Extra time in exams?

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

Scroll to see replies

Benamure,

You seem to assume that the difference in ability is a negative thing, and that a dyslexic candidate is inherently disadvantaged through his or her reading impairment. Yet many people with learning differences - myself included - develop highly efficient compensatory strategies to cope with their problems. If I didn't have such abysmal co-ordination, poor short-term memory skills, and fuzzy concentration, my language ability, long-term memory, and imagination probably wouldn't have become as acute as they are now. These are 'internal' coping mechanisms that my brain has put in place as a result of the dyspraxia.

Then there are the external coping mechanisms - the extra time, the laptop, the rest breaks. These are bridges that connect dyslexic/dyspraxic ability to the task in hand. Asking a person with dyslexia to do an exam without extra time would be like asking a non-dyslexic to do it without a pen. Yet would you expect the non-dyslexic's certificates to declare, "This candidate used a pen in his exams"? Extra time is nothing more than a tool that is used to give a different mind a fair go at exams. Making a dyslexic or dyspraxic candidate declare the extra time to potential employers renders the whole concession unfair - because it suggests that there is something unusual or inconvenient about having extra time, and, as a knock-on consequence of that, of having dyslexia itself. This opens the door to discrimination - and not necessarily of a negative variety. Some employers actively seek out workers with dyslexia and related differences, specifically because of their original thinking styles and the well-developed 'internal' coping strategies I mentioned before.

When I go for my first university interview in few weeks' time, I know there will be a computer, extra time, and rest breaks awaiting me in the testing room, just as the 'regular' candidates know that there will be paper and pens in there. When I tell people of my differences, I expect them to treat these neurological quirks of mine as perfectly commonplace occurrences. They need not worry about whether or not I have the ability to do the task when compared to a 'normal' person. I myself am the best judge of that. People with learning differences can be trusted to recognise their strengths and weaknesses and to work out their own interventions, so they shouldn't have to certificate their differences and so let employers make judgements on them.

Reply 21

AATTMM

No Future

Say a person had one of these 'problems', would they in your opinion deserve extra time in their exams? Please state your reasons for each. Or maybe you don't agree with extra time under any circumstances?

Dyslexia
Depression
OCD
Bulimia nervosa
Schizophrenia

Or any others?

Please copy/paste the list and comment next to each.

Dyslexia - yes, because people will need a bit longer to read the questions and to write them as well.
Depression - no, because it does not effect functioning in exam situations, it could potential effect revision, but no the exam itself.
OCD - yes, depending on what type it is. If it's where you have to read things over and over or get things right in your head before or during writing. But that's for a doctor to assess.
Bulimia - no, doesn't effect the actual exam.
Schizophrenia - depends how bad it is, severe shizophrenias probably won't be taking many exams anyway.

Obviously some people here don't realise what OCD actually is. Most people think of it as switching lights on and off or taps on and off. Some try and arrange things perfectly. For others it can be things such as finishing a sentence, so it would be justified for someone suffering from OCD to get extra time. However, most OCD sufferers don't see a psychiatrist, so they won't even know what it is themselves, and most probably won't ask for extra time anyway. Just thought I'd clear that up, because some people suggested that it wouldn't be justified.

Reply 22

happydinosaur

People are going to really disagree with me for this and most probably tell me I don't deserve extra time but I didn't ask for it, it got offered and if you were in my situation would you turn it down. I doubt it.

Others: Well I get the 15% extra time given to me because l suffered a brain haemorraghe in March 2003 which mean't I temporarly lost feeling/movement in my right side. I missed my GCSE's but they gave me special consideration so I could start year 12 last September. I am practically recovered now and my life is not affected in the slightest really. However school offered me extra time for my AS exams in the summer so I took it. I really needed it because I was slow and could write or think very fast. Also because I lose concentration and get tired for subjects were it was more than one paper in one exam sitting they split them up so for example english I took a paper in the morning was supervised over lunch time and then did the rest in the afternoon. Sometimes I feel like I don't deserve extra time but I am thankful for it. I am getting extra time in the January exams coming up. Because of my experiences of extra time I do understand why people with some other conditions may need it some probably more than me aswell.

Reply 23

AATTMM

I'd say you deserve it.

And if you're offered, anyone, you may as well maximise your chances of getting a good grade!

Reply 24

happydinosaur

AATTMM

I'd say you deserve it.

And if you're offered, anyone, you may as well maximise your chances of getting a good grade!

Thanks

Yeh if you are offered it then why not..

Reply 25

benamure

Fireopal,

Firstly, allow me to say that I'm glad this thread came about, because you are educating me about these conditions, which is obviously a very good thing.

