What do people think about the fairness allocating extra time in public exams for dyslexic students? And does anyone know of any studies that link extra time with success for dyslexic students in a measurable way i.e. do dyslexics students do significantly better compared with any student given fifteen extra minutes per hour? BritishDyslexics.co.uk says of this: Imagine you needed spectacles to read and write effectively but you are told you can not use them during an examination because this was not allowed. Without your spectacles you found it so difficult to take the exam that you only managed to answer 3 out of the 5 questions before you ran out of time. You subsequently discover that you scored an average of 60% for the 3 questions that you answered and you believe you could have done equally as well on the final 2 questions had you had more time. Unfortunately, you failed this examination miserably with only 36% overall and you will continue to fail each exam you sit until you are either allowed extra time or allowed to use spectacles to correct your poor vision. By this logic, any student would benefit from extra time - and would do better in each question. And how can we accept that dyslexia comes in different forms and to different extents, and still apportion a blanket 15 minutes per hour? I am currently doing my Finals, and seeing people who can and have coped with the time constraints of public exams suddenly diagnosed as dyslexic and being allowed additional time, which, let's face it, all of us could do with, is very frustrating. I'm not saying that I don't take dyslexia seriously - I really do, but I really don't think extra time in exams is the fair answer to this problem. Exams should be a fair way of testing everyone of all abilities, under the same conditions. I'd be happy for my mind to be changed by someone more educated about this than I am, and I would really like to read some research on this if anyone can point me towards some.