Romi Loffler’s Fight To Take Exam By Blinking
Every student deserves the opportunity to demonstrate what they know. Yet for Romi Loffler, a 21-year-old student with Rett syndrome, the barriers to achieving a recognised qualification have proved almost as challenging as the examination itself.
Imagine taking half an hour to write a single sentence, carefully spelling out each letter through the movement of your eyes. Now imagine preparing for an important examination, knowing that the conventional time limits and assessment arrangements may prevent you from showing what you have learned.
This is the reality for Romi Loffler, whose experience has raised important questions about accessibility, educational equality and whether examination systems are doing enough to accommodate disabled learners.
A Determined Student with Ambitious Goals
Romi, who lives in Netherlee, East Renfrewshire, has Rett syndrome, a genetic neurological condition that affects movement and communication and can involve serious health complications, including epilepsy.
Although Romi cannot speak or move in the usual way, she communicates using specialised eye-gaze technology. By directing her eyes towards letters and words, she can express her thoughts, answer questions and share her experiences.
For many years, people with Rett syndrome were often assumed to have profound learning disabilities. Romi is challenging those assumptions by demonstrating her ability to learn, complete coursework and work towards recognised academic qualifications.
After months of dedication, she completed the coursework for a National 4 qualification in history, which she achieved last year. Encouraged by this accomplishment, she set herself a new goal: progressing to National 5 history.
However, the next step required her to sit an examination, and this is where her ambitions encountered a significant obstacle.
The Examination System Becomes a Barrier
Romi and her family began discussions with Qualifications Scotland approximately 18 months before the examination. Working alongside Glasgow Clyde College, they explored adjustments that would allow her to demonstrate her knowledge without being disadvantaged by the physical demands of communication.
One proposal was to allow Romi to complete the examination one question at a time over several weeks or potentially months. Although this would mean completing the assessment over a much longer period than other candidates, the examination would remain at National 5 level.
Her family also suggested providing a bank of relevant, pre-agreed words to reduce the need for Romi to spell out every letter individually.
Qualifications Scotland rejected the proposed arrangements. According to the BBC report, the organisation suggested that Romi sit the examination in one session instead.
Her mother, Gael Gordon, argued that this would be impractical because communicating through eye movements is physically and mentally exhausting.
The disagreement raises a fundamental question: should every student have to work within an identical examination format, even when that format prevents some students from demonstrating their abilities?
Equality Does Not Always Mean Identical Treatment
One of the most important lessons from Romi’s experience is the difference between treating everyone identically and giving everyone a fair opportunity.
Traditional examinations generally operate within fixed time limits and standardised conditions. These arrangements are intended to maintain consistency and ensure that qualifications represent the same level of achievement.
However, the same conditions can create unequal barriers for students with significant disabilities.
For Romi, the challenge is not simply recalling historical facts or constructing an answer. She must also communicate every part of that answer through a method that can take considerable time and energy.
Expecting her to complete an examination under conventional conditions may therefore measure the speed and stamina of her communication rather than the depth of her historical knowledge.
Reasonable adjustments are intended to address precisely these kinds of barriers. They do not necessarily mean lowering academic standards. Instead, they can provide alternative ways for students to demonstrate that they have met those standards.
A longer assessment period, for example, could allow Romi to answer the same questions at the same academic level without the physical demands of completing everything in one sitting.
The challenge for examination authorities is to determine which adjustments preserve the validity of an assessment while removing unnecessary obstacles.
Why Romi’s Case Has Attracted Wider Attention
Romi’s situation has prompted comparisons with examinations in England, where two children reportedly used eye-gaze technology to complete GCSE assessments earlier in 2026. One student with cerebral palsy took five months to finish an examination.
These examples raise questions about whether different examination systems are sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of disabled learners.
Gael Gordon questioned why arrangements that have reportedly been made possible elsewhere could not be considered for her daughter’s National 5 examination.
The comparison does not automatically mean that every assessment arrangement can be transferred directly between qualification systems. Different qualifications may have different assessment requirements, and examination authorities must consider how adjustments affect the reliability and integrity of their assessments.
