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

[The Don]

As I'm sure most of you already know, people with Dyslexia get given extra time in exams (as do people with other disabilities) which I disagree with. I think that everyone should receive equal conditions in exams (unless the person has a broken arm or something which means they physically can't write for themselves in which case they should receive a scribe). The main argument defending people is that those who do receive extra time have a disadvantage compared to those who don't and therefore this added time helps lower their disadvantage.

However, their grades will not truly represent what they're capable of. This can mislead employers who may not realise that the candidate they may hire could in fact be less suitable than other potential candidates (who unfortunately scored lower due to having less time in their exams). Also, if you agree that exam conditions should change to suite individuals then surely one could argue that people with lower IQ's should receive extra time too? After all, they are at a disadvantage compared to more intelligent students...

[Kardan]

I'm not entirely sure on my viewpoint, I'm not dyslexic so I wouldn't know if I would need more time. My brother has quite bad learning difficulties and suffers from dyslexia and gets extra time, and I would say he needs it, for him it's not as easy to read a question and write down an answer as it is for me.

On the other hand, in my classes at Uni, I have a friend who suffers from Aspergers and he is also dyslexic, and he gets an extra 50% of time in exams, which is an extra hour. Does he need it? Perhaps. But he always gets 90%+ and has the best results on our course. Maybe it's just coincidence.

In my opinion, I don't really care, when it comes to exams, I'm only focusing on myself, as long as I do well and get the questions right, that's all that matters. Other peoples grades do not effect me.

[dbgtz]

To be quite honest exams should be longer generally. I don't see when I'd ever need to write so quick and all it has done is hinder what I do because I feel like I'm going too slow causing me to rush thus I may forget some things in the moment. Though to actually answer the question, no for pretty much the same reason in your employer scenario.

[Kyle]

I completely disagree with your idea about it misrepresenting the true ability and misleading employers and such. Exams are about being able to display and apply your knowledge so as long as they're not reading what they're writing from a sheet of paper in front of them and have actually being paying attention in class in order to learn what they need to, it shouldn't really matter that they were given some more time to construct what they want to say. They have every right to their grade if they've learned what is required of them.

I don't really mind that dyslexic people are given extra time. I think it's fair because they clearly have difficulty processing some questions so won't be able to organise their thoughts in the same manner as those without it can. What I do despise is that on top of the extra time some people are even given word processors, too! I would love to sit and type out my exams, I'd be done in half the time it takes me to write them by hand! I wasn't sure if the thread was aimed at extra time in general or the addition of option to type in exams.

As someone who asked and was denied the opportunity to word process my exams I did feel at a (very slight) disadvantage but I have done what everybody else has to do - learned to write faster and more concisely so I can fit everything I need to into my essays. Yes, it requires a little work, but I'm at least grateful that I'm not burdened with any of the aforementioned learning disabilities and am actually able to adopt these techniques relatively easily.

My view is that if extra time isn't something offered to you then you need to find a different way to maximize your achievement, it's not that difficult. It's is something that most people with learning difficulties seems do really need in order to prevent them from failing abysmally because they haven't had enough time to even understand what they're being asked to write.

Not sure about your point about low IQ - it's not really relevant time-wise. I'd assume that having a low IQ would also mean that they'd have less knowledge so wouldn't be able to do anything with that time, whereas a dyslexic that has learned what they need to will have.

[Chippiewill]

I 100% agree, 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.

[FlyingJesus]

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

[Kardan]

I think one thing that is worth asking, is does time really matter? Speaking from experience, I have never ran out of time in an exam, so even with more time, I don't think I would have done any better.

[Shockwave.2CC]

I think yes, they should

[-:Undertaker:-]

why dyslexic people (which is essentially just being bad at reading and writing)

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.

[Kardan]

Dyslexia isn't simply a condition that means you're bad at reading or writing, it's obviously a lot more complicated.

For example, adults that were perfectly capable at reading and writing can develop dyslexia from a brain injury. My brother who has dyslexia went through complications when he was born and stopped breathing, my mother was basically told she has five minutes to give birth to him, or he dies, and he needed to be resuscitated and put into intensive care. Our family are pretty sure that his dyslexia and other learning disabilities are related to this.

But hey, don't give him extra time in exams, it's his fault he can't read(!)

