I would not pick a tutor for a dyslexic child on the strength of the word "dyslexia" appearing on their profile. I would ask them what they did differently, and what they tried that did not work.
That is not scepticism about tutors. It is that the label is the cheapest part of the answer, and this is a subject where the cheap answers cost families real money.
Here is the thing most parents find out too late: you cannot apply for extra time. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the application has to come from the school's SENCo, through JCQ's Access Arrangements Online. A private assessment you commission yourself does not create an arrangement. It can start a conversation, and that is worth something, but a lot of families pay for a report expecting it to be the key, and it is not the key.
Quick answer: Only the school's SENCo can apply, via JCQ Access Arrangements Online. Two things decide it: standardised test scores showing a substantial, long-term impairment, and evidence of normal way of working, meaning timed mocks where your child already uses the arrangement. JCQ's March 2026 amendment steers SENCos toward rest breaks first for impairments other than learning difficulties, so for dyslexia 25% extra time remains the standard route. Scotland runs a separate system through the SQA.
What changed in March 2026
JCQ issued a mid-year amendment to the Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments document for 2025/26. Two changes matter to parents.
The workplace-preparation framing was removed. Applications no longer lean on the argument that an arrangement prepares a candidate for working life.
And SENCos are now asked to consider supervised rest breaks before applying for 25% extra time, along with alternatives like assistive technology, timers, or white noise. This is the change being discussed most, and it is also the one most often reported without its condition attached, so read this part carefully: that steer applies to candidates whose impairment is something other than a learning difficulty.
Dyslexia is a learning difficulty. For a dyslexic candidate, 25% extra time remains the ordinary route, and the March amendment does not change that. If your child has ADHD or is autistic, the picture genuinely is different, and rest breaks may be the better first ask. That is a separate post: ADHD, autism and online tutoring.
What actually decides an application
Two pieces of evidence, and families consistently over-invest in the first and under-invest in the second.
The assessment. The candidate is assessed by the centre's appointed assessor using current nationally standardised tests, showing a substantial and long-term impairment. In practice, that usually means working memory or reading speed in the below-average range.
Normal way of working. This is the one that decides it. JCQ wants evidence that the arrangement is how your child already works, not something switched on for the exam. Part 1 of Form 8 needs teacher feedback, and evidence from timed internal tests or mock papers showing extra time actually being used, with the candidate changing pen or font colour for the extra portion so the assessor can see what was written in it. Subject staff comment on why the extra time is needed and how it gets used in practice.
Read that again, because it has a practical consequence. If your child sits their mocks without extra time, the evidence does not exist. The application then rests on a diagnosis alone, and diagnoses alone get refused.
So the useful question for the SENCo is not "will you apply for extra time". It is: "what would you need to see in the mocks for an application to be viable, and can we start doing that now?"
The arrangements that exist for dyslexia
Not an exhaustive list, and not all of these need a formal application. Ordered roughly by how commonly they come up.
- 25% extra time. The standard arrangement, on the evidence above.
- A word processor. Often more useful than extra time for a candidate whose handwriting collapses under pressure, and it needs to be their normal way of working too.
- A reader, or reading software. Reading is removed as an obstacle in subjects that are not testing reading.
- A scribe, or speech-to-text. For candidates whose difficulty is getting words onto the page rather than finding them.
- Coloured overlays or a modified paper. Larger print, a specific font, a non-white background.
- Spelling not penalised where the mark scheme allows it.
The pattern under all of them is the same: take away an obstacle that is not the thing being examined. A student who reads a physics paper with software is being tested on physics rather than on reading, which is what the qualification claims to measure anyway.
Dyslexia is not a learning style
A small point of language, and I think it matters more than it sounds.
Most study advice is noise. Matching a tutor to a child's "learning style", starting revision three months early, more hours meaning better grades: I do not think any of that moves the needle, and the learning-styles idea in particular has been tested and has not held up. Finding the right tutor, someone qualified, trustworthy and genuinely driven for your child's success, is close to the whole game. That is it.
Dyslexia is a different category of thing entirely. It is not a preference for how information arrives, it is a measurable difficulty with a specific process, and it comes with legal entitlements and a formal evidence pathway. When a school or a tutor slides from one word to the other and starts talking about your child being "more of a visual learner", the conversation has quietly moved from something enforceable to something decorative. Pull it back.
Where tutoring helps, and where it does not
Let me do the "does not" first, because it is shorter and more honest.
A tutor cannot diagnose dyslexia. A tutor cannot secure an access arrangement, cannot submit to Access Arrangements Online, and cannot overrule a SENCo. Anyone implying otherwise is selling you something.
I also think you should be wary of tutors who never say no. A student came to me once for help with trigonometric identities. I had last touched them properly five years earlier, and when I sat down with the exercises I could not do them well enough myself. My strategy was going to be surface level, which was not what he needed, so I refunded him. I do not tell that story because refunding is impressive. I tell it because the tutor who tells you they are not the right person for your child is giving you better information than the one who says yes to everything, and on this topic that matters more than usual.
Now the part that does work, and it is worth real money.
Building the normal way of working evidence. This is the most useful thing on the list, and almost nobody frames tutoring this way. Working through timed past papers with the arrangement in place, so that by mock season the extra time is genuinely how your child works. That is exactly the evidence Form 8 asks for.
Assistive technology fluency. Being granted reading software is not the same as being fast with it. A student who opens their text-to-speech for the first time in the exam hall gets no benefit from it and loses time learning the interface. That fluency has to be built somewhere low-stakes, and one-to-one is a reasonable place.
The backlog. This is the quiet one. Most dyslexic students spent years before anyone worked out what was going on, and in those years specific things did not land. A tense in French, a chunk of algebra, a way of structuring an essay. None of that is repaired by an access arrangement. It is just work, and it goes faster one to one because you can hunt for the gaps instead of running a syllabus. The method for that is the same one in catching up when you are behind.
What to do this week
Email the SENCo. Not to ask whether your child qualifies, but with these three questions:
- What is currently in place, and is it recorded anywhere. Ask for a copy.
- What would you need to see in the mocks for an application to be viable, and when are those mocks.
- Who is your appointed assessor, and would you accept a private report, before I pay for one.
That third question has saved families several hundred pounds more than once. Ask it before you book anything.