I guess there is a circular relation between knowledge (statistics, biology,
genetics,etc) and power (asymmetrical relations of domination).  There has
always been . THe medical profession is an example. With all its benefits.
But, and a big but, people like you and others, have the capacity to reflect
on where such knowledge, procedure, organisation, dsa, etc, are going. Many
people, iam sure, would say, lets get on with our jobs, come on  what are
you smoking, and so ford...  et per se move. Andy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Irons" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'A Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: One to one tuition and LEAs


I agree...... ....accept that the 'bell curve' as used in eugenics is in my
opinion a misappropriation of biology into  the human context. Eysenk  and
his precursors like Burt  convinvce themselves that they are correct and
ignore contradictory logic. As far as I am concerned I could be ,measuring
'butterfly wing span or blood iron content...
When we mix straight measurement with social constructs that is when we
start to get problems.  People mis use stats usually to try and defend their
own perception/construct of what they think is 'normal'. or in a way to
defend their privilege.

-----Original Message-----
From: A Velarde [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs


Pete, the word 'normal' didn't exist until the invention of the bell curve,
which coincides with eugenics. As a matter of fact statistic was born
because of eugenics. We use the same (adapted) statistical measures to 'test
the nation IQ' and 'test dyslexia'. Andy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Irons" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'A Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: One to one tuition and LEAs


Hi Andi
It is a pandora's box... or a box of delights... it depends on  your
perspective.
'Normality'  to me is a mathe,matixcal description of measurements within a
population... ''The/ A societys view o0f naomralith is quite different....
it perspective /experienced based  a social construt quite different to the
mathematical concept of normality.

so for example

134 wpm is the mode for dyslexic students. The distribution is disturbingly
' normal ' mathematically.
In non dyslexic  academically successful populations the mode is 184 wpm but
the distribution is skewed with virtually no one below 160 wpm.

So the dyslexic students actually well be 'normal' but not 'normal ' in the
social context of HE.

pete


-----Original Message-----
From: A Velarde [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs


Interesting Peter/Bernard. I gather the printing world will be wit us for
some more decades if not centuries, depending on how fast computer chips
could be developed (put in the market at a reasonable cost)  to interact
with brain cells. At that point, which is not too far away, an exam paper
will be something so anacronic.

The printing world has done marvellous things to transfer culture,
inventions, and keep for prosperity the love poems that otherwise would have
been lost as the  sings of births are lost in the eco of sounds. It has
always allow to made it possible for some fanatics to be able to built cheap
radiactive bombs. If fact,  it also allowed  societies to eliminate other
cultures and societies that relied other types of transference of social
knowledge. The printing text has its dark side too.

But the text is not 'normal'. Normality is an invention to control
population, to manage millions of people, to discipline their behaviours at
a global level. That is nothing wrong on that either, as otherwise the world
wouldn't function. But in that system differences are excluded. The
disability categories are the living history of such a social phenomenon
since 16-17 century.

I am not an expert of brain function, but I am sure discoveries are also
subject of interpretation, and reveal not only the persons own understanding
and biases, but also his/her epoch.

I guess the question is how best to awaken the peoples' ability to think
constructively, rather than how fast they can 'write a discourse in a paper.
HE education is part of  mass consumption nowadays, so such a question is
rather impertinent.  But it is a question that needs to be asked,
particularly when the ones that have a distinction feel and are recognise as
being 'better'. There is nothing wrong with that is the same system wouldn't
make the other people feel not such a thing. HE is in a paradigmatic crisis,
no doubt about that. What we could not afford doing is to believe that the
issue will go away. Dyslexia is far more interesting as it allow us to
debate this things

There is unfortunately a debate of power here and it is not going to
disappear.

I would like to read Derrida's paper/book about what you mentioned Bernard,
would you be able to send me a full reference?

My views come from readings  from critical modernism (Jurgen Habermas) and
neo structuralism (Foucault)  the later one,  the introduction and first
chapter  of the 'Birth of the Clinic'. Those are important for those of us
who work with the 'disabled'. Another magnificent piece of work is part five
(the right of death and power over life) of Foucault's The history of
Sexuality vol 1.

