|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Diagnosing 'learning difficulties' -or worse- in children
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
The conditions I have been talking about are diagnosed from behaviour. If it is difficult to identify the behaviour that is reason to ask whether the condition is well-defined. This is not the same situation where there is a clear idea of what a disease is, but it is difficult to identify it in practice.
It's exactly the same thing. Consider a cough. Most of the conditions that can cause a cough are well-defined. And the symptom is extraordinarily easy to identify. But a cough is a fairly nonspecific symptom. Deciding which of myriad possible conditions (asthma? pertussis? histoplasmosis? cancer? Tourette syndrome? pneumonia? sarcoidosis?) is causing this particular cough is hard.
It's really no different when you're looking at other behaviors that may be symptomatic of underlying diseases or disorders. The conditions can be well defined. The behavior can be easy to identify. Connecting them up is hard.
Okay this has become a classic example of a rapidly changing argument.
No, it's not. It's an example of using multiple analogies or examples in the attempt (apparently futile) to communicate an idea or a concept. If I think you're familiar with A, B, and C, but not with X, I might show you how A is like X, and then how B is like X, and then how C is like X, assuming that you might begin to see the connections and understand the point I'm trying to make.
It's ordinarily a useful technique, because in an ordinary conversation, you can assume that the other person is trying to understand what you're trying to say.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I seem to have posted this before, but forgive me for repeating as I don't seem to have been as clear as I thought. This was a first test to prove the concept that it is possible to identify people with autism by physically examining aspects of the construction of their brain. It does that.
From the report mentioned we would expect that for the general population somebody who tested positive on the brain scan would have a 5% chance of actually having the condition, and we have no data whatsoever as to how effective it would be on somebody with symptoms of autism (which would be more useful).
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I didn't claim that this is a diagnostic tool ready for use. Nobody has said that.
Whether it is ready for practical use or not is beside the point. It does not do what was claimed.
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
Although it is true that the specificity and sensitivity of this test, from this preliminary set of figures, is comparable to diagnostic tests that are regularly relied upon in medicine.
Have you followed the link I gave earlier? I thought it explained this rather well.
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
What I did say is that this apparently convincing proof of concept makes it very difficult to sustain your assertion that it will never be possible to identify people with autism in this way. Do you still stand by that?
I stand by the claim that the tests as described are not possible to use as a diagnostic tool for autism.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Yes, I think it is a misunderstanding caused by taking isolated quotations out of context. Perhaps you should try not doing that.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I thought you were asserting that score scatter on standardized tests doesn't signify anything. I didn't realize that you were actually asserting something much more limited: that score scatter on standardized tests of cognitive function doesn't signify the presence of a physical disability.
I'm pretty certain that wasn't what I said either.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
When we're talking about special needs (that is what we're talking about, isn't it?) sensory, motor, and cognitive function isn't unilaterally widening the discussion. That IS the discussion.
Okay, for future reference, when you have taken a quotation out of context, it is not enough to look at other points in the discussion and assume that the statement applied to all matters within the scope of the discussion.
If you want to know what a claim means you should:
a) look at the precise context in which it was made
or
b) ask.
I'm getting fed up with
c) interpret it in whichever way would be easiset to prove wrong and then write a long and insulting rant about how wrong it is.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Yes it is. But it's not allowed as a formal diagnostic method as yet because trials need to be bigger before governments accept them, and there isn't the equipment in place to offer it on a larger scale as yet.
Have you read the link I gave you?
I think it explains rather well why, even if the results are substantiated by proper trials, they would not demonstrate that it could be used as a method of diagnosis.
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Note also the presence of the word "can" in my sentence. "Can" is not the same as "do currently".
No, but "can" usually implies "can currently do" as opposed to "can't currently do".
Doesn't it?
[ 11. September 2010, 16:56: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Even the best psychiatrists aren't able to achieve more than 90% total certainty even with the existing methods.
Please, just go and read the link.
This is getting silly.
[ 11. September 2010, 16:58: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't inherently make it better of course. But it does seem to refute your claim that parents and/or teachers are frivolously abusing the system to justify their own or their offsprings' laziness.
In which parallel universe did I say that?
That seems to be the content of virtually every post you've made, as well as the rant-blog you linked.
For pity's sake, is this really all the justification you are able to give for your absurd strawman?
I'm used to being demonised by the defenders of the SEN racket, but you are taking the mickey with this one.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm asking you to support your potentially strawman argument. The blog you pointed us to was simply a list of maxims YOU attribute to SEN. No evidence, no source, nothing. Just a long list of "isn't it ridiculous that SEN believes this to be true".