[Eric]

It seems unfair when other people are treated differently. I think mobility issues such as broken hand should be given more time but giving dyslexic people extra time in exam seems odd to me, it's just like reducing the distance of a marathon for asthmatic people. Surely people with fast reading and interpreting skills are not given lesser time to answer the exam? So, no they shouldn't be given extra time cause that would just give them the advantage of being different.

[Sian]

first of all, everyone I've met with dyslexia (and that's a lot of people) and other forms of those kind of disabilities aren't bad at english or any other subject. They get given extra time because their brain struggles to correctly formulate at a "normal" pace. And just because you're slower than other people, doesn't mean you're not any better so yes, give them extra time.

[Kardan]

Just a quick question, why should people with a broken arm be given more time if dyslexics are not given more time? Why is a physical impairment more important then a mental one? People can't help if they are dyslexic, the same way that people can't help if they are knocked down by a car and lose the use of their writing arm. It is just a bit silly to say that everyone should be equal, oh, but a broken arm can get you more time...

[The Don]

Just a quick question, why should people with a broken arm be given more time if dyslexics are not given more time? Why is a physical impairment more important then a mental one? People can't help if they are dyslexic, the same way that people can't help if they are knocked down by a car and lose the use of their writing arm. It is just a bit silly to say that everyone should be equal, oh, but a broken arm can get you more time...

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. Dyslexia doesn't just appear for a short while and then disappear like a broken arm will, they will remain consistent which is why giving extra time is unfair as it would give them inaccurate grades since weren't tested under the same conditions as everybody else.

[Kardan]

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. Dyslexia doesn't just appear for a short while and then disappear like a broken arm will, they will remain consistent which is why giving extra time is unfair as it would give them inaccurate grades since weren't tested under the same conditions as everybody else.
So should we not give extra time to the blind as well?

[The Don]

So should we not give extra time to the blind as well?

You're argument is ridiculous. People with dyslexia take more time to do the same amount of work as other people, why should exams take this into account and inflate their marks? Should people with low IQ's get extra marks to compensate for their low intelligence? No, they shouldn't as it renders exams and grades pointless.

[Kardan]

You're argument is ridiculous. People with dyslexia take more time to do the same amount of work as other people, why should exams take this into account and inflate their marks? Should people with low IQ's get extra marks to compensate for their low intelligence? No, they shouldn't as it renders exams and grades pointless.

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 :P

[The Don]

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 :P

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.

[Kardan]

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.

So surely by your logic giving people different exam conditions because of a broken arm, or because they are blind is also unfair and renders it pointless?

And more time does not equal better marks. If you give a crap person 2 hours and 15 minutes to write an essay, they won't get a better mark than a good person who had the correct 1 hour 30 minutes to write it. Personally speaking, I have never ran out of time in an exam, and I don't know anyone who has ran out of time in an exam. With exams I've done badly in, I have always left before the time is up, because I know that sitting there for an extra 30 minutes won't get me anywhere.

[The Don]

So surely by your logic giving people different exam conditions because of a broken arm, or because they are blind is also unfair and renders it pointless?

And more time does not equal better marks. If you give a crap person 2 hours and 15 minutes to write an essay, they won't get a better mark than a good person who had the correct 1 hour 30 minutes to write it. Personally speaking, I have never ran out of time in an exam, and I don't know anyone who has ran out of time in an exam. With exams I've done badly in, I have always left before the time is up, because I know that sitting there for an extra 30 minutes won't get me anywhere.

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.

[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 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753); 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.

[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 :P

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 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=30795); 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.

[HotelUser]

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 ----------



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.

There can be 10 different ways to solve the same math problem and you might not know any of the 10 ways, but you might stupidly stumble upon one of them if you have enough free time.

Or given enough time, if you don't know any of the 10 ways to solve the problem, sometimes you can legitimately figure out a way on your own.

If you solve math by simply memorizing formulas then you're doing it wrong. Math isn't like certain other subjects where you can just memorize lists of things. Often times when you screw up in math if you put your nose to the grind stone you can figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. The more time you have the better you can do this.

[Kardan]

There can be 10 different ways to solve the same math problem and you might not know any of the 10 ways, but you might stupidly stumble upon one of them if you have enough free time.

Or given enough time, if you don't know any of the 10 ways to solve the problem, sometimes you can legitimately figure out a way on your own.

