Dear Daniel,
A few not unrelated points:
Your observation: 'a variety of bizarrely shaped objects...that I know will never fit' is consonant with the findings of contemporary psychoanalysis. (my field) Andy's reference to outside the box is also spot on here. The box is sustained by consent, a tool to enable us to organise our affairs, not an immutable law. Each subject (all 6b of them) is unique and fundamentally not inside the box, but no less a product of it. As the influence of imposed norms wanes, then this picture of diversity is likely to continue to flourish, with both the challenges and the opportunities that this presents.
My experience in the field over the years has highlighted from time to time the fact that we don't understand Specific learning difficulties very well, and many problematic assumptions arise from this non-understanding, and even more from the assumption that we do understand something that we don't. This is a problem not just for specific learning difficulties but many other conditions and situations also. We often demonstrate a lack of intellectual curiousity and are always too willing to speak in certainties, as if the assumptions that we make are self-evident facts. I am heartened by your intellectual honesty here.
The inconsistencies that colleagues have been articulating in this conversational strand have many sources, no doubt and symptomatic 'solutions' (new policies) are an attempt to solve various problems. One key issue has been the formulation of policy as an attempt to curtail poor practice: which may not be common but when it happens, there is an insistence to stop it from happening: eg, 'milking of the system' by some party or other; more often, there is poor logic leading to mediocrity - where services may be run primarily to ensure or produce a budget surplus rather than to address the detail of issues arising for the student; or poor quality services, or the selling of services that do not serve the educational needs of the student. Since money has become the dominant principle in scientific thinking, it is inevitable that we confuse logical coherence with financial viability.
This does not have to be inevitable, but for this to change we would have discover a desire to follow the problem (challenge) and allow it to instruct us on how to proceed. Eg, what conditions are necessary to enable a student to function as independently and effectively as possible, and to pay attention to the detail of making this happen. For example, we may provide equipment of sufficient quality, if somewhat over priced, but if training is not made available in the detail, to ensure that a student is able to make use of the equipment, then we have thrown money at a problem, suppliers have made a profit, assessor have earned their fee, but the student's educational aspirations are not being facilitated to the extent that we know is possible. (I don't need a survey to tell me that..) In addition, the student experience has been transformed from paper and pen to keyboard and screen..greater intergration of learning support, albeing specialist or otherwise, to take account of the contexts in which students learn is paramount.
With regard to the 10 rule, this is resonant of when I started working in this field some 11 years ago. Ellen Morgan was the pioneering figure in the field of specialist learning support for students with SpLD. Ellen's way of working was precisely this model, reporting each term to the funding body on the work done and expected future priorities. Although, effectively being introduced to the field by Ellen, in organising services at my own place of work, I did not implement this procedure as routine because the workload did not permit it. Tutors did, however, provide semester based reports on student work, and these were available to funding bodies on request.
The principle that the funding body may from time to time ask for details was not in question, and there was no chagrin, neither on one side nor the other. More recently, the SLC appear to have formalised this historical rule, for the sake of simplicity and to cope with what are a complex range of demands for support. I am not sure what the answers are but we keep working on them.
Regards,
Penny
---Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Parrott, Daniel
Sent: Mon 10/11/2008 10:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: 10 hour "rule" for dyslexic support
At the moment (and I am talking about SLD here), I am very much watching
out for students who are not able to respond to changing styles of
written work and / or for whom core literacy tasks etc are "not
automatic".
When I say "not automatic", I mean that (for example), however many
times you explain how a literacy review should be carried out, when it
comes to doing a literacy review in practice, the student hits a
barrier. Similarly, many of the students I see will know that there is
an "i before e" rule and may even know "i before e except after c which
sounds ee"- however, they often will not know how to make this work in
practice. They are likely to need to ask someone each time the rule is
encountered (if they even spot the circumstance when it should be
applied). Even reiteration by specialist study skills tutor may fail to
make this kind of response automatic.
Additionally, many students I see have a history of being unable to
respond to new styles of working or circumvent common barriers (e.g.
adapting to Harvard referencing). As a result, if tutored at A level,
the student may learn to write essays in the style required, but will
usually find it hard. Coming to higher education, essay styles are much
more varied- for instance, many of the art students I see experience
difficulties responding to an essay where they are required to analyse
two artistic styles, then draw conclusions (fully supported by
references). With weekly study skills tuition, they learn how to
approach this, but may not be able to approach the task without this
support. The next essay may be a case of picking out the key points of
surrealism, then cross linking them with related social issues / habits.
This requires a completely different approach, which the student may not
be familiar with (especially if the added confusion of full referencing
is thrown in). As a consequence, the previously learnt style needs to be
ditched and a new approach taken. However, confusion between the
previous and current required style may remain.
Let us say now, the student then has to do anther comparison. Although
recently covered, the approach required is half forgotten and half
muddled up with social essay. So, again, intervention is required. Every
time a barrier is broken down, there is a chance that it could reform
(but in a slightly different way!).
This does not go away in ten 1hr sessions, even with the best support in
the world. Support needs to be "case by case" and ongoing. If I met a
student in this situation, it would be incompetent of me to recommend
10hrs support and say that a further review will be required, leaving it
open. There is enough evidence for me to request ongoing support from
the start. I could only say that in my professional opinion (and from
the evidence I had gathered), the student would require ongoing support
and that interruptions in this would be likely to place the student at a
critical disadvantage.
Of course, this would not apply to all students, but I do not think the
new system (even though it has involved student feedback) seems remotely
aware of this kind of scenario.