The whole point of identifying those bad arguments for SEN was to challenge you to justify your position without using those bad arguments. If you can't do so then it proves my point about the SEN racket being indefensible, regardless of how often the bad arguments are actually used.
(That said, the main inspiration for those points was a debate on this very forum...)
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Yes, I think it is a misunderstanding caused by taking isolated quotations out of context.
That's entirely possible.
It's also possible that your ability to communicate your thoughts clearly and effectively is somewhat below average.
I seem to have gotten the (possibly erroneous) idea that you believe that it is a disservice to students to pretend that they are more skillful than they really are. If indeed that is your opinion, which it might not be (I might have made it up, based on the accidental misunderstandings of imagined implications of brief bits of other things that you may or may not have said), do you feel the same way about interactions between adults?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
]Surely, the specificity must depend on the population as the number of false positives might be influenced by the characteristics of the population? (Which is why we currently have no reason to assume this test would be useful even if confined to high risk groups.)
Specificity = true negatives that test negative divided by all true negatives. Hence only those without the disease are in the equation, and it doesn't vary with the population. On the other hand, the negative predictive value (true negatives that test negative divided by all that test negative) will vary with the population, and that's why we can't use the test for screening.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
Oldandrew - still with us! Every staffroom has one.
I got a well-deserved hostly rap on the knuckles last time I let him get to me.
So, I'll whistle a happy tune and be on my way. Anyone coming?
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm asking you to support your potentially strawman argument. The blog you pointed us to was simply a list of maxims YOU attribute to SEN. No evidence, no source, nothing. Just a long list of "isn't it ridiculous that SEN believes this to be true".
The whole point of identifying those bad arguments for SEN was to challenge you to justify your position without using those bad arguments. If you can't do so then it proves my point about the SEN racket being indefensible, regardless of how often the bad arguments are actually used.
(That said, the main inspiration for those points was a debate on this very forum...)
But it's not my argument-- it's yours. I didn't say SEN is "child-worshipping"-- you did. As I said, as an American educator, I know nothing of the UK system. Your blog makes a long series of unsubstantiated, undocumented, unsupported statements that supposedly represent the attitude or prevailing presumptions of SEN. I'm asking YOU to support YOUR argument. Can you demonstrate that any of these truisms are held by a significant percentage of the SEN bureaucracy?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
What I did say is that this apparently convincing proof of concept makes it very difficult to sustain your assertion that it will never be possible to identify people with autism in this way. Do you still stand by that?
I stand by the claim that the tests as described are not possible to use as a diagnostic tool for autism.
I think the expression you might use is: "for pity's sake".
Nobody has said that this first test should be rolled out to hospitals at once for immediate use as a diagnostic tool. Nobody. Not on this thread. Not in the actual report of the experiment. And so far as I am aware not even in the tabloids.
But you have asserted that, however well the process is refined by further experiment and development it will never be suitable for that use, that it is impossible for this process ever to become a useful diagnostic tool. For that to be a valid assertion though the experiment reported on would have to have produced results which indicate that the brains of people with autism display no characteristics marking them out from the brains of non-autistic people. But that is the opposite of the findings reported.
The specificity and sensitivity of this test are such that it would be difficult to use in clinical practice as it now stands (and assuming that having proved the concept nobody will do anything to improve its accuracy). But not impossible to use, even now in fact. Otherwise various other tests which are currently relied on, for instance some common tests for prostate cancer, would be discarded, because they have significantly lower rates both of specificity and sensitivity than this test has already achieved. And yet they are not discarded. Because though they are not ideal they are better than not being able to diagnose prostate cancer at all.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
...for instance some common tests for prostate cancer, would be discarded...
I think prostate cancer screening probably should be discarded, but that's too much of a tangent...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
No, it's not. It's an example of using multiple analogies or examples in the attempt (apparently futile) to communicate an idea or a concept. If I think you're familiar with A, B, and C, but not with X, I might show you how A is like X, and then how B is like X, and then how C is like X, assuming that you might begin to see the connections and understand the point I'm trying to make.
It's ordinarily a useful technique, because in an ordinary conversation, you can assume that the other person is trying to understand what you're trying to say.
Oh dear.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as misunderstanding you. You need to listen and respond to opposing arguments not treat them as a request for another explanation of the point they have already addressed.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's also possible that your ability to communicate your thoughts clearly and effectively is somewhat below average.
