> Interesting Peter/Bernard. I gather the printing world will be with 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]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>