Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Learning disabilities

I have never understood the system for giving people with a learning disability extra time on an exam. I know they may have difficulty in expressing their views in writing. However, surely exams are a measure of a persons ability in a subject? If a person can't complete an exam in a given time, when they enter the workplace, will they be working 25% longer compared to another employee, because they have a learning disability?

Reply 1

River85

Original post by glelin96

I have never understood the system for giving people with a learning disability extra time on an exam. I know they may have difficulty in expressing their views in writing.

However, surely exams are a measure of a persons ability in a subject?

They are supposed to be, yes.

Providing additional time levels the playing field, in theory. Why should someone be at a disadvantage as a result of a disability or medical condition?

If a person can't complete an exam in a given time, when they enter the workplace, will they be working 25% longer compared to another employee, because they have a learning disability?

They will be entitled to reasonable adjustments in employment also. This is clearly protected in law (Equality Act 2008).

This also applies to the recruitment process, where they shouldn't be unfairly disadvantaged, so reasonable adjustments are given in the recruitment process. This can include additional time for tests in the recruitment tests.

For example, those with disabilities (not just learning disabilities) can be exempt from the timed tests during the Civil Service Fast Stream application process. Instead they complete a self-evaluation questionnaire and later sit untimed tests. Other companies and organisations will still make all applicants take the tests, but will provide additional time when appropriate.

However, when deciding on a career someone with a disability or medical condition should still think carefully about what their strengths and weakness' are and plan accordingly.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

glelin96

Original post by River85

It can be for a number of reasons. Sometimes it can be because a person has significant co-ordination and motor control problems, which means they have a severely reduced writing speed. For others it can be reading difficulties.

Not always (or even often) because "they have difficulty expressing views in writing".

They are supposed to be, yes.

Providing additional time levels the playing field, in theory. Why should someone be at a disadvantage as a result of a disability or medical condition?

They will be entitled to reasonable adjustments in employment also. This is clearly protected in law (Equality Act 2008).

This also applies to the recruitment process, where they shouldn't be unfairly disadvantaged, so reasonable adjustments are given in the recruitment process. This can include additional time for tests in the recruitment tests.

For example, those with disabilities (not just learning disabilities) can be exempt from the timed tests during the Civil Service Fast Stream application process. Instead they complete a self-evaluation questionnaire and later sit untimed tests. Other companies and organisations will still make all applicants take the tests, but will provide additional time when appropriate.

However, when deciding on a career someone with a disability or medical condition should still think carefully about what their strengths and weakness' are and plan accordingly.

I stand by my original point. If they are of a lower ability than somebody else, should that not remain the case? They are at an advantage, and I believe it to be inversely discriminative as the able bodied people are being put at a disadvantage. The people that are at a lower ability than them are going to score higher than they would naturally, meaning grade boundaries will be lifted, meaning the common man may actually score worse than they would as a result.

I believe it wrong that employers need to make adjustments. My Father owned multiple businesses, but they were hold as individual private limited liability companies. One business he owned was a hardware store, and they employed somebody who had a physical impairment meaning they were unable to lift heavy objects. Under employment law he needed to continue employing the person, and physically needed to employ another person to do the work the first employee should have been doing. This was the sole reason that my father needed to sell the business, as cash-flow in that business was low at one particular time, and had he not been employing the disabled person, he could have absorbed the losses. How is that fair?

Why should an employer be made to accommodate somebody that does not have the aptitude for the vacancy?

Reply 3

River85

Original post by glelin96

I stand by my original point. If they are of a lower ability than somebody else, should that not remain the case?

Because they aren't necessarily of a "lower ability". You're making quite an assumption then. What makes you think they are of a lower ability?

Take someone with dyspraxia, who is very intelligent and consistently performs as well, if not better, than his classmates in written coursework and classroom discussions. However, when it comes to a timed written exam he is unable to complete the exam as his handwriting speed is, say, within the bottom 25% of his age group. This slow handwriting speed is directly related to his dyspraxia.

Why should this person be denied the opportunity to fulfil his potential and go to the university he deserves - hopefully enhancing his career prospects and having a positive effect both on the individual and society as a whole?

As for people with dyslexia, they may not be of a "lower ability" but simply learn in a different way.

Finally, what makes you think that a timed, written exam is the best form of assessment? Take ongoing written coursework, or oral examinations, and you will often that that people with learning difficulties/differences perform equally well or better.

Written exams were introduced in order to save time for markers. Not because they were believed to be the "best" form of assessment, and most reliable assessment of academic ability.

I believe it wrong that employers need to make adjustments.

So you therefore endorse discrimination and believe people with disabilities should be prevented from entering professions which, besides a few simple, reasonable adjustments, they can perfectly well suited to?

My Father owned multiple businesses, but they were hold as individual private limited liability companies. One business he owned was a hardware store, and they employed somebody who had a physical impairment meaning they were unable to lift heavy objects. Under employment law he needed to continue employing the person, and physically needed to employ another person to do the work the first employee should have been doing. This was the sole reason that my father needed to sell the business, as cash-flow in that business was low at one particular time, and had he not been employing the disabled person, he could have absorbed the losses.