If my meaning is unclear, can I suggest asking for clarification rather than inventing an obviously silly position, attributing it to me, and then insulting me for holding it?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Specificity = true negatives that test negative divided by all true negatives. Hence only those without the disease are in the equation, and it doesn't vary with the population.
Yes, it does.
Different populations will, obviously, have different proportions of true negatives testing as negative (unless false positives only occur through random error, something which you simply cannot assume).
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it's not my argument-- it's yours. I didn't say SEN is "child-worshipping"-- you did. As I said, as an American educator, I know nothing of the UK system.
Yep, looking back I see that it was actually Thirdfooter who started this line of argument. You simply misunderstood me, and when I explained to you what I meant started complaining that I hadn't "backed it up".
It now appears to be that this was a way for you to say that you had no knowledge of what I am talking about. Fair enough, but can you stop acting like your ignorance is my responsibility and that I have an obligation to demonstrate everything to you?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The British Dyslexia Association has a blog here which I find well worth following.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I have now completed the Postgraduate Certificate - which qualifies me as a specialist teacher.
Next week I start the Postgraduate Diploma which qualifies me to diagnose SpLD.
The following year research and MA. I intend to research teachers' attitudes to specific learning difficulties.
Should be interesting.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The British Dyslexia Association has a blog here which I find well worth following.
I have now completed the Postgraduate Certificate - which qualifies me as a specialist teacher.
Next week I start the Postgraduate Diploma which qualifies me to diagnose SpLD.
The following year research and MA. I intend to research teachers' attitudes to specific learning difficulties.
Should be interesting.
Brilliant news!!
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
I stand by the claim that the tests as described are not possible to use as a diagnostic tool for autism.
I think the expression you might use is: "for pity's sake".
Nobody has said that this first test should be rolled out to hospitals at once for immediate use as a diagnostic tool. Nobody. Not on this thread. Not in the actual report of the experiment. And so far as I am aware not even in the tabloids.
So?
My point is not that the tests are unready or unproven, my point is that the tests, even if it is properly established that they can do what is claimed and even if it was practically possible to use the tests more widely, could not be used as a diagnostic tool if all they could do was what is described in the article.
I have provided a link to a rather good explanation of why this is the case which people seem rather keen to ignore. Could you engage with that rather than this strawman?
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
But you have asserted that, however well the process is refined by further experiment and development it will never be suitable for that use, that it is impossible for this process ever to become a useful diagnostic tool.
Oh for pity's sake.
My claim is that even if the tests are established to have the reported properties then this would not make them useful as a diagnostic tool. Obviously, I make no claim about what will happen if the tests turn out to have useful properties that are not reported in the article. I am objecting to Amber's claim that "Now they're putting people into the new MRI scanners and seeing that they can diagnose using the scans", and I am objecting, not simply on the grounds that the claims in the article are not yet proven, and the technology not yet widely available, but on the grounds that even if the claims were to be proven, and the technology was available, it still wouldn't be possible to use scans with only the reported properties as a useful diagnostic tool.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Different populations will, obviously, have different proportions of true negatives testing as negative (unless false positives only occur through random error, something which you simply cannot assume).
I'm not sure that's an obviously, actually. That effect is generally pretty subtle, although there are some well described examples (e.g. ECGs to diagnose angina/heart attacks are less specific in Afro-Carribeans). But in general that effect doesn't present practical problems. The far greater practical problem is that the negative/positive predictive values of the test vary hugely depending on the prevalence of the disease in the population we're looking at.
The point at the start of this was whether it was reasonable to give a specificity of a test without particular reference to the prevalence of the disease in the population tested. The answer is that you can, and that 90% specificity is generally not that bad for this kind of test.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Different populations will, obviously, have different proportions of true negatives testing as negative (unless false positives only occur through random error, something which you simply cannot assume).
I'm not sure that's an obviously, actually. That effect is generally pretty subtle, although there are some well described examples
I would imagine that it would absolutely have to be a subtle effect in those cases where a medical test has been established and is useful. However, for evaluating the usefulness of a newly created test, calculating the statistics for people with symptoms rather than the general population must be absolutely vital mustn't it? That link I gave earlier suggested that this was one of the (two) reasons carcino-embryonic-antigen was abandoned as a useful test for colon cancer despite being more accurate than the tests we are talking about for autism.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think you're still missing the point.
The usual way of evaluating this is to start by saying that specificity and sensitivity are intrinsic properties of the test.
