Hi

(Sorry Dave...but...)

David Laycock wrote:
> Having received a welter of complaints from LEA awards officers
> regarding non-EP reports, the DfES decided to set up a new working
> party (on dyslexia in HE but concentrating on diagnosis). However,
> considering how long the first one took, it decided to call a preliminary
> meeting to discuss the issues and the evidence it had already
> received. It's true there was only one EP, (more had been invited but
> couldn't make it) but all the specialists present were unanimous.

How many is 'a welter'? 'Specialists'? In what?

How did the DfES decide whom to invite to the meeting?

> One of the concerns was that while the best of teachers' reports are
> very good, as a group they show little consistency of either content or
> format and some of the tests used are obscure if not irrelevant. Most
> alarming was that when awards officers were asked to submit the non-
> EP reports they were least happy with 90% of what came in from
> several sources were simply copies of the DAST- a screening tool.
>
At least 90% of how many? How many awards officers?
Are these the awards officers who are on the working party? Are those
who are on the working party the awards officers who have
been making the complaints - or is there a cross section?

Obviously, the DAST should not be submitted as evidence of dyslexia.
Neither should special exam arrangements request forms. However, it
doesn't require a working party or shifts in policy to sort that one
out. It's worth bearing in mind too, that students sometimes apply for
DSA without the knowledge of their institution - and they sometimes send
supporting evidence that was never intended to be used to underpin a DSA
application.

> In the end it was agreed that
>
> a. every student should be able to present a full WAIS (or WISC)
> profile taken some time in their lives. Most significant was the fact that
> this could be ten years old and still be valid. Many EPs will testify to the
> stability of these test scores throughout childhood into maturity. This
> makes the new criteria more flexible than some HEIs are currently
> operating.
>
> b. a recent set of performance scores should also be available. These
> refer to reading writing, etc which are maturational and based on age
> training, practice etc. These can be done perfectly well by teachers.
>
> Having confirmed these with the specialists who attended, the DfES
> then sent them to LEAs. Looking back it might have helped if a date
> had been set for their implementation giving the HE system some
> weeks or a few months to adapt. However, I suspect some LEAs will
> choose to do this for themselves, though some won't.
>
> Obviously no-one knows what the new working party will come up with,
> but it's reasonable to suppose the above will be confirmed as at least
> one strategy. However, if tests and report formats can be agreed, there
> may be teacher alternatives as well.
>

'...reasonable to suppose'? '...may be teacher alternatives as well'?
It sounds as if it's all done and dusted already.

> And don't suppose EPs get off lightly. There are several well known
> EPs who are highly critical of some of their colleague's work, so we
> may get some firm guidelines from the WP to them on what is
> expected. (I had an EP report recently that merely quoted a score on
> the BDA checklist as evidence. When I told the checklist author,
> Michael Vinegrad, he was not amused.)

This is purely anecdotal!

> As regards the impact this has on early assessments, before students
> have access to the hardship fund, this cannot be denied but was not
> really the problem the DfES was trying to deal with.

Obviously not - but not considering it does seem to have been a bit of
an oversight.

Related to the this
> is that different criteria are now operating in FE and HE. I doubt the
> new WP will be able to do much about this unless it does agree
> standards for teacher diagnoses and these are adopted throughout the
> post-16 sector.
>

What really grieves me about this issue and the way it is presented to
the public (eg on this and other lists) is its apparent lack of concern
for the needs of the people it affects most - i.e. the students. My
assumption has always been that Diplomatists were encouraged to assess
for dyslexia because Educational Psychologists could not cope with the
case load at school level, never mind FE and HE. How did the
'preliminary' meeting respond to this issue?

Regards

Peter Hill


>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


--
01905 753439
[log in to unmask]
www.study-pro.com

Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources