David

I for one totally agree with you - and Terry - (don't fall off your chair
in shock!) about avoiding talk about technologies at first in the
assessment. I think the assessment process should be:- reflection first
(direct discussion away from computers - maybe even in a seperate room if
space allows!), then action/evaluation, then some basic conclusions
(followed by all the report writing, costing etc). Having said that,
bringing in the technology early in *some* sessions can help in that it
might bring out other issues - showing how technology can help can
encourage more reluctant or cynical (about the process) students to "open
up" so I don't think it should be a fixed rule.

Also - regarding skills - assessors have a responsibility to be more
informed than most about the range and potential of the technologies
available (and sometimes to apply lateral thinking to non-obvious
technologies), but also need social/interpersonal skills and an
understanding of education - hence such a difficult job to fill and do
properly.

I also agree with the comments about 'boxism'. The danger is that
assesors (and people who read the reports) might see the boxes-style
report as a form that has to be completed rather than a format to follow.
If this happens its a misinterpretation of what the assessment process is
all about, in my opinion. It's the headings that are important, not the
boxes! Place the information where it makes most sense for the individual
- e.g. it often makes sense to talk about the effects of disability on
previous studies when giving details about 'previous
education/employment'.

I'm sure NFAC will welcome any constructive comments about the 'new'
report format from anyone who uses the reports - contact details can be
found on the NFAC website www.nfac.org.uk

Ian



On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:29, David Grant wrote:

