybody else without dyslexia because as @Kyle; said, it's harder for people with dyslexia to get their head around certain things. Imo if you don't have it, you wont understand.

It shouldn't be about who deserves what, it should be about helping people with dyslexia to be able to do as well as possible in the work force after their education. If your mom is successful in her profession then good for her

[FlyingJesus]

Let's just total up everyone's marks and give out the average to anyone who turned up for the exam, since apparently forced equality through unfair means is more important than properly reflecting someone's ability.

I'm not saying that dyslexics can't possibly be intelligent, but if they don't perform as well then the simple fact is that they are not as good in that field. We don't give people who are crap at their jobs extra money and promotions, there's no rule that poor footballers be given a mandatory few seconds where good tacklers can't go near them, and people who just happen to be born ugly aren't given handicap bonus points in beauty pageants. Natural gifts and abilities exist, and ignoring (or even stifling) that in favour of making the less able feel good quite simply makes no sense.

[Catchy]

Let's just total up everyone's marks and give out the average to anyone who turned up for the exam, since apparently forced equality through unfair means is more important than properly reflecting someone's ability.

I'm not saying that dyslexics can't possibly be intelligent, but if they don't perform as well then the simple fact is that they are not as good in that field. We don't give people who are crap at their jobs extra money and promotions, there's no rule that poor footballers be given a mandatory few seconds where good tacklers can't go near them, and people who just happen to be born ugly aren't given handicap bonus points in beauty pageants. Natural gifts and abilities exist, and ignoring (or even stifling) that in favour of making the less able feel good quite simply makes no sense.

NOBODY IS IGNORING THEM? dont understand y every1 is saying they're ignored when they're not?! Ppl are clever good 4 them im sure every1 is so chuffed and proud

[..::Luna::..]

I don't think it's a big deal. Anyone should be able to request more time if they have problems with exams. It's not going to make you suddenly smarter and do better than everyone else, it just gives a better comfort knowing you aren't being timed for your efforts. We have that system here.

[Kyle]

I'm not saying that dyslexics can't possibly be intelligent, but if they don't perform as well then the simple fact is that they are not as good in that field.

It isn't a matter of being good in a certain field since exams are often very poor reflections of the actual field individual might like to enter after they take them. If I take a biology exam, for example, but I struggle to interpret the wording of an obscure question on glomerulus filtration, my grade is going to misrepresent my actual knowledge because I didn't have enough time to properly process the information provided. Because of this and various other questions that wouldn't crop up ever again in my desired career (which I can't go on to without having done well in this particular exam - let's use nursing as the example), I've been penalised.

What the extra time does is give those that have trouble in one particularly irrelevant area (processing text) a lift, it's not that they are less able in terms of being knowledgeable in such a field, it's that they can't express it as easily as others.

[FlyingJesus]

NOBODY IS IGNORING THEM? dont understand y every1 is saying they're ignored when they're not?! Ppl are clever good 4 them im sure every1 is so chuffed and proud

Love how you literally prove your initial statement wrong in the very same post - claim that the talented aren't ignored and then show a "whatever" attitude to it straight away. I don't know if you've ever been good at anything but when you are you're expected to want to work hard for the sake of working hard, with no motivation and no reward while getting to see brats and idiots getting sent on special trips and getting told how great they are just for writing their own name. The top of the class people absolutely are ignored, and even punished when they don't excel despite still doing far better than the people getting positive attention for managing to turn up. I'll tell you now that no-one is "chuffed and proud" of you for doing well when it's just an expectation, and nothing stifles growth quite like indifference.

It isn't a matter of being good in a certain field since exams are often very poor reflections of the actual field individual might like to enter after they take them. If I take a biology exam, for example, but I struggle to interpret the wording of an obscure question on glomerulus filtration, my grade is going to misrepresent my actual knowledge because I didn't have enough time to properly process the information provided. Because of this and various other questions that wouldn't crop up ever again in my desired career (which I can't go on to without having done well in this particular exam - let's use nursing as the example), I've been penalised.

What the extra time does is give those that have trouble in one particularly irrelevant area (processing text) a lift, it's not that they are less able in terms of being knowledgeable in such a field, it's that they can't express it as easily as others.

The exam system is hideously flawed I agree, but if they're to be used as standardised shows of supposed intelligence (however wrong that might be) then it ought to be the exact same for every entrant. If someone cannot understand questions they are less able to respond to situations regardless of what they actually know - if two people know how to perform an abdominal thrust but only one of them can recognise the signs of choking or is sufficiently confident in performing it then one is inherently more useful than the other. Again, this is a problem with the way that exams are done more than anything, but until that changes it is patently unfair to give extra opportunities to anyone, and all additional support (scribes, computers, auditory invigilators etc) should be available for anyone who requires it rather than just a select few.

[Catchy]

Love how you literally prove your initial statement wrong in the very same post - claim that the talented aren't ignored and then show a "whatever" attitude to it straight away. I don't know if you've ever been good at anything but when you are you're expected to want to work hard for the sake of working hard, with no motivation and no reward while getting to see brats and idiots getting sent on special trips and getting told how great they are just for writing their own name. The top of the class people absolutely are ignored, and even punished when they don't excel despite still doing far better than the people getting positive attention for managing to turn up. I'll tell you now that no-one is "chuffed and proud" of you for doing well when it's just an expectation, and nothing stifles growth quite like indifference.