If you know those and the prevalence of disease in a population, you can then calculate the positive and negative predictive values in different circumstances.
Because the negative and positive predictive values vary every time you change the prevalence, it wouldn't be plausible to measure them empirically every time you need to think about them.
In general, very few tests can function as screening tests, because of the very low prevalence of the disease. Even quite good tests like HIV tests start to struggle when you're screening blood donors in rural UK. (i.e. you get to the situation where most positive tests are actually false positives).
So to say this test wouldn't be any good for screening is besides the point. However, the problem I'd have working out how the scans operate is that the reasoning is circular. We know that a doctor's assessment might be wrong - other conditions could be confused with autism. So we want a test. Brain scans sound nice and objective, so we'll work one up and then start evaluating it.
What's our gold standard against which to evaluate its accuracy? There isn't one. We could use clinical assessment as the gold standard, but that isn't great which is why we need another test in the first place.
Hmmmm.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it's not my argument-- it's yours. I didn't say SEN is "child-worshipping"-- you did. As I said, as an American educator, I know nothing of the UK system.
Yep, looking back I see that it was actually Thirdfooter who started this line of argument. You simply misunderstood me, and when I explained to you what I meant started complaining that I hadn't "backed it up".
It now appears to be that this was a way for you to say that you had no knowledge of what I am talking about. Fair enough, but can you stop acting like your ignorance is my responsibility and that I have an obligation to demonstrate everything to you?
Thirdfooter did not write the blog, you did. You linked us to YOUR blog that presented a list of maxims purportedly representing the position/worldview/philosophy of SEN. That is an argument-- YOUR argument. I asked YOU to back up YOUR argument with examples of statements made in SEN literature that illustrate a couple of those maxims. If indeed the assumptions are as prevalent within the SEN bureaucracy as you claim them to be, this should not be a hard thing to do. And, as it is YOUR argument-- not mine, not thirdfooters-- it is your task to support it. In fact, there's really no way for anyone else to do it, since we have no way of knowing what you are thinking.
btw, I said from the very beginning, and in the post in question, that I am an American and know nothing of the UK system. But that doesn't change the weight of the responsibility to support the kinds of claims you are making.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think you're still missing the point.
The usual way of evaluating this is to start by saying that specificity and sensitivity are intrinsic properties of the test.
Surely the reason it is usual for this to be the case is that if it is not (i.e. the known specificity may not be accurate for the population that is actually being tested) then you don't have a test that can be actually be used for diagnosis, regardless of the prevalence?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Thirdfooter did not write the blog, you did. You linked us to YOUR blog that presented a list of maxims purportedly representing the position/worldview/philosophy of SEN. That is an argument-- YOUR argument...But that doesn't change the weight of the responsibility to support the kinds of claims you are making.
I'm sorry but this is a product of your imagination.
I linked to the blog entry to explain a term ("child worship") you had misunderstood, not to make an argument or make a claim.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Oldandrew, I think I've asked, and other people have asked, but I'll try again.
In your opinion, what conditions should allow a student to receive either accommodations or special services? To be clear, by accommodations and special services, I mean things that are allowed for, done for, or provided for students who have those conditions that are not usually allowed for, done for, or provided for students who do not have those conditions. I gave you the list of conditions that's used in the United States as part of the determination of whether a child qualifies for special services. If you were in charge of the list, what conditions would be on it?
Second, in your opinion, how should those conditions be identified? Who should determine whether a child in fact has one of the specified conditions?
Third, in your opinion, for those children who have been determined to have an eligible condition, who should decide what accommodations and special services should be provided, and in what circumstances?
Thank you.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
In your blog, oldandrew, you describe the ideology of 'Child Worship'. In your post # 11546 on this thread on 10 September at 17:51 you say that the ideology is quote:
widely promoted by the advocates of the SEN racket
. Please can you give specific examples from the SEN literature of where this ideology appears. Thank you.
[ 12. September 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
Card-Carrying SEN Racketeer returning to the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Is it helpful to diagnose mild 'problems' in children? Would you be content if your child was diagnosed with mild autism, ADHD or dyspraxia because helpful interventions could be put in place? Or would you be concerned about your child being labelled at a young age, and embarrassed by overzealous teachers, when they could simply grow out of it?
I'm talking here of mild conditions because I'm sure anyone would agree that it's helpful to diagnose more severe cases.