Your decription of internal compensatory mechanisms makes sense, and I can see how these could be greatly advantageous in many situations. Where I probably generalised before in saying dyslexia lowers the ability of one of two otherwise similar people, I probably should have said - and it pains me to write this, I don't mean it in a patronising politically correct manner, so take it literally - differently abled. That is, advantaged in some areas (you mentioned long term memory and imagination, for example), and disadvanted in others.

I think that the evaluating the talent set an individual possesses is, maybe unfortunately, going to be influenced by assumptions based on characteristics exhibited by the majority of the population. For example, if two people were given a problem at work and told to come back in two weeks with a solution, maybe a dyslexic person would produce the superior solution in a shorter amount of time. This is based on what you have said regarding compensatory mechanisms. However, if the same two people were told that for every hour it takes them to read a report and form an action plan based on it, £100,000 pounds was being lost, I imagine the non-dyslexic individual would more often than not save more money.

Now of course, there is nothing wrong with any of this, but unfortunately, a person evaluating the two individuals is most likely not going to take into account the possibility of such differences. I think that they should be able to take such differences into account, (and in the examples above, this could result in selection of either candidate, depending on the selection criteria).

You stated that "People with learning differences can be trusted to recognise their strengths and weaknesses". Of course this is true. But to my mind, it generalises slightly and implies the obvious untruth that all people with learning differences can be trusted to recognise their strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, not all people without learning differences (surely we all have learning differences! But I digress...) can be trusted to recognise their strengths and weaknesses either, this is not specific to any one group of the population. Moreover, of those people that can be trusted to recognise their strengths and weaknesses, how many of those are scrupulous enough to act on recognition of their weaknesses? Again, this applies to the entire population.

In my experience this is what rules are there for - not to keep honest, intelligent people like you and me in check (well you seem honest and intelligent, whether I do is another matter, but I digress again), but to keep others from spoiling things.

This unfortunate behaviour of assumptions that most people show, is why I reject your argument that declaring extra time is analogous to declaring using a pen. It will be assumed that you used a pen in nearly 100% of cases, unless you state otherwise.

I can't agree with your twice used point that asking a dyslexic candidate to sit an exam without extra time is like asking a non dyslexic candidate not to use a pen. It's clearly extreme - the two are not really that comparable - but I do see where you are coming from. I have dyslexic friends that were only recently diagnosed, and therefore only recently got extra time in exams. However, before the extra time was given, they were still doing okay. Could I have done OK in any exams without a pen? Like I said though, I see the point you were making.

Regarding discrimination, choosing a dyslexic person over a non dyslexic person because of their "original thinking styles" does not strike me as discrimintion. It strikes me as selecting them for their original thinking styles which is surely a legitimate criterion, whether caused by dyslexia or otherwise. Throwing a CV in the bin solely due to the presence or absence of the word dyslexia - well that's obviously discrimination.

I can see the flaws in my suggestion (and you've pointed out a couple more) that extra time in exams be madatorily declared, but I put it out there because in my opinion it is better than the current system. I'm not so conceited that I think everybody should agree with me. The current system is a much huger problem (well I think it's a problem) of reliance on exams to determine ability. It irks me that some people are naturally intelligent and ace exams with very little work, and some people are fairly dopey and work their socks off to do well in exams. I think a distinction should be made between the two. I can't propose a way around this though.

It's possible that the reason I'm disposed against extra time in exams is becuase the only people I know that receive it are less intelligent than me, and I think our exam results should reflect this. I know that extra time does not magically boost your grades massively, but as it's getting easier to get a A these days, distinctions that should be made between candidates are disappearing. Perhaps if I had a friend who was very intelligent and dyslexic, it would be clearer to me how the condition hampers the expression of the intelligence. As it stands though, given all the time in the world, my dyslexic friends could not formulate a piece of writing that reads nicely. The limiting factor in these cases is intellect though, and not dyslexia. Maybe if I knew you it would help! This is all a bit off topic, and is really addressing the issue of whether or not exams should be harder. I think they should. Quite a bit harder. Then I think I would agree more with extra time, as there is a smaller chance that extra time will boost grades unfairly.

Ben

Reply 26

fireopal

Ben,

Thank you for your reply.

The reason why I chose to use the analogy of the pen is linked to my belief that learning differences should be treated as 'perfectly common occurrences'. You did state in your reply that everyone has learning differences to some extent. This is quite true, and surely it means that using extra time - just like writing with a pen - is natural for someone with a learning difference? So natural that it doesn't need to be mentioned?

I too was only diagnosed late. I managed to cope with severe dyspraxia until I turned fifteen, when I was given an assessment. Up until that point I had passed most of my exams, achieving mostly C grades and - if I was lucky - a low B. This puzzled my teachers, and my end-of-term reports crawled with remarks like, "She needs to improve her exam technique," and, "Her grades clearly do not match her ability..."