The key word is reasonable.

I cannot comment on this case as the law can be complex and you haven't provided much information. I am also not a lawyer.

I assume that when he employed the person, this person was able to carry things, and only became unable to carry later on?

In such a case it would usually be reasonable to transfer the duty to another member of the team, or restructure the team. Or alter working practices/provide equipment which means that the disabled employee is able to fulfil the "carry duty". I don't think it would always be reasonable to employ another person to only do the work that the physically disabled person couldn't do. Especially if this results in considerable expense to the employer* So I think there's more to this than you say.

*I do know that one test of reasonableness is anything up to the cost of training and recruiting a new employee.

How is that fair?

And equally how is it fair to the person with the disability to be made redundant, having his income severely reduced, as a result of something which (I assume) was not his fault?

Why should an employer be made to accommodate somebody that does not have the aptitude for the vacancy?

This goes back to what I'm saying. Someone with a disability or medical condition needs to think about what their strengths and weakness' are and plan their career accordingly. It would be rather silly for someone with reading difficulties to do a job which requires lots of reading. Or someone with dyspraxia to do a job which requires fast, legible handwriting. Especially when adjustments will be costly/unreasonable.

However, someone can be otherwise perfectly suitable for a job, indeed by a perfect employee, besides these few reasonable adjustments.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

Presenttime

Well I think its fair, you just have to do your best with the circumstances that you have. I think in the working place its a big different as there is more scope for working extra hours to accommodate your own productivity, whereas in an exam , you need to give that extra time to make it 'fair'

Reply 5

glelin96

Original post by River85

Take someone with dyspraxia, who is very intelligent and consistently performs as well, if not better, than his classmates in written coursework and classroom discussions. However, when it comes to a timed written exam he is unable to complete the exam as his handwriting speed is, say, within the bottom 25% of his age group. This slow handwriting speed is directly related to his dyspraxia.

In this precise example, in the majority of workplaces I can agree. However, if they get straight A*'s at A-level, when they would only get B's, an employer is being misled into "investing" in an employee that isn't able to return the productivity that their grades have led the employer to believe. If the person is required to do a lot of writing, the firm will suffer a lack of productivity, and will make a loss on their investment in the person, as that's what employment is, investment. I agree, this is a fairly specific example, so it would be hyperbolic to say they aren't suitable for any vacancy.

Original post by River85

Why should this person be denied the opportunity to fulfil his potential and go to the university he deserves - hopefully enhancing his career prospects and having a positive effect both on the individual and society as a whole?

The same as above, when they get to university, provided they are assessed on coursework that would be completely fine. However, as stated above, they will likely achieve better in their exams. When they achieve a place at a high ranking university, and it is 100% exam based assessment, what are they going to do? The same thing will happen, and they will achieve a first rather than a degree without honours, meaning it's back to the same example, where firms are making a loss on their investment.

Original post by River85

Yes, the key word is reasonable. The chances are though, a large number of professions would not be suitable for the individual.

Original post by River85

I assume that when he employed the person, this person was able to carry things, and only became unable to carry later on?

No, the person commenced employment with my father having lied about his ability to lift. My father tried everything in his power to "reasonably" adjust the working life for the employee, but it was like trying to fit a square through a circular hole.

Original post by River85

In such a case it would usually be reasonable to transfer the duty to another member of the team, or restructure the team. Or alter working practices/provide equipment which means that the disabled employee is able to fulfil the "carry duty". I don't think it would be reasonable to employ another person to only do the work that the physically disabled person couldn't do. Especially if this results in considerable expense to the employer. So I think there's more to this than you say.

The vacancy that the person applied to was essentially a management opportunity. The business premises contained the shop, which had accommodation in the form of a flat above. The person applied for the job, which he knew would entail being the sole operator of the business, which would require him to manage the stock, which was something he couldn't do. What do you propose is the solution to this? The business was located 30 miles away from our house, and my fathers time is far better spent in other ways. Employing somebody else was the only way that the business could continue trading, and my father knew it would be a short term solution that kept it trading rather than actually solving the problem long term.

Original post by River85

And equally how is it fair to the person with the disability to be made redundant, having his income severely reduced, as a result of something which (I assume) was not his fault?

I appreciate this is unfortunate, but why should a business be made to pay for somebody else's illness, even more than they already do through the high level of taxation firms incur?

Original post by River85

No, that is not the case. Myself and my brother have an illness, hypergammaglobulinemia, which is an immune deficiency. Myself, my brother and my father have spent a lot of time over the years assisting people with it through the pia, which works to help people with primary immune deficiencies. My father worked as a consultant and was the chairman for the charity, and we aimed to ensure that everybody with the illness is able to live a standard of living that is equal to everybody else. I find that statement particularly offensive due to my personal circumstances. The statement you quoted was in reference to adjustments that lead to any considerable expense to the employer.