 |
 |
Happy New Year to all. Dear Andy, I would be very interested to follow the discussion, and do not find it unpractical at all. With best wishes and saludos, -- Margarida Dolan, Ph.D. Skills Development for Research, Learning and Teaching *Please consider the environment before printing this email* On 10/01/07, A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hello Amanda. I wonder whether this dialogue may be a bit etherious. I > send you some views anyway. Reply to [log in to unmask], as I guess > others > may find unpractical. Any other person who wants to hear form this > conversation pls do so too. > > I "Assume that the disability is located in the > environment, not in the student". > > exactly. Hence, > > 1. The point is to identify to which measures of quantity, movement, > cognitive capabilities such environment has being constructed (for us), so > we don't continue doing it in that manner. And convince people of the need > to relies efforts (someone said funding?) to make it, progressively, more > universal > > 2. There is a strong evidence that such environment would obey > contemporary > economics of return (although this would only be possible to be understood > by those who would read history in 50 year in the future), not > humanitarian > values. I.e. Although in the present a ramp not only brings more > consumers > to an establishment, and not also is a PR, against competitors, people > also > care. > > II. 'The label the student wears for statistical and financial purposes is > all part of the picture'. > > Yes, but who is holding and reading that picture? if the case is to make > an > environment for all, why not turning into the implied acceptable model > (the > one for whom UPIAS stood against in the first place. They created the > Social > Model in the 1970s). > > Who could describe a normal person? Statistician, functional professionals > of mass society and consumerism, reply only after you have reached a > point > of material experience of a existence that denies your changing humanity) > > III. 'To describe it is a creative act I think (elsewhere > called discourse and dialogism)' > > Lest apply the art to picture the normal, shall we? There is a urgent > practical reason too. We may help people not to create human bonsais for > their own conveniences. > > Best, Andy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amanda Kent" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:44 PM > Subject: Re: Number of Dyslexic students in HEI? > > > Dear Andy, > Research into email comunication suggests that although I am pretty sure I > understand what you are saying, there's about a 50% chance that I am not > correct. I recognise the theories you refer to. And I see that you are > asking 'and so how can that be applied in practice?'. > > A place to start might be with one's own practice (or praxis as it might > be called elsewhere). Assume that the disability is located in the > environment, not in the student. The student is a person who moves, > communicates, thinks in a particular ways; that affects the way they > negotiate their way through spaces or carry out certain activities. They > can adapt to a certain extent - adaptations might include the use of tools > or of human support. The picture is one of a person moving through an > environment carrying out certain tasks and activities. It's a moving > picture and the questions you ask the student helps to create a sense of > the detail and also the extent to which some of the behaviours are > repeated and some are variable. > > The label the student wears for statistical and financial purposes is all > part of the picture. To describe it is a creative act I think (elsewhere > called discourse and dialogism) > > Amanda > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:58:52 -0000, A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > >Hello Amanda. Thanks. > >I guess there is a intrinsic inter locking devise in the social model > >perspectives. Post modernist views have a appoint in saying that the > >dichotomic separation between 'Impaired and 'not impaired' also > perpetuates > >the asymmetric power relations between them (at a cultural, paradigmatic > >level). What is this? Well categorisation, which is what we DOS may do > while > >counting, 'assessing' and 'supporting' 'them'. > > > >Some postmodernist suggest to decentralise the subject as a technique to > >unlock the power relations that would perpetuate 'disablism' by shifting > the > >gaze to 'the normal'. By that act we would instantly realise that the > >emperor is a rather mediocre being. > > > >How can we do that? Is it possible? feasible? I doubt anyone would > suggest > >to say that in a committee meeting but there must be some other subtle > ways > >this process could start. Creativity is something DOs have been > >demonstrating in the last 10 years. > > > >Best, Andy > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Amanda Kent" <[log in to unmask]> > >To: <[log in to unmask]> > >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:33 PM > >Subject: Re: Number of Dyslexic students in HEI? > > > > > >Dear Andy, > >I very much like to see your critical statements made on purpose. While i > >understand that the counting of heads is in some way is necessary in > order > >to provide services and plan for the future, i see that the labelling and > >categorising process can reveal assumptions about people that are > >questionable. It is important that those doing the labelling and those > >labelled question their own assumptions and also try to understand each > >others position. That way leads to respect for difference and (one always > >hopes) human rights. The social model makes a distinction between > >impairment and disability and I think it is important to write about that > >distinction as a means of thinking through to the future that you > suggest - > > ie to a time when it is assumed that the environment may disable anyone > >and any stage of their life, and it is normal to lead life using a range > >of tools and strategies that assist with adaptation to the environment. > >Best wishes > >Amanda > > > > > >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:23:37 -0000, A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > >>Perhaps it is not totally bad (or wrong) that we do not know exactly > how > >>many people have a disability. I am making a critical statement, on > >purpose. > >>Perhaps it would be better to define and count people who 'are' normal. > >Yes, > >>categorise them. > >> > >>Perhaps if we do that writing about the 'social model' would not be > >>necessary. > >> > >>Best, > >> > >>Andy > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Amanda Kent" <[log in to unmask]> > >>To: <[log in to unmask]> > >>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:43 PM > >>Subject: Re: Number of Dyslexic students in HEI? > >> > >> > >>The difficulty with establishing definitions/criteria and reliable stats > >>in relation to disabled students in HE generally [not just for dyslexia] > >>is acknowledged in the DFES DES 'Action > >>plan':http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/des/index.shtml > >> > >>The HE section includes the following- > >> > >> > >>"What are the gaps in our evidence? > >> > >>We do not know what proportion of disabled people go on to HE and doubt > >>whether that could be established at the present, given there are > >>different definitions of disability used by different data sources. > >> > >>Previous studies have shown that a major problem with data in the HE > >>sector is that there is no generally recognised definition of disability > >>and also no general taxonomy of subsets of disability." > >>Amanda Kent > >>DSA Assessor > > >>========================================================================= > >========================================================================= >