I had the compulsory biennial reassessment this afternoon and my verbal score placed me in the top 0.1% of the population, whilst my performance scores (visuo-spatial perception, motor skills, etc.) put me in the bottom 2% (This is a slight improvement - I used to be in the bottom 0.3%.) After I received my exam concessions two years ago, I started to gain A* grades and even some national accolades - grades I should have been getting all along. Yet my dyspraxic problems had clouded the true picture. For someone who doesn't have the same level of verbal compensation (or visuo-spatial compensation, in the case of dyslexia) their grades would probably be scraping the floor because they have no crutch to help them through. This probably made your friends appear a lot less intelligent than they really are, even if they weren't all that bright to begin with. It must be really tough for undiagnosed dyslexic and dyspraxic people who are of average or low-average ability, because have no special talent to pull them through. This shows that you are right in your example of the £10, 000 report-reading exercise - a dyslexic person without a wonder-talent wouldn't be able to take it.

But it would be even worse if the education authority decided to declare concessions taken by dyslexic people of average or low-average ability, but to ignore those taken by 'bright' dyslexic people. This really would cause discrimination, and arguably it is the dyslexics with average abilities who need that protection most. Everything else is stacked against them, so why add an extra hurdle? Such a move would definitely convince employers that extra time is a symptom of stupidity, and 'bright' dyslexics would be ashamed to admit their basic needs for fear of being lumped with their less intelligent counterparts.

You are right; I was generalising when I said that people with learning differences know how to recognise their abilities and their weaknesses. I spend a few hours per week at a special school, and all the people who go there are taught to do this. I know that not every school has the same policy.

But there is no foolproof way for employers to identify people who have unrealistic career aspirations, and it would be dangerous to try. I was rejected as senior prefect because the staff thought that I would be too forgetful and disorganised, as well as not having the social skills to handle my peers. (Severe dyspraxia overlaps with autism.) So I applied for the captaincy of my school's boarding house instead - a far more demanding job - and I got it. After he announced his selection to the House, the housemaster muttered to me, "I can't wait to see their faces in the staff room tomorrow when I tell them I've picked you." So far I think I've done very well. I have also shown two things: a.) that no matter how caring and considerate people intend to be, they can underestimate those of us with learning difficulties and b.) every care must be taken to stop such judgements from going on.

Perhaps exams should be made harder. But difficulty is rather a subjective concept, and the difficulty level won't alter attitudes that are commonly held about exams - and the people who sit them.

I would like to thank you for being so courteous and considerate about this whole thing. Most people who disagree with the current stance on specific learning difficulties are extremely rude to those of us who take concessions, or else they attack the whole idea of SpLDs, blustering about fancy names for laziness. It is refreshing to see that not everyone is like this.

Reply 27

Fluffy

Dyslexia - yes
Depression - depends ont he type of depression.
OCD- no, unless there is a pattern of events that the person has to undertake in the event of an exam.
Bulimia nervosa - no
Schizophrenia - depends on which one of them turns up :wink:

Reply 28

Magnanimity

I have chronic GAD and panic attacks and I am allowed extra time if I need it... Because there's a high probability I will take not well in an exam and need to leave for a little while until I recover. I'm not skiving, and I'm not trying to get extra time. Sometimes I need this and until you've been in a dyslexics position or had a mental illness, you will not understand at all and you can't begin to make judgements.

I sat five highers and I worked my arse off for them. I left one exam for about 20 minutes and felt :smile:

the whole time. (I felt :smile:

in the other ones but this one took the biscuit) If someone's going to try to tell me I wasn't entitled to extra time, I would be pretty pissed. Also, it's very, very hard to think straight when you're anxious or panicky and time pressure affects me very badly in this way. You have so many other things to focus on other than the paper, what your body is doing to you and how you can help yourself etc... It's something you can't judge until you experience it. I also remember smaller things like in English prelims not being able to write because of severe shaking... so I could have benefited there (though I didn't get extra time because I didn't leave the room).

But I think it speaks for itself when I got 5 Band 1 A's despite only having extra time in one.

Reply 29

Wilde_Oscar

No Future

Dyslexia - Yes. Because when you struggle to read letters or write them, you need extra time to be able to sort out the sentences in your head. Giving a text-based exam to someone who is text-disadvantaged is a definite lag on their results.

I don't personally think any of the others require extra time. Bulima might be a disease, but it's about body image and control, not trying to write essays, schizophrenia I think - but am not sure - can be controlled with drugs, and once again, is based on mental health, not on disadvantage, and I have no idea what OCD is. Depression, certainly not - again, it's a medical condition, entirely unrelated to text.

Reply 30

AATTMM

Wilde_Oscar

I have no idea what OCD is.

Lol, pretty much says it all.

And to the persom who said "OCD- no, unless there is a pattern of events that the person has to undertake in the event of an exam." OCD can affect people during exams as well.