But I do not agree with  Foucault 's rather pessimistic view of the world as
an episteme.  (the human specie is not able to 'emancipation'. I am
moreinclined to  see things from Habermas's  theory of communicative action.
The human animal is able to evolve to higher levels of development and
emancipation, but would need to be aware of the systematic distorted
communication of those who have power over others. From this point of view a
textual language is a media that not only allow us to communicate but also
to distort communication. In this dichotomy, the dyslexic category is
trapped. Definition such as normal, intellectual skills, deficits, ect, are
part of such distortions. Anyway, it i not Friday. Best, Andy



.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Irons" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: One to one tuition and LEAs



The printed word allows us to make use of real 'language' ( spoken) at a
very subtle level. It allows debate structured, directed  comparison not
possible through graphics alone.  Normal visual learning/analysis is through
visual scene/ graphics, it gives us the ability to look at 'mental
constructs' in a different way to text, the two complement each other.
Spoken language complements visual when undertaking analysis . it allows two
and more people to develop analysis and improve the models of the mental
constructs but in different way to text.
The use of text is not really a substitute for spoken language. It has quite
different properties.
When we read fluently we are able to get the writer ( the person trying to
transfer their analyses/constructs in to our head) to repeat things, to go
over things again, at a pace suitable to our initial level of understanding.
We have time to check associated ideas... we can 'study' the ideas.. This is
not possible in listening  to speech or looking at graphics.

It was the development of text and accessibility to text that has enabled
the explosion of knowledge  which we  are in the industry of. (HE). Literacy
level is the basis of tall education systems.


We know that the biology underpinning the collection of visual data during
reading is a quite different process to that of collecting visual-graphical
data.

Graphical visual search is not an 'iterative' neuromuscular process. it is
also not dependent on a very high level of visual acuity and more
importantly the accurate integrate of spatial/temporal sequential data.
which is the iterative bit. In addition in terms of 'attention' it is 'anti
normal visual search'. In reading there has to be a maintenance of attention
despite attention demanding changes in our peripheral vision. Normal
attentional reflexes have to be suppressed. other wise we do not collect the
visual data as a sequential stream. Ina way to read well you have to have an
'attention deficit' which is the opposite of what most people see as an
'attention deficit'.

There is NO evidence that reading slowly is a 'deficit' or a fault in
itself.  It is a consequence of the nature of the task.

What appears to be the problem is that the system for many people cannot
chunk the grapheme originated, phoneme data into sufficiently large chunks
such that their working memory is large enough to cope compared with the
most fluent readers.

Now lets look at the sociological issues.

The existing social order' is based to a great extent on how fast you can
read!  That is how fast you can read black text on a white background.

If you find this hard it is unlikely that you will be at the top end of the
pecking order.. All biological systems are essentially 'conservative' they
develop because of negative feedback systems which create and maintain the
existing order.
This translates into people who benefit from the status quo actively/or
subliminally making sure it is maintained.

However there is the classical liberal dilemma. Society requires a more
literate workforce: The top of the pecking order needs the rest to be more
literate to maintain their position/ (wealth?)

With computers we can now enable more of the population to participate in
idea development and analysis. We can enable a bigger percentage to be able
to use text more effectively.. that is my job,  through bespoking computers
to each person.

What we cannot do at present is to enable those often highly literate people
to become more 'graphically literate.. to be able to see the bigger picture.

I hope that makes some sense.

Peter Irons

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A Velarde
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: One to one tuition and LEAs


