This is an interesting and revealing debate. I'd argue the issue has
become confused when comparing SpLD tutorial support to interpreter
support.
All students have the freedom to just not turn up for lectures from time
to time. Continued non-attendance becomes an academic concern for tutors
to follow up first. After that, the same system of alerting LEAs to non-
attendance should exist for both disabled and non-disabled students.
Interpreters should have a contract that states they will turn up for
and be paid for timetabled lectures for the student, irrespective of
whether the student decides to attend - this should be agreed beforehand
with the student and the LEA. The student shouldn't be financially
penalised in a way that non-disabled students aren't for non-attendance.
SpLD sessions are different. These sessions have usually been recommended
on the basis of diagnostic testing and further assessment as a package of
support that includes equipment and other strategies. If the student
decides to selectively disregard part of the package, maybe the whole
package of support should be reviewed - maybe this should be made clear
in the original assessment?
It's sad that students who are finding it hard to find the time to make
their dyslexia tutorial appointments are usually the ones who could
benefit most from these sessions. tutors should be allowed (and expected
to) 'nag' their students to turn up for sessions.
If the student is not finding these sessions useful they must be
encouraged to explain why - the disability officer should make it clear
students can go back to them if they aren't finding the support helpful.
Dare I say it might be that the tutor is not directly addressing the
particular needs of the student sometimes?
Ian
On 16 May 2003 at 17:28, Turner, Paddy wrote:
> Dear all,
> I wonder if it is just because it is Friday or whether I am truly alone here.
> I really don't want to labour this point but I am really very worried by what I feel is a fundamental principle underpinning Equal
> Opportunites and the rights of Disabled people that it appears is being cast aside in order to satisfy the ever present God of financial
> accountability.
|