If you solve math by simply memorizing formulas then you're doing it wrong. Math isn't like certain other subjects where you can just memorize lists of things. Often times when you screw up in math if you put your nose to the grind stone you can figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. The more time you have the better you can do this.

Well in all my years of Maths, I haven't ever stumbled across a correct answer by randomly guessing when I have free time, I either know it or I don't. And of course, even if a person was to randomly stumble across the correct answer (which all students can do, not just dyslexics), this is assuming they had any free time left. You're assuming that dyslexics would finish in the same time as non-dyslexics, so this extra time is giving them too much of an advantage.

[FlyingJesus]

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?

In college and uni dyslexics get hundreds upon hundreds of pounds in special bursaries, to such advantage that I was actually advised to take a dyslexia test and fail on purpose. "I'm sure there is" is about as valid an argument as if I'd just said "no you're wrong" with no explanation - and the prospect of a good job is not all that high considering it's pretty common knowledge that those kids on the special trips are likely to end up in manual labour jobs which pay far higher than the average white-collar worker, who also has debts and loans behind them for that wonderful privilege of going through intense education systems in order to get a mediocre job that they probably won't enjoy.


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.

You seem to have missed my post where I stated that the exam system is crap. I have no doubt that your relative is great at laying floors, but that has exactly 0% to do with sitting an academic exam

[Kardan]

In college and uni dyslexics get hundreds upon hundreds of pounds in special bursaries, to such advantage that I was actually advised to take a dyslexia test and fail on purpose. "I'm sure there is" is about as valid an argument as if I'd just said "no you're wrong" with no explanation - and the prospect of a good job is not all that high considering it's pretty common knowledge that those kids on the special trips are likely to end up in manual labour jobs which pay far higher than the average white-collar worker, who also has debts and loans behind them for that wonderful privilege of going through intense education systems in order to get a mediocre job that they probably won't enjoy.



You seem to have missed my post where I stated that the exam system is crap. I have no doubt that your relative is great at laying floors, but that has exactly 0% to do with sitting an academic exam

I would agree with you that the exam system is crap, but under the current system extra time is probably the best method. Of course, it would be totally better if they managed to revamp how it works. If everyone is so up-tight with other people getting extra time, then give everyone the extra time - but I'm sure we'll get many complaints of people having to sit in silence for an hour and not be able to leave the exam hall :P

I just disagree with the fact that more time = more marks. That's suggesting that if there wasn't a time limit on exams, everyone would be able to get 100% because they would keep guessing until they figured out how to do it.

And yeah, my relative wasn't a great example because it's more of a pratical thing, but it would totally reinforce my point if it was about an academic subject :P

Oh, and as for bursuaries for dyslexics? I don't think I agree with that, I mean, it's not as if more money is going to help?

[-:Undertaker:-]

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?

It isn't a disability - I am just and at mathematics, as simple as that. To label people who are bad at subjects as disabled is ridiculous excuse making at it's finest, they're just bad at it - end of story. Our brains are all a mix of chemicals which influence what we like, how we act..... it's just how it is. Those who are bad at English are bad at English, and those who are awful at Maths are bad at Maths - why would I seek to excuse myself and blame it on being disabled when i'm plainly just not any good at it.

The same with Science and History - I was good at Science in late Primary school and not really at History, after which both changed places as I changed what I liked and was good at. Did I suddenly become disabled in those few years? no.


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.

We are broke.

Anyway to everybody, this may be an interesting read along with the other work he has done on the topic (can be found via the link and under the Index of his column); http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/06/does_dyslexia_e.html

The subject is far from as simple as backers of the 'condition' like to believe.


Does Dyslexia exist?

As I expected, by Sunday evening my e-mail inbox was throbbing with angry messages denouncing me for casting doubt on the existence of 'dyslexia' in my Mail on Sunday column. As I expected, almost all these messages were roughly the same, telling me how ignorant and horrible I am, urging me to do 'research', as if I hadn't done, and asserting as fact that the writer ( or the writer's child) suffered from 'dyslexia' and that it therefore existed. Do people really not grasp that this isn't proof? One mother rang me up and peremptorily demanded that I prove that 'dyslexia ' doesn't exist. All accused me of ignorance, some of personal cruelty.

Several, baselessly, accused me of mocking or otherwise criticising the children who have been classified as 'dyslexic'. Some correspondents severely and misleadingly misquoted Professor Julian Elliott, whose remarks in the Times Educational Supplement sparked off my article. I'll deal with that later.