The exam system is hideously flawed I agree, but if they're to be used as standardised shows of supposed intelligence (however wrong that might be) then it ought to be the exact same for every entrant. If someone cannot understand questions they are less able to respond to situations regardless of what they actually know - if two people know how to perform an abdominal thrust but only one of them can recognise the signs of choking or is sufficiently confident in performing it then one is inherently more useful than the other. Again, this is a problem with the way that exams are done more than anything, but until that changes it is patently unfair to give extra opportunities to anyone, and all additional support (scribes, computers, auditory invigilators etc) should be available for anyone who requires it rather than just a select few.

Firstly this has nothing to do with dyslexia. I've never known any dyslexic to get to go on special trips... I assume you're on about the children with behavioral difficulties? No incentive to work hard? Right okay... I'm sure there is? The prospect of getting a good job at the end of it all, where do you think the kids who got to go on all those special trips you're on about will end up?

[Kardan]

*Snip*

You're right, a calculator will not give you high marks in a Maths paper, you need to know your stuff to be able to actually use a calculator efficiently.

---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 09:04 PM ----------

I think if you coddle folks through Highschool (school from the ages of 15 to 18), then if they move on to post secondary education they wont be prepared at all. Already after having finished my first semester in University (I still have exams), although I did quite well, I also found that Highschool was mostly useless and didn't prepare me well at all for University. For people with dyslexia who would be coddled even moreso than regular students are in Highschool (again, school from the ages of 15 to 18; not sure what you call that), they will have a much greater chance of being totally screwed when they enter the work force or move onto post secondary education.

In a perfect world, or in countries where governments love to shove vast amounts of resources into social programs, special educational facilities for folks with dyslexia might be a good idea. Although blind people can go to public school and do fine, there are blind schools tailored towards practising learning techniques which would fall into the norms for blind people. A dyslexic educational facility could have specialized instructors which teach a different set of material in a format which attempts to maximize effectiveness to students with dyslexia. Such a school shouldn't be an embarrassment to attend. Dyslexia is unfortunate, and having a school which will focus on specialized learning techniques will make the best of a bad situation for people with dyslexia.

Going back to the fiscal consequences of having such educational institutions, in a perfect world maybe there could be an island called Dyslexia Island and everyone with dyslexia could learn how to brain bend there, and all the world powers could chip in and pay for it. Since this isn't a perfect world and that idea is utterly ridiculous, I think instead people with dyslexia who have parents that can afford to send them to specialized dyslexic schools probably already do that. In Canada such schools exist although if you live in a lowly populated region and have dyslexia and are not rich you're probably screwed. I know the government gives money to folks with dyslexia here but I doubt it's enough to be able to send your kid to live 1,700 kilometers away from you alone in the most populated area of the country.

Perhaps in England where you have such a great population concentrated on a small plot of land (or in other highly populous regions) it might be more practical and less expensive to have a government funded educational facility that could reach out to as many dyslexic students as possible.

tldr; the objective for dealing with students suffering from dyslexia or other mental or often physical problems should be to attempt to prepare them to enter the workplace and to be as successful in the work place as possible. Giving time extensions probably hurts them more than it helps them later on in life.



Not based only on their IQ, no. There could be many reasons why you score low on an IQ test. If the reason was a specific illness then the argument would be different.



When it comes to math more time does equal better marks in a lot of circumstances. Just the other day I had a quiz where the last question was a seven digit number and we had to determine if it was divisible by 9 (no calculators clearly). If you knew about casting out nines it's clearly a two second answer, but if you didn't know about casting out nines and had enough time you could do some lovely long division, or you could easily discover a quick mathematical pattern whilst dividing numbers by 9, apply it and get the answer. The professor wanted to see if we remembered what he briefly mentioned about modular arithmetic using a divisor of (n-1) in a base n environment (which in base 10 just ends up being casting out nines), but if you had enough time you could just rip the question apart and get an answer in a lot of other ways.

It depends what sort of question you have, in your question for example, you would first need to know that you could apply long division. More time does not equal more marks all the time, because you still need to know your stuff, and once again, dyslexics aren't just getting 30 minutes of free time, they use this extra time comprehending the question.

---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 09:07 PM ----------

Let's just total up everyone's marks and give out the average to anyone who turned up for the exam, since apparently forced equality through unfair means is more important than properly reflecting someone's ability.

I'm not saying that dyslexics can't possibly be intelligent, but if they don't perform as well then the simple fact is that they are not as good in that field. We don't give people who are crap at their jobs extra money and promotions, there's no rule that poor footballers be given a mandatory few seconds where good tacklers can't go near them, and people who just happen to be born ugly aren't given handicap bonus points in beauty pageants. Natural gifts and abilities exist, and ignoring (or even stifling) that in favour of making the less able feel good quite simply makes no sense.

I have a family member that is dyslexic, and not only that, but his reading and writing skills aren't very good in general. His profession is a floorlayer, and he's bloody good at it. If you give him a written exam about floorlaying, I would probably do better than him, but if you gave him an exam where somebody asked him the questions in person, he'd ace it. So is he a bad floorlayer because he can't do a written exam in it? No.