There are a lot of issues at play here, but in the States at least, I think it's crucial to understand the process in the schools that leads to diagnosis. First off, it's not undertaken unless the suspicion is of an EDUCATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT disability--something that is impacting negatively on a child's experience of school. I can name off the top of my head 3 different students at my school who I suspect of being on the autism spectrum*, but these kids are thriving academically, having a socially decent time of it, and supported by families who don't want to go that route. We don't butt in if butting in ain't needed.
And if, through the SST process (parents of struggling students conference with a group of school staff which usually includes a school psychologist or special education teacher), the school team does come to feel that further investigation is warranted, we can't do any of it without parent agreement and consent. So families concerned about labeling and such have the right to curtail the process, though often I'd prefer that they first explore those concerns against the benefits for their child of being evaluated.
Yup, I said benefits. It's been my experience that if a kid gets to that stage of the SST process, it's because there are unknowns and issues which can't be rectified with the amount of information and support available in the general education system. A good evaluation for a possible disability, done by competent professionals with appropriate background knowledge, contains both quantitative and qualitative information gleaned from observation as well as testing. It's not just a deficit profile: it's a learning profile--the kind of thing that, yes, might be great to have for every child, but time constraints just keep the psychologist from doing that for every child in the room.
It's been my experience that these mild conditions aren't exactly things that the child will "grow out of"--they're elements of that child's learning profile, and knowledge is power when it comes to moving on with that. A child with auditory processing disorder will probably always struggle in classes which are heavily lecture-based: knowing that about my students allows me to advocate for putting them in the class with the teacher that uses a lot of visual supports, even though the quite verbal teacher has other amazing teaching skills which benefit kids with other learning styles. Specific learning disabilities like dyslexia and dyscalcula require intervention: yes, a lot of the intervention is just "more of good teaching", but the cold reality is that it's good teaching, delivered intensively in small groups or 1:1 by a person with masters-level training in educational exceptionality, and the school system just can't throw that net wide enough to also cover the kids who honestly don't need it. It's also things like testing alone in a quiet room, for kids whose APDs or ASDs make background noise like cannon fire: good luck figuring out a way to get a room for every kid.
Education has shifted, in a lot of ways--there's a lot more emphasis now on the reality that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to learning profiles, and a focus on all kids making progress, not just all kids "being taught". There are challenges and strengths with that approach, of course, but I'm firmly in the camp that thinks knowing is better than not knowing when it comes to something that can help a teacher reach a kid.
*insert obligatory disclaimer that I am not, as a special education teacher, actually authorized to DO the diagnosis...
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Oldandrew, I think I've asked, and other people have asked, but I'll try again.
I don't think you you have, or if you did it was obscured among other more precise points.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In your opinion, what conditions should allow a student to receive either accommodations or special services? To be clear, by accommodations and special services, I mean things that are allowed for, done for, or provided for students who have those conditions that are not usually allowed for, done for, or provided for students who do not have those conditions.
I'm sorry? Are you expecting me to put aside a few hours here and write a list of all the conditions that I can think of where it might be reasonable to help somebody who has them? Or are you just after more exact principles for making these sorts of judgements?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I gave you the list of conditions that's used in the United States as part of the determination of whether a child qualifies for special services. If you were in charge of the list, what conditions would be on it?
Off the top of my head I don't think I would administer it like this. I would leave schools, and the wider education bodies as much autonomy with resources as possible, subject to the condition that the disabled are entitled to the same degree of educational opportunity as everybody else.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Second, in your opinion, how should those conditions be identified? Who should determine whether a child in fact has one of the specified conditions?
If there is some doubt as to whether somebody actually has a disability they should be referred to appropriate medical professionals.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Third, in your opinion, for those children who have been determined to have an eligible condition, who should decide what accommodations and special services should be provided, and in what circumstances?
The entitlement dealt with by the education system should be to an education not to "accommodations and special services" for individuals. Provision of accomodations and special services should be devolved to the lowest possible levels and organised according to obvious need on the ground not according to a bureaucratic formula.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In your blog, oldandrew, you describe the ideology of 'Child Worship'. In your post # 11546 on this thread on 10 September at 17:51 you say that the ideology is quote:
widely promoted by the advocates of the SEN racket
. Please can you give specific examples from the SEN literature of where this ideology appears. Thank you.
Oh dear. That's two posts in a row where people, for no obvious reason, ask me questions that are so broad and general that I could spend hours answering them without making a relevant point.
