To contribute to the recent discussion over 'levels of
dyslexia' I think that 'context' i.e. demands of the
course, methods of assessment, (non)compliance with SENDA,
etc., makes an argument for 'mild, moderate or severe'
redundant as these students are not an homogenous group and
many environmental factors are too variable to accurately
predict perceived problems based on the EPs findings.
To develop this issue further, I believe the real area of
controversy lies with eligibility - and what I think was
previously referred to as 'borderline' cases. We (CELT)
have recently turned down a student referred to us as we
did not feel we had sufficient evidence to conduct an
assessment. We find we are increasingly facing a real
dilemma: if we do not conduct the assessment, we have
basically made a decision on eligibility. However, if we
conduct the assessment, we would be basing many strategies
or equipment on information the student has disclosed
during the assessment itself - resulting in non 'evidence
based' or purely 'anecdotal based' recommendations.
It could be suggested that a 'compromise' may be that we
take a view to see all students referred to us and of
course the degree of support would be reflected in our
recommendations. But that takes me back to my first point...
What are the views of other Access Centres and LEAs?
----------------------
Kevin Partington
[log in to unmask]
|