Tere appear to contradictory evidence. You may need to comission another assessment or a different test all together.The problem of using inderect tests based on the modification of the IQ test is that they rely heavily on the skills of the professional to assess compensatory capacities.
Besides, if there are short term memory problems, it is clear that the student has some level of difficulties that require to be addressed.
Under the DDA, this may still amount to a dysability (?). In my view extra time may be the way to address this specific problem (I am not using the term SLD).
The fact that it may not be in effect SLD is not sufficient to say that the student doesn't have any protection under the law.
Best, Andy
This is my personal view
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Jarvis
Sent: 12 June 2009 11:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New report shows no evidence of SpLD
I agree, Michael. If there's no SpLD, there's no grounds for special examination arrangements.
Simon
Michael Woodman wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Can I ask if any of you have had experience of this kind of situation,
> and if so, how you have resolved it?
>
> A student who presented with an old, (pre-16) report which suggested
> the student was still affected by residual dyslexia, went to have an
> updated report in keeping with the need to have a post-16 report for
> DSA and for adjustments at our institution.
>
> Although there was a recommendation that extra time would be
> beneficial to the student, the report concluded that there was no
> longer any evidence of a specific learning disability. Some scores
> were lower than expected, (working memory), but in the average range
> of an overall superior profile - the student had compensated for any
> difficulties they might have experienced.
>
> Now, I am mindful of the fact that dyslexia does not 'go away', and
> that the reasoning behind adjustments is to allow a student to show
> their underlying ability. However, I am also mindful that the general
> population contains people who will achieve slightly lower scores on
> their working memory tests, and that this is not in itself indicative
> of dyslexia. This report suggests that there is insufficient evidence
> of a specific learning disability, and so to allow extra time in an
> exam would surely be setting a huge precedent?
>
> Any thoughts gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
--
Simon Jarvis
Head of Disability and Dyslexia Service
Queen Mary University of London
Tel: 020 7882 2765
|