If what Becky suggested about the assessor identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the student / applicant was done by the majority of assessors then I think we would have a far better service than we do now. The tendency with many assessors is to follow the routine of the assessment as specified and indicated by the standard question /  report form - they afterall are the bible we are supposed to work from. Unfortunately few if any questions, no matter how well put, do anything to uncover the mental and physical processes the individual goes through to perform a learning task. They all tend to address the problem from the general teaching procedure sequence - attempting to identfy how the individual performs against the norm. 

As for the sequence of identification of disability the big area of difficulty is for the Learning Difficulties type of disability and primarilly Dyslexia amongst that group. Virtually all other disabilities are identified and catagorised before assessment or even starting the course. How easy would it be to establish a simple checking procedure that identified someone as being in need of learning support which also identified the broad outline of the nature of the difficulty also identifying the technology to support the basic solutions. 

Most of the important work in supporting the student with any form of learning disability is not the technology but the strategy used to supply that technology to best effect. To do that YOU MUST understand how the individuals learning process functions - be aware of their strengths and weaknesses before you can establish the full support package. Part of this must be to identify if the individual has the wrong learning strategy based on their specific strengths and weaknesses. What is more important is to recognise that an individual may not have the intellectual capacity to undertake the course!. I am afraid we are all restricted by this premise that everyone has the right to university education. This is as ridiculous as saying everyone has the right to train to be a Judge or a Pilot or a Brain surgeon or a Plumber - Perhaps i could pass down a rasonable judjment. Perhaps I could Pilot a plane - Brain surgeon NO. Plumber No. - because I don't have the physical skill/dexterity. Life is not fair and it is lunacy to pretend it can be!. 

As I said in my original rant nothing will change until we demonstrate the confidence to completely re-appraise how and why we implement the DSA funding. We must move away from this simplistic approach we have that technology is the answer to all the problems. It is a tool - and unless the manipulator of the tool firstly understands how they function and how the technology supplied will aid them nothing will change. We will continue to dish out costly solutions for an an ever shrinking return.  And before someone supplies stats to demonstrate I am wrong, I would pooint out that the stats are all based on the premise that the current process is correct. It does nothing to identify that there may be a basic fault in the foundations of the service.

Sooner or later the matter will be taken out of our hands by the politicians or even worse the accountants or civil service. Someone will realise that there is little political benefit or kudos in maintaining such a service and some form of imposed solution will be implemented - Would it not be far better to have the wit and intellegence to recognise that perhaps a complet re-apprasal is needed. Who knows someone with more intelligence than me may say if I lead, I demonstrate the cost and productive efficiency of an alternative procedure maybee I can demonstrate the sanity of this thinking - the only problme with that is that it will inevitably leave casualties - Those that wouldn't or couldn't listen probably!.

 

I re-iterate - We must take a completely fresh look at the whole process on the basic assumption that what we have now is not neccessarily the starting point or the base from which to start and rebuild.

 

Terry Hart

 



	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Becky Campbell 

	Sent: Tue 01/06/2004 13:12 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Re: Few Queries

	

	



	Like Terry, I must say that my comments here represent only a personal

	view, and may not be shared by colleagues at Swansea, or the Institution

	itself.

	

	In reply to Terry Hart...

	

	I know I'm new to this assessing game, but I do have some thoughts on your

	comments.

	

	In part, I agree with your views that the focus should go

	beyond 'labelling' and look at an individual's strengths and weaknesses.

	However, the fact remains that, to unlock DSA funding, medical / clinical

	evidence of a disability or difficulty is needed. Whilst for a person with

	dyslexia, for instance, the label 'dyslexic' may serve only this functional

	purpose, it is nevertheless necessary as things stand at the moment

	(Another example of where a label is asked for is on the UCAS form -

	students are asked to slot themselves into a category, but this doesn't

	necessarily tell us anything about their individual needs and experiences).

	

	Surely the Assessment of Needs itself gives a chance to look in depth at a

	person's strengths and weaknesses, regardless of the 'title' their

	difficulties have been given? When assessing someone with a particular

	disability, I wouldn't just recommend a standard prescription of assistive

	technology, but would look in more detail at what equipment, software, non-

	medical support, etc. would help to bring the individual to a 'level

	playing-field' with other students. The label of 'visually impaired'

	or 'dyslexic' would give some guidance as to where to begin with regard to

	software, etc., but what goes into the final report would be more

	individual in nature.

	

	I await your comments (go easy on me please, remember I'm a newbie! Also, I

	say again, that these are my personal views, not those of the

	Institution)...