It is amazing how you can mesmerize so many people into accepting that something is scientifically proven by conferring a pseudo-scientific name, packed with Greek or Latin expressions, on that something. Once it has such a name, its defenders tend to believe that there is no longer any need to explain or justify it. They demand that I somehow disprove its existence, when it is up to them to prove that it exists, since they are the ones who urge that highly-expensive and questionable public policy, diverting resources and attention from the real problem, should be based on the idea that it exists.

And yet, like its cousin 'ADHD', 'dyslexia' is a vague, subjective thing. There is no single agreed diagnosis, let alone an objective one. There are at least 28 different descriptions of it. Many of its supporters believe it involves such things as 'reversing' letters, which others say are not symptoms of it at all.

Above all, it is 'treated' by methods which would work equally well on anyone who couldn't read properly. Go, I beg and urge you, to the website of the British Dyslexia Association and study the list of supposed 'indications'. Well, I know of children who have displayed most of these, at one time or another, and have learned to read without any difficulty at all. I suspect I was one of them. The "I think I might be dyslexic" checklist for adults is also pretty alarming, if you believe in this stuff. Does the fact that I almost always type 'dyslexia' as 'dylsexia' mean I might be 'dyslexic'? Or does it just mean that I cannot type? Let us thank heaven nobody has devised a pill for 'dyslexia' .

Virtually none even began to deal with my counter-assertion, that 'dyslexia' has grown hugely as a problem since schools abandoned the systematic teaching of reading according to the method which is known to work ( and has been known to work for centuries) nowadays known as 'synthetic phonics. The curious decision of teachers to abandon this method in the middle of the 20th century was analysed more than 50 years ago in Rudolf Flesch's best-selling, powerful 1955 book 'Why Johnny Can't Read'.

Flesch's argument, for the immediate resumption of teaching by phonics, was largely ignored by the teaching profession in Britain and America until very recently - when undeniable research in Clackmannanshire made it impossible to ignore the truth. It showed that Synthetic Phonics (SP) was highly effective in teaching children to read.

But even then, many British schools( I am not sure of the current state of affairs in North America) continue to resist. Where they do use synthetic phonics, they often use it only as part of a 'mixture of methods', which simply confuses the children.

It is interesting, in that case, to note that advocates of the existence of 'Dyslexia' say quite openly that one of the (many) theories of 'Dyslexia', (and here I quote their own pseudo-scientific language from the largely pro-'Dyslexia' entry on Wikipedia) "stems from a deficit in phonological processing or difficulty in recognizing that spoken words are formed by discrete phonemes (for example, that the word CAT comes from the sounds [k], [æ], and [t]).

As a result, affected individuals have difficulty associating these sounds with the visual letters that make up written words. Key studies of the phonological deficit hypothesis include the finding that the strongest predictor of reading success in school-age children is phonological awareness, and that phonological awareness instruction can improve reading scores in children with reading difficulties."

Oddly enough, that is a pretty accurate description of precisely what SP does - breaking down the sounds in the language, and associating them with the letters that express them. To that extent - and to that extent only - I agree with the 'dyslexia' lobby. Some children will not learn to read unless they are taught using SP.

Others will mysteriously and miraculously learn to read however badly they are taught. There is therefore an argument that some children learn in different ways, which may betoken a physical difference. This explains why some children emerge from bad schools able to read, whereas their brothers and sisters may go to the same school and come out functionally illiterate. But if all were taught SP properly, all would learn to read. The teaching of SP certainly won't harm those who don't need it to learn how to connect letters with sounds.

However, this difference is not necessarily a disability, especially since teaching with SP puts it right. It is just a difference, a difference made much more important by a major failure of teaching in our schools, affecting a significant minority of children who are thereby stuck with a disadvantage for their whole school career, and possibly for life. You might suggest, therefore , that 'dyslexia' is the product of the bad teaching of a significant minority of children.

How would a sensible society deal with this? Many teachers and many parents know perfectly well, from experience, that there are some children, especially those who have been read to a lot at home, who pick up reading skills by a sort of magic, and don't need to learn systematically. These will survive even the most terrible reading teaching, the worst of which relies on children remembering the shapes of words, and is tested by getting them to 'read' passages they have effectively memorised.

But the large number who do need phonics teaching will fail and remain more or less illiterate, unless taught these "discrete phonemes" . Thanks to the 'literacy strategy' and the incessant tests and drilling for tests which result from it, many of these will be assessed as being able to read when they can't really, and passed on to their secondary schools to face years of misery, frustration and nightmare - classes in which they are assumed to be able to read well, but cannot. What is baffling is that, given the clear evidence in favour of SP, so many schools still don't use it exclusively. I suspect this is because many modern teachers regard it as 'old-fashioned' or 'authoritarian'. I also wonder, after so many years of bad schooling, if some teachers themselves have difficulty in reading, writing and spelling.

Given that our society is rapidly becoming more and more post-literate, with even the signs on the lavatory doors now in pictogram form, and reading eclipsed as a leisure activity by TV and computer games, the only real pressure on many of these children to learn to read comes from school, and if the school is undisciplined or chaotic, and many are, a lot of these mistaught children will drop out or misbehave, a terrible waste of talent, since often such children have great potential.

This could be why 'dyslexia' is often seen as a middle class problem, since the working-class children who cannot read disappear off the national radar, and their parents are often inarticulate and powerless, or themselves suffering from a bad education. Some of them turn up later in prison, where illiteracy ( or is it still 'dyslexia' behind bars?) is common.

So it is mainly the middle class children - whose parents believe government propaganda about improving schools, or who buy poor-quality private schooling in the sad belief that the writing of a cheque guarantees quality teaching - who get involved in the great 'dyslexia' fantasy. They know that something is wrong. The 'dyslexia' lobby persuades them that it is their children who are at fault. This helps relieve parents and schools of any responsibility for the problem. The children, too, are led to believe that they are in the grip of some force that is beyond their control. This is why so many people willingly co-operate in their own victimhood.

Now here's the interesting bit about Professor Elliott, whose original article was summarised and reported on in 'The Times' of May 28th by Peta Bee.

This is a passage from her report: "For parents, in particular, a diagnosis that their child is dyslexic can be a relief, says Elliot. He believes the diagnosis serves an emotional, not a scientific, function. "There is huge stigma attached to low intelligence. After years of working with parents I have seen how they don't want their child to be considered lazy, thick or stupid. If they get called this medically recognised term, dyslexic, then it is a signal to all that it's not to do with intelligence."

This was misrepresented by some of my pro-dyslexia correspondents as Professor Elliott having described those who claim to suffer from 'dyslexia ' as "lazy, thick or stupid". As is clear from the quotation above, he said no such thing. Nor did I. Yet I have no doubt that among supporters of this campaign the suggestion will be spread that I have done so.

Inability to read has nothing to do with intelligence, and a lot to do with teaching. Nobody is more concerned than I am that children should be taught to read properly, and those who have been failed by primary schools should be rescued as quickly as possible. The ability to read is essential to education - and in my view to a civilised life. But the dyslexia industry prevents a proper reform of reading teaching, by blaming the children for the failings of schools and teachers.

That is why I am so concerned to counter the 'Dyslexia' lobby. As long as this absurdity is widely believed, the real failing will not be dealt with, and huge numbers of children will emerge from years of school with poor, inadequate or non-existent reading skills. The resources and manpower now devoted to 'dyslexia' would be much better spent on bringing proper reading teaching back to every primary classroom in the country.

..or a summary.

At long last, some sense on dyslexia


Hurrah for the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Their verdict that ‘dyslexia’ can’t be distinguished from other reading difficulties gives the game away. It can’t be distinguished because it has no objective, scientific definition. And that is because it doesn’t exist.

What does exist is an awful lot of needlessly incompetent teaching, by teachers who think synthetic phonics (which work) are beneath them. In this argument be warned. Howls of rage are no substitute for hard facts.

I myself struggled to read or write until I was taught by an older teacher who taught in very old fashioned ways - I remember after years of being in the bottom set, I started to pull myself up surprisingly well. Perhaps Mr. Hitchens is on to something when he links it with the change in teaching methods - meaning it's part of our education system failing, not a medical condition.

[HotelUser]

Well in all my years of Maths, I haven't ever stumbled across a correct answer by randomly guessing when I have free time, I either know it or I don't. And of course, even if a person was to randomly stumble across the correct answer (which all students can do, not just dyslexics), this is assuming they had any free time left. You're assuming that dyslexics would finish in the same time as non-dyslexics, so this extra time is giving them too much of an advantage.