If there's something in that blog post where you don't see what sort of thing I am referring to, please feel free to ask about that individual point on that blog post. I'm not going to attempt to deal with all ten points here, for no discernable reason, and I am baffled as to why you are suggesting that I only be allowed to give examples from the SEN literature.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Well you make a generalised statement about what is promoted by the SEN racket. I'm not asking for examples across all ten points - just (say) two or three examples emanating from 'the SEN racket' where they make one or more of the ten points which you enumerate in your blog. I haven't found them, but I am not a teacher and I don't know the field. I would just like to see some of the evidence on which you base your proposition that the 'SEN racket' widely promotes child worship.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In your opinion, what conditions should allow a student to receive either accommodations or special services? To be clear, by accommodations and special services, I mean things that are allowed for, done for, or provided for students who have those conditions that are not usually allowed for, done for, or provided for students who do not have those conditions.
I'm sorry? Are you expecting me to put aside a few hours here and write a list of all the conditions that I can think of where it might be reasonable to help somebody who has them? Or are you just after more exact principles for making these sorts of judgements?
It shouldn't take hours to provide a general summary of the sorts of conditions that you think would justify providing accommodations or special services. Not a detailed list of every possible diagnosis, but a description of the kinds or categories of conditions would perhaps make it easier for other people to understand your points.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I gave you the list of conditions that's used in the United States as part of the determination of whether a child qualifies for special services. If you were in charge of the list, what conditions would be on it?
Off the top of my head I don't think I would administer it like this. I would leave schools, and the wider education bodies as much autonomy with resources as possible, subject to the condition that the disabled are entitled to the same degree of educational opportunity as everybody else.[/quote][/qb]
What do you mean by "the same degree of educational opportunity as everybody else"? Do you mean that the child should receive the same instruction that everyone else receives? Or that the child should receive instruction that will allow the child to learn what everyone else learns? Or something else?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Second, in your opinion, how should those conditions be identified? Who should determine whether a child in fact has one of the specified conditions?
If there is some doubt as to whether somebody actually has a disability they should be referred to appropriate medical professionals.[/quote][/qb]
Would the appropriate medical professional simply provide a diagnosis? Or would the appropriate medical professional also make recommendations about accommodations and special services?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Third, in your opinion, for those children who have been determined to have an eligible condition, who should decide what accommodations and special services should be provided, and in what circumstances?
The entitlement dealt with by the education system should be to an education not to "accommodations and special services" for individuals. Provision of accomodations and special services should be devolved to the lowest possible levels and organised according to obvious need on the ground not according to a bureaucratic formula. [/QB][/QUOTE]
What do you consider the lowest possible level?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
(A comment from someone who was diagnosed with a non-specific Learning Disability)
I know that I don't hear things they way everyone else does. I knew that in second grade when my teacher started talking about when you know something is a long vowel and when something is a short vowel, and I thought she was talking about the same thing! (Vowel sounds are close to impossible for me to differentiate between.) It took two years for the school system to realize that I would never be able to tell the difference between certain sounds in the English language (at least with the teaching methods they had back then).
I've been taught the RTI model of teaching which says that between 80 to 85 percent of the students in my class should be able to learn the material if I use good teaching methods.(Which in my class of 20 would be 16)
15 to 20 percent will need extra help and/or practice to learn which should be provided by the classroom teacher. (Which in my class would be 3 to 4)
0 to 5 percent will need specialized instruction from a specialized teacher (AKA Special Ed) (Which in my class would be about 1)
The problem is that the 15 to 20 percent could include students who are identified with learning disabilities, but can function fine in a regular classroom given modifications. (AKA hearing aids for a hard of hearing students, modified behavior for autistic children, classroom supports for students with Irlen syndrome, etc.)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think you're still missing the point.
The usual way of evaluating this is to start by saying that specificity and sensitivity are intrinsic properties of the test.
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Surely the reason it is usual for this to be the case is that if it is not (i.e. the known specificity may not be accurate for the population that is actually being tested) then you don't have a test that can be actually be used for diagnosis, regardless of the prevalence?
Evaluations of tests are usually repeated in several populations, and an idea of the kinds of conditions that might give false positives obtained (which may vary by population), but the idea that the sensitivity and specificity of a test might vary by population is usually not formally evaluated in that sense.
What got me off on this was you saying "You cannot hope to diagnose a condition that affects a tiny proportion of the population with a scan that has a 90% sensitivity and 80% specificity even for a control group with no symptoms."
