I love your final point, Andy, but its just the tip of the iceberg.
What about 3 hour written exams [3.45 for a dyslexic with extra time]? What does that test - Stamina? Bladder control?
If only HIGHER education was about higher standards of intellectual ability and not predicated on skills that exclude. I'd love to be able to explore my thesis that prior to written language, the dyslexics would have been the top dogs. Spatial awareness, innate navigation, lateral thinking & relationships - surely these are the qualities of the most successful resource gather, group leader [or sadly, war leader]. I wonder if top strategists like Julius Caesar were dyslexic?
If I'm right - what a travesty that we now class them as "disabled" - what a dis-service to society that we waste their talents.
[perhaps you can tell I'm trying to avoid marking!]
John
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 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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
|