To re-quote myself:


Or given enough time, if you don't know any of the 10 ways to solve the problem, sometimes you can legitimately figure out a way on your own.

Have you ever taken a math course where all you do is mathematical proofs? If so then you would know that the above happens all the time.

But even in lower level math courses just by applying mathematical rules you do know, you can often figure out a solution. You make it sound like there was a 1 / 2348723458742587 chance that you can guess and get an answer right, but often times (I've found this especially with Physics and Mathematical Proofs), you can re-arrange and apply math rules you already know, and in the end figure out a solution.

What if you were asked to find the expansion of some binomial (a + b) to the power of 10? If you know pascal's triangle or the binomial theorem you can do it very quickly but if not you can literally just write out (a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b) and brute force your way through it. You can't brute force that in one minute but if you had 5 or 10 extra minutes to spare you could!

Again my responses to you are only to explain that if you have more time in math you definitely can improve your marks. As to whether or not that's fair to folks with dyslexia that's still left to be said.

[Kardan]

To re-quote myself:



Have you ever taken a math course where all you do is mathematical proofs? If so then you would know that the above happens all the time.

But even in lower level math courses just by applying mathematical rules you do know, you can often figure out a solution. You make it sound like there was a 1 / 2348723458742587 chance that you can guess and get an answer right, but often times (I've found this especially with Physics and Mathematical Proofs), you can re-arrange and apply math rules you already know, and in the end figure out a solution.

What if you were asked to find the expansion of some binomial (a + b) to the power of 10? If you know pascal's triangle or the binomial theorem you can do it very quickly but if not you can literally just write out (a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b)(a+b) and brute force your way through it. You can't brute force that in one minute but if you had 5 or 10 extra minutes to spare you could!

Again my responses to you are only to explain that if you have more time in math you definitely can improve your marks. As to whether or not that's fair to folks with dyslexia that's still left to be said.

I'm in my second year of my Mathematics degree for what its worth.

And yes, a dyslexic could brute force binomial expansion, and so could a non-dyslexic, and under ideal circumstances both of them would finish their exams with a few minutes to spare and if they didn't know how to solve it, they would both try brute force. What I'm trying to put across is that everyone is under the assumption that dyslexics are working as fast as non-dyslexics and that non-dyslexics will finish with 10 minutes spare, whilst non-dyslexics will finish with 40 minutes spare. What needs to happen, as I said in ideal conditions, is that the extra time is calculated so that they both finish with the same amount of time remaining - so there is no advantage to people with or without dyslexia.

Of course we both know that you wouldn't get full marks if you were asked to find a binomial expansion using the binomial theorem by brute-force. You would simply get a fraction of the marks for the final correct answer.

[HotelUser]

I'm in my second year of my Mathematics degree for what its worth.

And yes, a dyslexic could brute force binomial expansion, and so could a non-dyslexic, and under ideal circumstances both of them would finish their exams with a few minutes to spare and if they didn't know how to solve it, they would both try brute force. What I'm trying to put across is that everyone is under the assumption that dyslexics are working as fast as non-dyslexics and that non-dyslexics will finish with 10 minutes spare, whilst non-dyslexics will finish with 40 minutes spare. What needs to happen, as I said in ideal conditions, is that the extra time is calculated so that they both finish with the same amount of time remaining - so there is no advantage to people with or without dyslexia.


The only bone I had to pick with you was about the fact that even without knowledge of how to do something in math, sometimes it IS possible to figure it out on your own. The reason you gave for dyslexics having more time to answer problems is fine by me.



Of course we both know that you wouldn't get full marks if you were asked to find a binomial expansion using the binomial theorem by brute-force. You would simply get a fraction of the marks for the final correct answer.

If you had to resort to brute forcing through the binomial expansion of something to the tenth power, I would imagine you would be pretty screwed to begin with :P

[Kardan]

The only bone I had to pick with you was about the fact that even without knowledge of how to do something in math, sometimes it IS possible to figure it out on your own. The reason you gave for dyslexics having more time to answer problems is fine by me.



