There appears to be total agreement that we need to respond to individual
needs within context. However, there is still questioning about the value
of whether a judgement about degree of specific learning difficulty serves a
useful purpose.
As Mike Trott pointed out, an assessment is used by different people and
services. I am under a professional obligation to justify any
recommendations I make on behalf of a student. For example, if making a
recommendation for additional time in an exam, I work within the framework
of the Singleton report. This explicitly links time allowances with degrees
of severity. Such recommendations respect individual needs, but do require
justification. Similarly, if I recommend the use of an amanuensis or the
services of a note-taker, this also is based on indivdual need, but one that
requires once again justification.
It neeeds to be remembered that a well argued case for teaching/assessment
accommodations can be quickly acted upon by a HE institution and thus help
ameliorate disadvantage some months before a Needs Assessment report is
available. [And please note that I refer throughout to recommendations so
this does not preclude others from exercising their own profesional
judgement].
The use of the concept of severity also includes consideration of a cut-off
point. This is not easy, particularly when you encounter students who have
benefited from some years of private special needs tution and have achieved
reasonably well-developed reading and spelling skills. Using a statistical
approach such students would not be clasified as dyslexic. However, if
underlaying cognitive deficits are still present, such students do encounter
significant study and learning problems, and these need to be spelt out. The
phrase partially compensated dyslexia helps to draw attention to this
complexity.
There are, however, occasions when the diagnosis has to be dyslexia is not
present or, alternatively, there are only signs of dyslexia [i.e. there are
pointers but nothing that is clinically meaningful.] In the latter case
additional support would not, in my opinion, be justified.
David
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: Kevin Partington <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: more controversy?
>Date: Mon, Feb 3, 2003, 10:38 am
>
>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]
|