Reply 31

S@sha

I'm foreign, but have never asked or had extra time for language problems, whereas I know Indians and Kenyans, who speak English as their mother tongue getting it. That's just ridiculous abuse of the rules. If you don't speak English then don't sit the A-levels or GCSEs. Go on other courses.

Reply 32

sashh

benamure

I wasn't diagnosed as dyslexic until I was in my 30s.

I did O Levels and got B and C grades, I attempted A Levels and got nothing worth mentioning.

With extra time and the use of a laptop and speech recognition software I managed to pass a university exam not only with a good grade but with the highest ever recorded grade for that subject.

I don't think you realise just how hard it is for a dyslexic to take a written exam. It is no measure of ability for a dyslexic. My dyslexia never held me back in my career. If I could have taken my O Levels as oral exams I would have got A grades, the same with A Levels.

Can you imagine just how frustrating it is to know a subject inside out but not be able to write it down? Because of the way many dyslexics think they are good problem solvers and once something is commited to memory (which takes a while) it is there for ever. We have enough barriers in education, what you are proposing means that many employers will write us off before interview because we had extra time in exams when in fact we are able to do a job and do it well.

Dyslexics incled Einstein (already mentioned I know) Richard Branson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Leonardo Da Vinci. This group of people don't have an A Level between them (or any other high school exam) if extra time and assistive technology had been available to them do you think they would have passed?

In answer to the origional question - all of them if the person's condition makes it harder for them to study / take exams in the normal time.

Reply 33

MrsJones

Maybe no extra time should be allowed because the idea is still unfair. One dyslexic may need an extra 15mins, another 30 mins to have enough time to complete to their abilities.

I think the papers however should indicate any reason why the student may underperform so that it can be marked by qualified people who can properly take into account the difficulties.

Reply 34

fireopal

MrsJones,

This is why there is no 'lump sum' of extra time. I am entitled to 50%, I have dyslexic schoolmates who get 25%, and I know somone who gets 30%. The Weschler tests are sophisticated enough to gauge exactly how much extra time a person needs, based on the severity of their difficulties.

Without a computer in exams, my handwriting can't be read, so your idea definitely wouldn't work in my case. Plus, you should remember that it is extremely frustrating to know you're clever but not be able to show it. I want my examiners to see how able I am. I don't want them to have to make allowances for me. Asking an examiner to make allowances is risky - you might get an overly-sympathetic examiner who dishes out the A grades to any and every dyslexic, or you might get a narrow-minded one who doesn't believe in learning difficulties at all and grades harshly.

Reply 35

Fluffy

AATTMM

I am well aware of that, having suffered from numerous OCD syndromes!

Nerves can affect a person during exam season - should they get extra time too? Where do you draw the line?

Reply 36

sashh

MrsJones

If I have extra time I can put ideas down on paper,if i don't I can't.

How can an examiner look at a blank sheet and think "mmmmmmmmmm given an extra 15 mins this person would have written an A grade answer"?

Reply 37

meawinner

juno_the

Define "harder". If the first paper had more long questions than the 2nd then of course it would make her arm hurt more. Or even with mathsy questions, you can't progress to the 2nd stage until you've written the first line down. So if she wrote slower then she would need more time.

I had extra time, and didn't always need it. It doesn't necessarily depend on how hard other people think the exam is. Maybe the weather was colder, maybe she slept badly on it the night before, maybe it hadn't had as much time to heal, maybe it was hurting more!

It's not fair to say she only wanted extra time because the exam was harder. You're not your friend so you don't know how it affected her.

She hurt her shoulder over a year ago and hadn't been complaining about it for a while so I wonder why she would ask for extra time in this exam and not in another subject, when both subjects exams were just as long as each other and with similar length of writing. No essays and the longest answer being around 3 lines.

Reply 38

Samuel Page

Extra time in exams for dyslexics can be essential. Often a dyslexic will have all of the ideas and thoughts in there minds, but cannot relay that onto paper, as quickly as a non-dyslexic.

So this enables them that extra bit of time to check if the meaning of the work / spellings etc is correct.

A past comment said dyslexia is with you for life, so you shouldn't get extra time. My opinion is any employer should understand dyslexia and be flexible enough to allow the potential gift of having a dyslexic employee work within an org. I am sure no one would ever grumble at Richard Branson for having dyslexia and perhaps not being as organised etc as other CEOs of big companies, after all, look where he is today!

Reply 39

AT82

I think the current system is fair, if you're dyslexic it takes longer to write stuff down. I had extra time in my GCSEs but not A level becuase of my co-ordination problem it physicaly takes me extra time to write stuff down. I could have got extra time for my hearing loss although to be fair there was no reason this would affect the time it takes write down exam papers.

Why is it fair that people with disabalities which affect their time to write stuff down get the same amount of time as other people?