Nevertheless, examples of alternative arrangements demonstrate why it is important to explore individual solutions rather than dismiss them simply because they fall outside conventional practice.
If a student can demonstrate the required knowledge and skills through an appropriately designed assessment, the possibility deserves serious consideration.
The Emotional Cost of Being Denied an Opportunity
For Romi, this is about much more than obtaining a certificate.
When asked how she felt about being unable to sit the examination, she communicated a clear answer: she was angry.
She explained that other students had been given the opportunity to achieve their National 5 qualifications, while she had not received the same chance.
Her message was direct: disabled students should not always be expected to adapt to an examination system that was not designed around their needs. The system should also adapt so they can demonstrate what they know.
Her words highlight the emotional impact of barriers that can prevent disabled people from participating fully in education.
When someone is repeatedly underestimated because of a disability, opportunities to demonstrate their abilities become particularly important. A recognised qualification can provide tangible evidence of achievement, helping challenge assumptions about what a person can understand or accomplish.
For Romi, earning that certificate would be proof of her academic ability and the effort she has invested in her studies.
It would also represent an achievement that others could not simply dismiss because of how she communicates.
Colleges and Advocacy Groups Call for Fairness
Glasgow Clyde College has described Romi as a highly capable and committed student. The college said it remained committed to supporting her and would continue working with her family and Qualifications Scotland to explore the available options.
Rett UK has also criticised the additional barriers Romi faces, arguing that she has already encountered situations in which her abilities have been dismissed.
The organisation has highlighted the importance of allowing students to complete assessments over extended periods where appropriate.
Qualifications Scotland, meanwhile, has said it is committed to making reasonable adjustments so disabled learners have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding.
The organisation also emphasised its responsibility to maintain the integrity of qualifications, noting that more than 39,000 learners benefited from assessment arrangements during the year.
Both accessibility and assessment standards are important. The question is whether a workable solution can protect the credibility of a qualification while giving Romi a genuine opportunity to earn it.
A constructive approach would require careful consideration of her communication needs, the examination’s learning objectives and safeguards that ensure the assessment remains meaningful.
What Needs to Change?
Romi’s experience offers several important lessons for education providers and examination authorities.
First, accessibility should be considered early. Students with complex communication needs should be involved in discussions about assessment arrangements well before examination day. Early planning gives institutions more time to investigate possible solutions.
Second, adjustments should be based on individual needs. Disability does not affect every student in the same way. A solution that works for one learner may not be suitable for another. Assessment arrangements should reflect the particular barriers each student faces.
Third, maintaining standards should not become a reason to reject every unconventional approach. Examination authorities should assess whether a proposed adjustment genuinely compromises what an examination is designed to measure, rather than assuming that a different format automatically creates an unfair advantage.
Finally, disabled students must be recognised as active participants in decisions about their education. Their views, ambitions and experiences should carry real weight when institutions determine how they can access assessments.
These principles could help create a system that protects academic standards without unnecessarily restricting educational opportunities.
A Fair Chance to Prove What She Can Do
Romi Loffler’s story is a reminder that a person’s ability cannot always be judged by how quickly they speak, write or complete a task.
Her determination to study history and achieve a National 5 qualification challenges assumptions about disability and learning. Her experience also exposes a difficult question for Scotland’s education system: what value does an examination have if the conditions prevent a capable student from demonstrating what they know?
Fairness does not require every student to follow precisely the same process. Sometimes, fairness means recognising that people need different forms of support to reach the same academic standard.
Romi is not asking for her achievement to be handed to her. She wants the opportunity to earn it.
That distinction should be at the heart of any discussion about inclusive education.
The ultimate goal should be an examination system that measures a student’s knowledge and understanding, not the extent to which their body can conform to a standardised timetable.
For Romi and other disabled learners, the opportunity to prove what they can do should not depend on whether their needs fit neatly within existing procedures. It should depend on whether they can demonstrate the knowledge and skills the qualification requires.
Education is supposed to open doors. The challenge now is to ensure that the examination system does not become another door that disabled students are unable to open.