If you had to resort to brute forcing through the binomial expansion of something to the tenth power, I would imagine you would be pretty screwed to begin with :P

Only in particular circumstances though, if you are given an easy question where all you know is that you need a numerical answer, you could just go for '0' and hope for the best. Of course if you are given a proof by induction, you're pretty much screwed, and yes, a binomial expansion that large would take up far too much time, no matter how much extra time somebody got in an exam :P

Although I do agree with you with some Maths papers, mainly the ones that have 'Show that the answer is...', I have been saved a few times by questions like these, and end up working backwards...

[Euphoria]

I'm not actually that sure what to think of this. I mean I'm not dyslexic and I've never really needed extra time in exams and so on, however, a couple of my friends are. If I knew that they weren't working hard to achieve the score they wanted, then I'd definitely say that they don't deserve extra time, however if they paid attention in class and did try and achieve something, then yes - I think the extra time they are given is necessary.

[Chippiewill]

-snip-
Was going to say this earlier but I couldn't find a source. Dyslexia isn't a condition, it's a diagnosis, that diagnosis being mostly summarised to bad reading and bad writing. This is pretty evident when the Wikipedia article on Dyslexia amounts to little more than a list of symptoms, the worst they can do for 'cause' is 'Exacerbating conditions' which is basically a list of stuff that would inhibit ANYONEs ability to develop reading or writing skills.

Organisations get a lot of money to diagnose people with Dyslexia so turning every reading / writing inability into a disability makes them profit and of course the pupil isn't going to complain because:

a) They have an excuse for being bad so parents get off their case.
b) They can blame stuff on it.
c) They get extra time in their exams.

[Matthew]

I don't know where I stand on this.

On one hand I agree that exams should be a fair reflection on one's ability compared to another. If someone is bad at reading and writing.. then they are bad at reading and writing. They should not be given extra time to "compensate"- all that is doing is giving them a base to perhaps do better than they would otherwise have done. It does sorta seem to be a little unfair and means that exam results seem a little more pointless than they'd have otherwise been?

On the other hand they should be given extra time because otherwise they're not getting the time to show what they're capable of... But then again, why should a dyslexic person get extra time but not someone who is just naturally thick? What is the difference? (Not saying that dyslexic people are "thick"- I know loads of dyslexic people who are very smart).

I think I swing towards the 'don't give them extra time' side, partly because it seems a little unfair that they're given extra time where others aren't, and also because I know of people who have purposely done badly in a dyslexia test in order to gain extra time. The system is there to be abused. I think exams results should be an accurate representation of someone's ability. As I said earlier- if someone is a little worse at interpreting the question than someone else, then it should be shown in the results. The person worse at reading should not be given extra time to try to 'close the gap' or whatever.

Meh, I'm not sure. I for one know that I'd love extra time in exams like History- the comfort of having just an extra few minutes per essay which you have to write must be great!

[Charz777]

I think no. Simply because it's academia and mental ability should be judged as a whole. If a person is lacking something in their learning, way of thinking etc that affects their performance overall then this should reflected in their grade. Just like a physical disability would affect a performance in sport for example.

If a person needs longer to take an exam then they aren't working to the same standard as those who have the correct allotted time and the reason they aren’t working to the same standard is because of this mental disability.

As for whether or not people need the given time, well this is irrelevant. Sometimes I don’t use the time, sometimes I need more, for whatever reason I need more, I don’t get extra time, but if I did I could better my grade. This is why it is unfair.

Everyone should get the same time, otherwise what’s the point in timed exams? It’s to show how we perform in that time, so, it really is silly to extend that.

[Kardan]

Interesting video on dyscalculia for those interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Hqdqe84Uc

[Zak]

This isn't my fight, so I'll link Shoe; to this thread as she is dyslexic.

She's in bed right now but I did ask her, put simply she said "yes because it takes a lot longer to read and understand what an examination paper is asking you".

I'll let her reply if she wants to

[GommeInc]

Part of me thinks "why should they?" Dyslexia is an incredibly diverse "condition" - bad writing and reading are two of the popular symptoms which do not really affect the "sufferer" as far as exams go - because they can still understand logic and have reasonable cognitive skills. That said, Dyslexia usually involves poor rational thinking so it varies from person to person. Those that I know who are diagnosed with it do not spend the time tidying up their hand writing or spend longer reading the questions and their answers so I've never really understood the need for extra time and it just seems like an attempt to claim someone with a simple cold is dying of the plague in comparison.