Peter Hill's email on the above hit several bull's eyes. Despite the
comments in the Dyselxia Working Party's report on the
acceptibility of OCR (RSA) SpLD diagnosis, the latter have not
been taken up as widely as might have been expected. As a
member of the Working Party I did feel that one motive for their
inclusion was to make HE more consistent with the GCSE and A-
level exam boards, though we accepted that most courses still
have a strong child-centered bias and it might be some time before
adult-focused courses were widely available.

Thus I suspect Peter is correct in that it was not our most
enthusiastic conclusion. We were trying to deal with the obvious
difficulties (costs and logistics) in sticking only with EPs' reports
while trying to hold the line and retain some credibility in the
diagnostic process. For example, other self-acclaimed processes
were equally clearly ruled out.

Since the report was published I have had several SpLD authored
reports offered as evidence. The content is bewideringly varied, not
only in the tests used but also in the quality. One simply stated
that the student had scored 8 out of 10 on the Bangor! In short, it
isn't the letters after the name that make a good report but the
content. (And before others say it I accept the same is true of EPs)

What is needed, and again Peter had it right, is an investigation
into the qualification itself (including how appropriate existing
courses are to adults) and the tests available.

I would like more confidence in the structure and content of what
was presented as evidence. Once you step beyond the WAIS
(which is regularly updated and re-normalised to current needs) you
hit a welter of tests many of which have not been updated in
decades. Report content reflects a pick and mix approach of the
individual tester which leaves both the LEA student support officer
and the DSA assessor floundering.

I accept that having the WAIS etc available does not guarantee the
quality of EP's reports and I first complained about them to the
BPS a year before the working party was set up, and little has
happened since. But this is a different issue which needs its own
solution. It isn't an excuse for diving into another pool which has its
own share of problems.

As regards who should do something, I was once told that all these
tests belong to publishers who will invest in their upkeep only if
they think it is financially worthwhile- which must depend on sales.
So perhaps one approach would be to set up a working party to
look at the tests available, to decide on a subset that would be
sufficient to reflect a good diagnosis, then approach the publishers
with a view to having them revised on the understanding that they
would be widely adopted. This would have to go hand-in-hand with
the revision of the SpLD courses themselves which would have to
teach their application and interpretation.

Having had a thoroughly satisfying first official conference, NADO is
busy right now selecting members to sit on various key working
parties for Skill, Universities UK and the DRC, so I'm not falling over
myself to offer our services, though we'd be very happy to offer
experienced well qualified participants to whatever can be
organised.




Dave Laycock

Head of CCPD
Chair of NADO
Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
University of Westminster
72 Great Portland Street
London W1N 5AL

tel. 020 7911-5161
fax. 020 7911-5162
WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/