> Interesting Peter. I guess if we look at the issue from a distance the
issue
> is why the transfer of knowledge is mainly by printing codes when
technology
> has changed the media. Computer use binary codes, children see pictures at
> least 4 hours per day. The monastic orders controlled the printing world
> because they did not what freedom of reflection. Henry vii and the
> protestant world gave them a walk and  the new order was born. But
abilities
> with printing related skills still are used to control the symbolic
> transmission of knowledge in the 21 century. The benefited social groups
do
> not want to let it go. In my view. Andy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Irons" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "'A Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:23 AM
> Subject: RE: One to one tuition and LEAs
>
>
> Hi Andy
>
> The biological reality is that there is a ormal distribution of reading
> capability. No work in the adult sector has been able to do anything about
> it.
> When 30% went top university thios approximated to the top 30% in terms of
> literacy. A minority from outside this sector got in .. they would often
> these dayhs be considered as dyslexic.
> Now we a re pushing at 50%  the range is much broader and about 40% of
those
> entering would in the past not have gone into HE. There literacy skills
not
> 'getting them there.'
>
> All the work done by Fuchs et al has shown the reading speed  whenter
> arrayed icons, digits or words is what controls the reading fluecny.. or
> rather the two closely correlate.
> But all of this is reading speed of black on white.
> As soomn as we chan ge the parameters con trolling the visual  taeget
> appearance we get a mathematically based change in reading speed.. aka
> fluency... with adults.
> When this is understood then some of the problems will be resolved.
>
> At Nationwide building society about 50% of their staff benefitted
> significantly... ..their analysis not ours.
>
> Until we look at the biology of the process we have to find ways of
> assisting many who are limited by the reading process. A totally manmade
> process. nobody evolved to read on white.
>
> Peter Irons
>
> ps. I doubt if this would be distributed  on dis-forum.. they do not seem
to
> distribute anything I send. I just receive!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A Velarde
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
>
>
> Hello John. I gather that is the challenge in the first place. HE not the
> disabled individual. HE is not accessible for all but for the few.
Someone
> in the list mentioned Bourdieu some weeks ago. And He and Passeron made a
> substantial contribution to the study of HE sector in the 70. HE would
> require a rethinking considering these two authors views. The current
> structure still obey a past system of transfer of knowledge.
Unfortunately,
> the English translations are very poor. But that is another matter.  the
> educational sector is a mechanisms that reproduces systems of domination
> which are very difficult to pin point. I.e. the ability to read characters
> at a fast speed is considered to be a desirable skill over say, lateral
> thinking or to solve problem. Ta, Andy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Conway" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
>
>
> > So thinking laterally - and it’s a discussion were moving seriously into
> here - how do we support ALL of our students?
> >
> > For example, the three with Educational Psychologist reports denying
SpLD
> but reporting global LD?
> >
> > For example, the widely acknowledged devaluation of the A Level standard
> that is bringing us all [well almost all] students with much poorer
literacy
> and learning skills?
> >
> > How do we move from our traditional HE lecturing with a DSA. type
> disability safety net to a teaching system that meets the needs of these
> weaker students?
> >
> > We are actively discussing what we should do for those who do not merit
> disability support but who can't cope due to lower ability or skills.  The
> boundary between being GLD or MLD and getting nothing, and being SpLD and
> getting a free computer and endless NMH seems very hard to justify
> ......................
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr John S Conway
> > Disability Officer / 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/index.php?_id=590
> > 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 A Velarde
> > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:08 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> >
> > Hello Penny. I can see you point. Ta. The angle  the emphasise on the
> > medical understanding of disabilities is that support services are
> > considered as 'central services' rather than  something that needs
(nearly
> > said should) to be pervasive, embedded on the organisations
interpersonal
> > relations. Best, Andy
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Penny Georgiou" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> >
> >
> > > Dear Andy,
> > >
> > > My point was the Universities who do not provide support services for
> > their students are not exonerated from the problems involved in
delivering
> > services, including as someone has just said, the accusation of 'ripping
> > off'.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Penny
> > >
> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
on
> > behalf of A Velarde
> > > Sent: Thu 08/06/2006 15:48
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Cc:
> > > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Penny. I do not quite understand your point, but as I have still
> my
> > > cuppa would like to comment. I may be wrong.
> > >
> > > In the parable of talents, if I remember well, god gave unequal
> resources
> > to
> > > reasonably equal individuals. The only asymmetric power exited between
> him
> > > and humans (all males, that was possible the second asymmetry).
> Therefore
> > > doing nothing could be judged as immoral, quite rightly.
> > >
> > > That world doesn't exit though. In the world of humans morality is a
> > > political battle, because there are existing asymmetries (inequalities
> > > between genders, abilities, , class, social and symbolic capital etc,
> etc)
> > > that are created or/and reproduced by humans. Therefore you need to
take
> > > into account that when we are born social resources are already been
> given
> > > in an unequal manner but not by god, buy by other humans. Of course
this
> > > applies to disabilities too, if one believes in the social model.
> > >
> > > So when government provides approx 20-25 million pounds annually for
the
> > > support of disabled student which is diverted to private companies
> rather
> > > than institution that require mechanism for change, one needs to ask a
> > > strait question: Is this the best for disabled people? In my
> observation,
> > > the current system operates to  perpetuate a medicalised approach of
