I have a lot of students who - quite rightly- are angry about the fact their
difficulties were not picked up at school.  Add to this the group whose
difficulties were picked up and nothing was done about it and you could
quite rightly ask "what are teachers doing in school?"

I was a secondary school teacher for 11 years and in defence of my former
colleagues this is my reply.  Firstly teachers are generally not trained to
pick up dyslexia, there is a training figure of an hours lecture on SLDs
being banded about and from my PGCE I would probably agree with that.  You
have to train in your subject, in planning, preparation, class room
management, record keeping, exam technique before you come onto looking at
special needs which includes everything from physical and sensory
impairments to emotional/behavioural problems - so where is the time to
become an expert on spotting a student with dyslexia?

And then if you are clued up and suspect a student is having difficulty you
refer then to the SENCO and they get added to the end of a never ending list
of all the sn students.  Schools also have very little ed psych time and it
won't go on the nice kids who struggle with their reading - it is going to
go on the disturbed younger who might be self harming, being abused, being
aggressive to staff and peers, not attending school etc etc.  I have taught
plenty of kids like this so excuse me if I missed a few who had a SLD.

I look back now and realise I taught loads of kids who were probably
dyslexic and were not getting the support they needed, but schools often
have fewer resources than we have (the statementing process has been
steadily eroded since it was bought in) and a much wider variety of students
to support.

Sharron Sturgess, Loughborough Uni

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Baxter, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re-marking assessed work


Yes John, that's what I thought you were saying and that is what I am
asking too, if, by the age of 18+ a student enters higher education
without having had any inkling of dyslexia, having been through the
school system, why is it the HE establishments responsibility to provide
detection, diagnosis and recognition when so many others who have been
invovled with the individual on a more regualr basis, i.e , 9 -5 in a
classroom have failed? I accept that the harder the study the more the
'weakness' - for want of a better word on a busy Wednesday morning- will
present itself, but even so.......

What do others think?
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Conway
Sent: 18 January 2006 09:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re-marking assessed work


I'm thinking of a student with a hidden disability - such as dyslexia -
who does not know, and whose lecturers do not recognise it in him.  I
suppose I have a hidden question - how much responsibility does the
institution, through its normal teaching staff, have to recognise that a
student has dyslexia?

John.

Dr John S Conway
Principal Lecturer in Soil Science / Chair, Research Committee
Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Glos GL7 6JS
01285 652531 ext 2234  fax 01285 650219
http://www.rac.ac.uk/~john_conway/
email [log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Baxter, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re-marking assessed work

Could you be more explicit about how an institution might not recognise
a disability? I think I know what you mean but would like you to say
more. Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Conway
Sent: 17 January 2006 14:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re-marking assessed work

But what about those cases where an institution had failed to recognise
a disability and was subject to attempted [maybe even successful?]
litigation?  Should we not give some consideration to previous failures
once we know that there is a possible cause - i.e. lack of appropriate
support and adjustment for the disability?


Dr John S Conway
Principal Lecturer in Soil Science / Chair, Research Committee Royal
Agricultural College, Cirencester, Glos GL7 6JS 01285 652531 ext 2234
fax 01285 650219 http://www.rac.ac.uk/~john_conway/
email [log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Elaine, DSO
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re-marking assessed work

We only work forwards from the point of diagnosis.  I can't see how you
can do otherwise - how do you determine how a candidate might have fared
with support etc. and how far back do you go? We try to have systems to
ensure that students who are struggling are picked up and screened for
SpLD as soon as possible.  I once had a graduate call me from America to
say that he had been diagnosed as dyslexic and could we re-classify his
degree taken 10-12 years previously!

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deb Taylor
Sent: 17 January 2006 14:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re-marking assessed work

Hi,


Our SCA has asked for guidance on how far back - if at all - the
re-marking process should go once a student has been diagnosed with a
disability.

For example, we have a student who was disgnosed with dyslexia in their
third year of study and the department was considering re-marking all
work submitted by the student since joining the University.

We're going to be drawing up some guidelines on this, and I was
wondering whether anybody else had come across this issue or had
guidelines they were willing to share.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Kind regards,
Deb Taylor

This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private
and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee,
please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this
case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and
information in this email that do not relate to the official business of
Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps
to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do
advise that the recipient should check that the email and its
attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good
computing practice.

This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and
confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please
take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please
reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in
this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent
University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the
University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and
any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should
check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is
in keeping with good computing practice.