And my original response was to explain that this was just an inaccurate understanding of how sensitivity and specificity work. That is still the case, despite this (albeit slightly interesting) tangent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Thirdfooter did not write the blog, you did. You linked us to YOUR blog that presented a list of maxims purportedly representing the position/worldview/philosophy of SEN. That is an argument-- YOUR argument...But that doesn't change the weight of the responsibility to support the kinds of claims you are making.
I'm sorry but this is a product of your imagination.
I linked to the blog entry to explain a term ("child worship") you had misunderstood, not to make an argument or make a claim.
OK, let's review. You claimed that SEN is "child-worshipping". I asked you to elaborate what you meant. You linked us to the blog in which the author (you?) derisively attributed a bunch of attitudes or maxims to SEN bureaucracy, but offered no sources or examples of SEN statements or actions to support the assumption that these maxims are representative of their belief system.
Is your position now that the blog is NOT representing SEN? That you linked to it only as a generic example of "child-worshipping" but not the sort of "child-worshipping" found at SEN?
Either your link was a red herring that was unresponsive to the original question, or you are trying to evade having to support a potentially strawman argument.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Thirdfooter did not write the blog, you did. You linked us to YOUR blog that presented a list of maxims purportedly representing the position/worldview/philosophy of SEN. That is an argument-- YOUR argument...But that doesn't change the weight of the responsibility to support the kinds of claims you are making.
I'm sorry but this is a product of your imagination.
I linked to the blog entry to explain a term ("child worship") you had misunderstood, not to make an argument or make a claim.
OK, let's review. You claimed that SEN is "child-worshipping". I asked you to elaborate what you meant. You linked us to the blog in which the author (you?) derisively attributed a bunch of attitudes or maxims to SEN bureaucracy, but offered no sources or examples of SEN statements or actions to support the assumption that these maxims are representative of their belief system.
Is your position now that the blog is NOT representing SEN? That you linked to it only as a generic example of "child-worshipping" but not the sort of "child-worshipping" found at SEN?
Either your link was a red herring that was unresponsive to the original question, or you are trying to evade having to support a potentially strawman argument.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
sorry for the double post-- edit window's closed, perhaps a moderator can help me out here?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Well you make a generalised statement about what is promoted by the SEN racket. I'm not asking for examples across all ten points - just (say) two or three examples emanating from 'the SEN racket' where they make one or more of the ten points which you enumerate in your blog. I haven't found them, but I am not a teacher and I don't know the field. I would just like to see some of the evidence on which you base your proposition that the 'SEN racket' widely promotes child worship.
Exactly my request. Seems simple enough.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Well you make a generalised statement about what is promoted by the SEN racket.
No I didn't.
I said 3 days ago that child worship "was [not] universal in society but it is widely promoted by the advocates of the SEN racket". And I only said that in passing to correct a misinterpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'm not asking for examples across all ten points - just (say) two or three examples emanating from 'the SEN racket' where they make one or more of the ten points which you enumerate in your blog.
The point is not the absolute number of points you ask for. Telling me to answer it incompletely and arbitrarily doesn't make this any better. If you have an issue with a particular point then I don't mind discussing it. But I am not answering vague questions which could only be answered either in a long essay, or incompletely.
Nothing kills the focus of a debate than when people stop referring to particular points and start suggesting essay questions for other people to answer (and claiming that actually you don't want a whole essay answer just a random point to dispute doesn't help matters.) When the essay question is based on half a sentence from days ago taken out of context and apparently prompted by somebody else's misunderstanding then it becomes pretty obvious what you are doing.
If you don't want to discuss the points at hand then go, but don't bother wasting my time with essay questions.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In your opinion, what conditions should allow a student to receive either accommodations or special services? To be clear, by accommodations and special services, I mean things that are allowed for, done for, or provided for students who have those conditions that are not usually allowed for, done for, or provided for students who do not have those conditions.
Fine. Severe ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It shouldn't take hours to provide a general summary of the sorts of conditions that you think would justify providing accommodations or special services. Not a detailed list of every possible diagnosis, but a description of the kinds or categories of conditions would perhaps make it easier for other people to understand your points.
Severity is the issue. Massive expenditure on minor or even negligible inconveniences is the problem here. That's what I would end.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What do you mean by "the same degree of educational opportunity as everybody else"? Do you mean that the child should receive the same instruction that everyone else receives? Or that the child should receive instruction that will allow the child to learn what everyone else learns? Or something else?
I mean that they will not be obstructed from an appropriate education.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Would the appropriate medical professional simply provide a diagnosis? Or would the appropriate medical professional also make recommendations about accommodations and special services?