> The correspondance on this thread has been both interesting, varied, and - at times - dogmatic.
>
>
> I'm particularly struck by Terry's openning comment and would like to offer some observations to take this thread forward [some might argue backwards].
>
>
> Terry commented: "As long as those assessing only consider the technology to be supplied and
> >not how it is to be applied there will remain a high cost attached to
> >supporting students with dyslexia."
>
>
>
> I find myself in agreement with Terry's comments
and offer some observations on how this problem may be avoided.
>
>
> Firstly, I wish to offer an over-riding observation. The task of a needs assessor
is a highly skilled one and, in terms of levels of skill,
I would suggest that the levels of skill and knowledge
required are in excess of that required for many lecturing posts. [I've
done both].
>
>
> A wide variety of skills are required, not least those of social skills. I would place this first of all the skills required. Therefore, if I was to offer a golden rule of needs assessment it is that there should be no discussion of assistive technologies until an hour of interviwing has
elapsed. Until you have a detailed understanding of the student the his/her course of study it makes very little sense to proceed further.
>
>
> Secondly, to avoid the issue that some have identified, that of recommending 'standard' packages, I would suggest that the standard NAAC proforma be reviewed. At the risk of offending some, I would suggest that this proforma might, indavertently, through boxism, focus attention on technologies
rather than the individual.
>
>
> One of my favourite research titles is 'Developmental Dyslexics do not Fit in Boxes' [John Wilding, 1989]. It is a wise caution to thinking beyond labels and confines.
>
>
> I'm familar with the form of reporting used by Access Centres
and I would suggest that the use of discrete boxes results
in a decontruction of the individual.
For example, why separate the nature of the disability
from the educational/employment history of the individual?
In many cases they are so intertwined that it only makes sense
to consider them as twin mirrors.
>
>
> Similarly, the emphasis on separating effects of the disability re: facets of study and learning from an evaluation of support strategies once again sets up a dissonance, with the result that there is a risk that recommendations are divorced from the context.
>
>
> I can understand why the boxism approach has been adopted. It encourages all aspects be considered. It is also bueacratically efficent. Have all the boses been filled? How easily can I find the recommendations? [ and thus overlook the individual].
>
>
> In one sense the philopsophy adopted appears to be based on Scientific Taylorism: break everything down small steps. It is steeped in a mechanistic philosophy and avoids the more messy - but human - organismic style of thought. [20 Century vs 21 Century].
>
>
> I have no doubt that a highly skilled assessor will seek to avoid these risks, and good back-up staff in Access centres are aware of these dangers, but forms of reporting should facilitate, not hinder, sensitive and intelligent responses.
>
> I would be very interested in knowing whether I'm out on a limb on this one [not the first time], or whether we should consider alternatives.
>
>
> David [busy digging a deep hole].
>
>
> David Grant, PhD., Chartered Psychologist
> dyslexia diagnosis - a specialist service for students
> 3 Rosebank Road
> Hanwell
> London W7 2EW
>
> Tel: 020 8579 1902
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> ----------
> >From: Terry Hart <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Variation to assessment for non-dysl
> >Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 2:17 pm
> >
>
> >As long as those assessing only consider the technology to be supplied and
> >not how it is to be applied there will remain a high cost attached to
> >supporting students with dyslexia. This is amply demonstrated by the number
> >of students with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty that has course
> >specific software awarded alongside the innevitable computer. Has anyone
> >done any maths to check on the average award for a dyslexic student doing
> >an arts based course than one doing say a science based one?. Most
> >assessors it would seem spend more time demonstrating how to operate a
> >specific peice of technology rather than learn how the individuals learning
> >process functions or indeed needs to function. There is little point in
> >spending innordinate amounts of time demonstrating a specific peice of
> >software or hardware as the intended benefactor will not remember anything
> >of any significane from the experience. However if that time was spent
> >getting to know how the individual learns and functions then whatever
> >technology / support is recommended can be better targeted. I know in an
> >era where technology is a god it is almost a crime to talk about strategy
> >in this manner but it does ensure a more cost effective service is supplied.
> >It is also important not to kid ourselves that strategy is as simple as
> >most examples seen of relating a tape recorder / minidisk to just recording
> >a lecture etc. That is about as intuitive as saying use a car to drive
> >somewhere or a pencil to draw.
> >For someone who deals with assessments for both the DSA and the DFE I doubt
> >if the reasoning and recommendations made under some DSA would be
> >acceptable to the DFE.
> >
> >Terry Hart
> >Technical Assessor
> >University of Plymouth
> >
> >The opinions expressed here do not neccessarily reflect those of the
> >University or the department.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: Fri 29/11/2002 10:06
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Cc:
> >Subject: Re: Variation to assessment for non-dysl
> >
> >
> >
> > Well it's hard to be cool when something I believe is fundamental in
> > ensuring equal opportunities for all is subject to such widespread abuse,
> > especially when such abuse is condoned (and even perpetrated) by the very
> > people Awards Officers rely on for their expertise. I am convinced that
> > if the inappropriate use of DSA funding continues unabated, it will be
> > those students with the greatest needs (dyslexic or otherwise) that will
> > ultimately suffer.
> >
> > I am in no way anti-dyslexia and have never had any qualms in providing
> > support where a genuine need has been established. I am concerned,
> > however, that the Disabled Student's Allowance is rapidly becoming the
> > Dyslexic Student's Allowance and that the definition of a Specific
> > Learning Difficulty is now "anything that might get me a free computer".
> > Whilst I can understand this attitude in students, it is distressing to
> > see it reflected in the attitudes of professionals and am forced to
> > wonder whether these arguments would be quite so forceful if the funding
> > came directly from HEI budgets or if total DSA expenditure were to be
> > capped annually.
> >
> > HE funding is once again under the spotlight and I believe it won't be
> > long before DSA funding comes under close scrutiny. Before that happens
> > we must ALL ensure that it is genuine needs that are being addressed and
> > that the provision of such a valuable resource is not threatened through
> > frivolous use and the "let's use it because it's there" attitude which is
