Dear Terry

Please do feel free to continue to make whatever observations you wish, as you say this is your experience and your observations. It was not my intention to try to silence you merely to point out that 'we are not all the same' on a list which includes a wide variety of readers. It is interesting to read of things happening in other assessment centres.

Best wishes

Chris



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

From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

Sent: 03 June 2004 22:22

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Few Queries



Dear Chris,

My argument is against people using the questionaire / report format as the absolute guide. If you read my comments I am saying that only by moving away from the prescriptive approach can you possibly be able to offer the level of assessment essential IF the assessor is going to be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the individual AND THEN be able to direct the selection and application of technology and training that will exploit the individuals strengths. 

 

I stand by my claim that many assessors only seem to deal with identifying technology and implementing "strategy" that goes no further than saying - "use the recorder to record lectures", which is about as instructive as saying use your lungs to breath!

 

My so called sweeping statements are based on first hand observation, in addition to reviewing and correcting other assessors faulty assessments. This is particularly true in the more complex areas of Ergonomics but sadly the commonest area of our work represents the biggest area for concern (dyslexia) . Only by looking at the individual in great detail can you ever be confident that our efforts are properly focused and do not hide some factor that will create problems later. The conveyor belt approach that is all to common in hard pushed assessment centre's is hardly suprising given the pressure they are under!, this does not however, make it justifiable. My definition of conveyor belt is the short assessment 40 - 90 mins usually where the report is virtually writen during the assessment and most reports are a matter of cut and paste!. (devoid of personal observation and analysis) 

 

 For those that know me they will understand that my comments are intended to be creative. I have no interest in the petty politics of the situation, nor massaging ego's, my only interest is to try and offer the best possible service I can supporting the people that can (if they are supported properly) make a far bigger input into the daily life and running of this country and world than our efforts currently allow them to. My arrogence only stretches as far as being willing  to pass on what experience I have to those that are prepared to listen. I do not pretend to be the fount of all wisdom, neither do I pretend to have all (or any) of the answers, all I ask is for the service to recognise that building a facility on a foundation that is faulty can only end up with one result. What I am suggesting is no more than those that we are supposed to support deserve and need, who's interest's are we serving by failing to recognise our own shortcomings and the shortcomings of the systems we employ?. 

 

So far from taking your advice Chris I will continue to make what observations as I feel are reasonable and can be backed up by evidence.  My attack is not of a personal nature, it is mearly trying to promote  a fresh look at something I (and many others - including LEA's, suppliers, other assessors, and disability groups) feel very concerned about.   If this service is to improve the whole process needs and deserves to be looked at again with fresh eyes and and open minds!.

 

Terry Hart

 

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

From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Baxter, Chris 

Sent: Thu 03/06/2004 09:24 

To: [log in to unmask] 

Cc: 

Subject: Re: Few Queries







	Terry, please can we be assured that when you say things like:

	

	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.

	

	That you are speaking for yourself and your own practice, it certainly

	isn't how we work, please don't make such sweeping statements based on

	your own experience.

	

	Whilst I might agree with much of what you say I don't recognise the

	conveyor belt approach to assessment and neither would I want to see it

	here.

	

	Chris Baxter

	0115 848 6163 voice and text

	0115 848 4371 fax

	[log in to unmask]

	http://www.ntu.ac.uk/sss/disability/

	

	

	This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private

	or confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, you

	must take no action on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to

	this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this

	email which do not relate to the business of Nottingham Trent University

	shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the university.

	

	

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

	From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

	Sent: 02 June 2004 15:42

	To: [log in to unmask]

	Subject: Re: Few Queries

	

	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)...