The question is, am I seeing more students like this because I assess
mostly for art, social work, sport and community ed, courses? When I
talk about "non automatic" learning patterns that need regular
reiteration, clarification and untangling, is this familiar to everyone
on this board?
I feel that I am not just being asked to put a square peg in a round
hole, but a variety of bizarrely shaped objects (sorry to refer to my
client base in such a way ;-) )that I know will never fit! The 10hr
review serves absolutely no purpose to many of the students I see- hence
some of the comments I have made here.
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Kent
Sent: 10 November 2008 09:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 10 hour "rule" for dyslexic support
Ekaterina, Andy, all
In answer to some points in this thread:
This is all very medical model, yes. That is what DSA assessors are
being
asked to use.
The SLC Needs Assessment model is a medical-administrative one which
advocates a strategies approach akin to a rehabilitation scenario, which
in the
case of non subject specific study skills support assumes a goal of
being able
to act without (human) help. The associated documents describe the
report in
terms of it being part of an audit process, hence the emphasis on the
NAR
being the instrument that justifies the release of monies from the DSA.
It would surely be outside the remit of the SLC to start making
decisions or
pronouncements beyond the immediate parameters of the DSA? Is it in
fact
possible for the SLC to do anything other than work within a medical
administrative-centred model?
Student input: The latest slides from the SLC show that they have
surveyed
5000 students and have plans to build in more customer response and
feedback; that's for their own purposes. The disability support in HE
sector
would have their own reasons and mechanisms for fostering of student
voice,
student feedback and student-centred services. Yes, this is something to
think about - for example, could the ILPs be used as means of canvassing
student opinion?
NAR and ILP connection: There is a difference between 1. creating an
NAR
model which references an audit tool (ILP) and 2. creating the audit
tool and
criteria for measurement/benchmarks. It would make things efficient from
an
administrative point of view if the NAR and the ILPs operated on similar
framework but that separateness, the difference between spheres of
operation, perhaps suggests that the ILP does not have to be a clone of
the
SLC needs assessment model. However, the DSA is an important element of
the disability support economy; it would be wise to acknowledge the
basic
demands of the funding body.
Social model ILP: would provide evidence that some aspect of the
education
service for which the student has already paid fees remains inaccessible
to
them. There would be room for the module by module approach and maybe
then leverage on the inclusive practice issues. There would also be the
strategies-type approach but with the assumption that independence could
be
achieved through successful organisation of help by the student. The
student
would have a significant amount of control over the resource allocation
(probably in the DSA case in terms of choice of provider, location, time
and
method of delivery). Independence is relative to environmental factors,
so the
plan would assume funding body willingness to accept arguments based on
evidence of less than adequate inclusion/adaptation/adjustment in the
teaching and learning environment as valid justifications for continued
additional cost to the student.
What does an ILP look like?: It remains to be seen whether the SLC-ILP
template and/or criteria for more than 10 hours of specialist service
provision
will be able to accommodate the social model approach, or indeed whether
relevant organisations propose social model ILPs as examples of good
sector
practice.
Amanda Kent
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:47:35 -0000, E.Barakhta <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Amanda, Andy
>
>Well, what I personally was thinking about was: a small group of people
>(assessors) influencing SLC and QAG, introducing their changes and
>everyone else having to go along with that. I did not feel that was
>right or in the best interest of students for that matter.
>
>As long as we all contribute and, as you have noticed, dyslexic
>community in particular and SLC/QAG collates the information and makes
>the best decision rather than relying on some group of people who
>happens to be closer to them then there is no conflict whatsoever.
>As long as majority is consulted and contributes their views, then I
>have absolutely no problems with that.
>
>Kind regards
>
>
>Ekaterina Barakhta
>Senior Assessor
>>The Access Centre
>>Disabled Student Services (Frank Henshaw Building)
>>The Open University
>>Hammerwood Gate
>>Kents Hill
>>Milton Keynes
>>United Kingdom
>>MK7 6BY
>>Tel +44 (0) 1908 655921
>>
>>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde
>Sent: 07 November 2008 10:37
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 10 hour "rule" for dyslexic support
>
>Hi Amanda. thank you. Conflict of interest. I think this one would
>better be responded by Ekaterina.
>
>But I want to comment briefly on a closely related issue. The main
>stake holder that has not provided its view so far is the dyslexic
>community (students).
>
>Assessors, DOs. administrators, tutors, etc, we all are part of an
>institutionalised framework, suppliers of services.
>
>Shouldn't we better ask 'them' what is best? Isn't this a conflict of
>interest in itself. We all decide for them. Isn't this very 'medical
>model'
>approach?
>
>We assume that 'they' want/need 'study skills support' and are
>discussing how many hours. Isn't it a real possibility that the
students
>are 'really'
>asking for a flexible curriculum and not only for more 'omega tree fish
>oil'
>in the form of 'study skills'? Are we with this approach reversing the
>blame (what the social model theorist have been criticising form more
>than 30 years)?
>
>Shouldn't we be advocating for dyslexic people to have all books in
>auditory format?
>Shouldn't the alternative examinations an entitlement rather than a
>verification of a real impossibility of writing to 'compensate it with
>25 minutes extra time'?
>
>Should academic tutors use multisensory approaches to teaching rather
>than asking dyslexia tutors to 'teach' students 'skills'?
>Shouldn't we encourage modules to consider problem solving assignments
>and not only 'essays'? The above are only examples.
>
>I think we all here have something to think about here. We are all
>focusing on auxiliary aids and services. Perhaps the issue is how
tomake
>a flexible curriculum.
>
>Best, Andy
>
>best, Andres
>----- Original Message -----
>
|