> > becoming increasing common in many areas of disability support.
> >
> > St.John Skeates
> > Awards Section
> > Bedfordshire County Council
> > Direct Line 01234 316300
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Hill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:35 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]; Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm
> > Subject: Re: Variation to assessment for non-dysl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi John and others
> >
> > My apologies if my question sounded like an accusation - it wasn't meant
> > that way.
> >
> > It's possible that I'm being a little emotive in responding to what I
> > perceive to be a 'let's knock dyslexia' trend. I'd normally be one of
> > the few to defend St John's right to give vent to his feelings.
> > However, his email on this thread is hardly a cool appraisal of the
> > current situation regarding DSA allocation.
> >
> > Bernard's response about the discrepancy definition is of course valid.
> > However, although there will normally be a discrepancy between IQ and
> > literacy, there will not always be a significant discrepancy between IQ
> > MEASURES (eg WAIS) and literacy MEASURES (eg WRAT). This is more likely
> > to be the case where the subject has a low IQ but is well motivated and
> > has received a few hundred hours good quality specialist support before
> > entering HE (perhaps at school or privately).
> >
> > I agree entirely with those who question the wisdom of encouraging
> > students to take on courses for which they are not 'intellectually'
> > qualified. I have myself struggled to support one or two such students
> > in the past - and still can't imagine how they made it successfully
> > through the FE system. However, it does happen. Given the government's
> > drive to widen participation, and the 'bums on seats' ethos (already
> > common to FE) that is now affecting HE, it is perhaps inevitable that
> > more students are 'drawn in' from the margins of academic potential
> > (this applies to other groups, not just those with specific learning
> > difficulties).
> >
> > Of course it's irresponsible of HEIs to admit students who are bound to
> > struggle - but at least there are disincentives (retention rate data,
> > etc) to suppress that tendency.
> >
> > I also acknowledge that it is right and important for needs assessors,
> > disability coordinators, support tutors, LEA awards officers,
> > psychologists, etc to make their concerns known. However, I'd hate to
> > think that poorly reasoned conclusions and 'solutions' could ultimately
> > attract the credibility that this forum might afford them.
> >
> > Further, there are already some local practices in place that appear to
> > disadvantage some students (eg the old chestnut - Ed Psych's
> > assessments only). It would be worrying to see that trend develop
> > further - as an ad hoc response to the Chancellor's pre-budget speech!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Peter Hill
> >
> >
> > John Conway wrote:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > > I don't want to suggest a minimum, I don't want to exclude anyone on IQ
> > > alone - especially as full scale values are dangerous averages - but
> > most of
> > > all I am concerned that the individual - who admits to struggling
> > terribly -
> > > may be setting herself up for a terrible fall. If I was suggesting
> > anything
> > > [but rather I was questioning] it would be the need for evidence of the
> > > chance of succeeding - which would normally be required in the form of
> > a
> > > prior degree - from people without such formal qualifications.
> > >
> > > John.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. John S Conway
> > > Principal Lecturer in Soil Science
> > > Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Glos. GL7 6JS
> > > Phone +44 (0) 1285 652531 ext 2234
> > > Fax +44 (0) 1285 650219
> > > http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/
> > > <http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/>
> > >
> > > Declaration : CONFIDENTIALITY: The contents of this message are the
> > views of
> > > the author, not necessarily the views of the Royal Agricultural
> > College.
> > > This is a private message intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its
> > > contents may be confidential. If you have received this message in
> > error
> > > please reply to say so and then delete the message. Any use, copying,
> > > disclosure or distribution by other than the addressee is forbidden.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Hill [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:44 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Variation to assessment for non-dysl
> > >
> > > > What is the feeling about minimum IQ levels for dyslexic
> > students
> > > - I
> > > know
> > > > this is a minefield but an MBA student with a full scale IQ
> > of 83
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > Dr. John S Conway
> > > > DO
> > > > Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Glos. GL7 6JS
> > > > Phone +44 (0) 1285 652531 ext 2234
> > > > Fax +44 (0) 1285 650219
> > > > http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/
> > > > <http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that a dyslexia diagnosis should be tied to
> > a
> > > minimum IQ, or that a student with dyslexia should have an IQ
> > of at
> > > least, say 90, to enter HE?
> > >
> > > The former would involve redefining dyslexia (or adhering
> > rigidly to
> > > an
> > > existing discrepancy-based definition). The latter would be
> > > discriminatory - unless, we test the IQ of all university
> > entrants.
> > >
> > > A minefield, indeed.
> > >
> > > I am a little uneasy about tone and content of some exchanges
> > on
> > > this
> > > issue (on this and other forums). I sense a degree of panic -
> > and
> > > what
> > > could easily be interpreted as prejudice against those with
> > > dyslexia.
> > >
> > > I recognise that there are difficulties and that the pressure
> > on the
> > > DSA is likely to increase as demand continues to rise. I feel
> > we
> > > should beware though of knee-jerk responses rooted in a sort of
> > > quasi-
> > > science based on subjective impressions.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest that it is possible to chalk up an IQ of 85 on the
> > WAIS
> > > (or
> > > other measure) and still be dyslexic. Further there are no
> > rules
> > > prohibiting a student with an IQ of 75 from taking up
> > undergaduate
> > > study. I really don't think it's a good idea - but it is
> > certainly
> > > not
> > > for me (or anyone on this forum) to close the gates on any
> > > individual.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Peter Hill
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 01527 500324
> > [log in to unmask]
> > www.study-pro.com
> >
> > Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources
> >
> > *********************************************************************
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed.
> >
> > If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately
> > by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
> > Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer.
> >
> > Any modification of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
> > unless expressly authorised by the sender.
> > *********************************************************************
> >
> >
>