> > > disabilities ('I.e. you are dyslexic, here is you pc and off you go.
> > Problem
> > > sorted) and an  identity for which the disabled person has to be
> > humiliated
> > > first to access his/her label before receives support.
> > >
> > > In social terms, this system is called of surveillance and
disciplinary
> > > power over the 'other' (Foucault). Good busyness though. Andy
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Penny Georgiou" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> > >
> > >
> > > > In the parable of the talents, which is one of my favourite bible
> > > > stories, moral purity does not lie with those who do nothing.
> > > > Universities are necessarily best placed to provide services to
> students
> > > > with disabilities: Education support workers, specialist learning
> > > > support, Assistive Technology training, Mentoring etc and so be the
> ones
> > > > to charge these to the DSA. Many of these services would not be
> > > > commercially or logistically viable for those working outside the
> > > > institution to run, so it is dangerous and absurd to attack that
> > > > principle.
> > > >
> > > > One occassionally hears from LEA officers of some practices that
seem
> > > > difficult to justify, even from an institutional perspective. This
> > > > inevitably triggers drives in some quarters to scrutinise and
curtail
> > > > all activities. Is there anything that can be done about that,
rather
> > > > than making it difficult for all institutions to administer the
> deliver
> > > > of support services.
> > > >
> > > > It is not inappropriate for there to be an annual review of
specialist
> > > > learning support, where the student does continue to take it up.
> Since,
> > > > needs assessors and assessment centres are not always the font of
> > > > knowledge, sainthood and efficiency, I am not sure that it is a good
> > > > idea for these items to wait upon them indiscriminantly. In this
> > > > instance, I think that the DO or study skills tutor should be the
> one's
> > > > to make the recommendation. However, it should be understood that if
> an
> > > > LEA officer feels that further justification is required in a
> particular
> > > > case, then the specific instance can be referred to the Assessment
> > > > Centre.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claire Wickham,
Centre
> > > > for Access and Communication Studies
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:38 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well said Andy: thank you for reminding us all of the bigger picture
> and
> > > >
> > > > underlying principles,
> > > >
> > > > CLaire
> > > >
> > > > --On 08 June 2006 14:09 񩀔 A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Interesting. I just would like to place a thought, in the most
> > > > > speculative tradition. Yeah, lets take a cupa. The separation
> between
> > > > > assessment of individual needs (DSA assessment) vs assessment of
> > > > > barries (DO's job) may be theoretically possible but not realistic
> or
> > > > > practicle. DOs  do not conduct social model assessments (althoug
> some
> > > > > Universities believe they do so, they may be right) but duplicate
> > > > > individual assessments becuase their institutions send them clear
> > > > > signals that rather than being actors of organisational change
they
> > > > > should keep to medicalise the condition of the disabled individual
> not
> > > >
> > > > > the disabled institution. Assessment of individual needs have been
> > > > > instrumental for the privatisation of an LEA function, and it is
> > > > > working reasonably well. At least  this appears to be the case if
> one
> > > > > counts how many companies have been established to support the
> > > > > disadvantaged. What appears that is not working is the Do's role
> > > > > applicable to Universities. This is a clear example of how
> government
> > > > > funding is being diverted to the private sector instead of
> supporting
> > > > > a social model.  Dos are not only underpaid (having to deal with
> > > > > 300-400 files per month, managing support workers, etc) but are a
> > > > > burger in the sandwish. It would change a bit if  HEFCE helps the
> Do's
> > > >
> > > > > function and support  their plea to updated their 1999 guidance
> (Base
> > > > > level
> > > > > provisions...) A clarification of their role/work load (post
senda,
> > > > > postDES) would solve all these problems. This is something that if
> > > > HEFCE
> > > > > does not commit themself in doing this, noone would do. Unless of
> > > > course
> > > > > NADO wakes up.  Maybe one day.  Andy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "LINDA WALKER" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi All
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 9 of the new (06/07) Bridging the Gap specifies "Your
> disability
> > > > > advisor should not carry out your DSA-needs assessment."
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Linda
> > > > >
> > > > > Linda Walker
> > > > > Blackpool & The Fylde College
> > > > > HE Support Co-ordinator
> > > > > Tel: 01253 504357
> > > > > minicom: 01253 355755
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> [log in to unmask] 06/08/06 11:25 am >>>
> > > > > Dear All
> > > > >
> > > > > This question has not gone away. Having talked to an LEA this
> morning,
> > > >
> > > > > they are intending to bring in a policy for 1:1 tuition based on a
> > > > > gospel truth attititude to the example of 23 hours quoted in
Claire
> > > > > Jamieson's report.
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite the DfES assurance that recommendations will still be
based
> on
> > > >
> > > > > student need, we need to be more pro-active about this now or the
> > > > > implications for the next academic year are not pleasant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is anyone actually doing anything about this with the powers that
> be??
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, the LEA refuses to take Disability Officers recommendations
> and
> > > > > insists on going back to an Access Centre for even very small
> changes
> > > > > to recommendations - apparently DSOs are considered to have an
> > > > > interest if they are arranging a student's support. This is
despite
> > > > > the DfES guidance to the contrary. Any comments?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz Thompson
> > > > > Learning Support Officer
> > > > >
> > > > > Student Services
> > > > > University of Brighton
> > > > > Room 2, Manor House
> > > > > Moulsecoomb Place
> > > > > Brighton BN2 4GA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------
> > > > Claire Wickham,
> > > > Director: Centre for Access and Communication Studies University of
> > > > Bristol Union Building Queen's Road Clifton Bristol BS8 1LN
> > > >
> > > > Tel: 0117 954 5710/5705
> > > > Textphone: 0117 954 5715
> > > > Fax: 0117 954 5714
> > > >
> > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>