 |
 |
other assessment centres. Is what I said, not one. What EXACTLY are you calling a service? Sorry folks if this is getting tedious but Terry and I don't seem to understand each other. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 04 June 2004 14:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Few Queries Again Chris misinterprets what I have said, my comments are NOT focused on one centre they are of an ENTIRE SERVICE! Terry Hart -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Baxter, Chris Sent: Fri 04/06/2004 10:15 To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: Few Queries 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)...