I don't have a problem with them making recommendations, but I ccertainly wouldn't give those recommendations authority over the education system.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What do you consider the lowest possible level?
The lowest level that is practical, where "practical" is judged with consideration to other students as well. Teachers should help their students. If their disabilities make that impractical then the school should make provision. If that is not practical the Local Authority should make provision. If that is not practical then the government should make provision.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Evaluations of tests are usually repeated in several populations, and an idea of the kinds of conditions that might give false positives obtained (which may vary by population), but the idea that the sensitivity and specificity of a test might vary by population is usually not formally evaluated in that sense.
What you are saying seems to be a matter of algorithms for calculating predictive values rather than dealing with first principles. A test is no use if it gives large numbers of false positives among the population of people who are most likely to be tested. Whether this is formulated as "specificity" and calculated exactly or whether the test is thrown out the moment it becomes clear that false negatives are a problem, is not really the point. It is the same issue. You cannot use something as a diagnostic tool until you have identified the rate of false negatives for the population of people you are likely to use it on.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, let's review. You claimed that SEN is "child-worshipping".
No, I didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I asked you to elaborate what you meant.
No, you didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You linked us to the blog in which the author (you?) derisively attributed a bunch of attitudes or maxims to SEN bureaucracy,
No, he didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but offered no sources or examples of SEN statements or actions to support the assumption that these maxims are representative of their belief system.
Feel free to search my blog for more details about how SEN works.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is your position now that the blog is NOT representing SEN?
I never said it was.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That you linked to it only as a generic example of "child-worshipping" but not the sort of "child-worshipping" found at SEN?
I don't even know what is meant by "at SEN".
The whole child worshipping point was to get out of the way some flawed arguments used to justify the SEN system. I wouldn't have bothered if I had known this thread would just concentrate on strawmen rather than actually debating the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Either your link was a red herring that was unresponsive to the original question, or you are trying to evade having to support a potentially strawman argument.
I have already explained to you why I linked to it. You have chosen to ignore my explanation and invent your own strawman explanation. Let me know if you want to engage in the discussion that actually happened instead of this one you have invented.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You cannot use something as a diagnostic tool until you have identified the rate of false negatives for the population of people you are likely to use it on.
That I certainly agree with. But my original point of entry to the thread was that what you were saying about specificity, and specificity related to this particular test was simply wrong.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
No I didn't.
I said 3 days ago that child worship "was [not] universal in society but it is widely promoted by the advocates of the SEN racket"
Well I call you on this. I think it is largely BS. I am asking you to substantiate, with evidence, your claim (which I have emphasized above) that 'child worship' "is widely promoted by advocates of the SEN racket". Frankly, it looks to me like the claims one finds in some of the worse examples of sloppy journalism when they run a crowd-pleasing story of 'political correctness gone mad' or 'health and safety run amuck' which on actual examination turns out to be rather different from the way it is reported.
If it is as "widely promoted by advocates of the SEN racket" as you claim, then you must be aware of clear specific instances to which you can readily point us. If not, I (and doubtless others too) are liable to continue to regard your claim as BS.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Last year I had a youngster in my class I suspected may have Asperger syndrome - s/he found it hard to read the signals that most of us take for granted. S/he found it much more difficult to communicate and interact with others and had quite high levels of anxiety and confusion.
So, early on in the year, I had a chat with the child's parents. They were very relieved that I had raised the issue and wasn't sweeping under the carpet the fact that their child was different. I also wasn't expecting he child to change. I suggested they went for diagnosis as, when the child went to high school, things would get harder as they change teachers often through the day.
S/he was a very hard worker but quite cognitively rigid and found changes in routine hard to deal with. So I set up a visual timetable and made sure I made all the accommodations I could. I operate a 'no blame' policy and we all worked hard to make life bearable for the child.
The child was very intelligent but, whatever the difficulty, it affected their learning because of the way classrooms work.
S/he was diagnosed and the statement will, I believe and hope, help his/her high school teachers to understand and work more effectively.
I have no idea what tests they used, it isn't my field, but I certainly trust the professionals and follow their recommendations - just as I hope the teachers who refer to me will do when I am qualified.
SpLD professionals - medical, pyschologists or specialist teachers are the 'consultants' to the class teacher's 'GPs'.
It is by no means a 'racket'! - it is vital that we don't assume all children are the same and have no neurological differences. One size does not fit all when it comes to teaching our children.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
You cannot use something as a diagnostic tool until you have identified the rate of false negatives for the population of people you are likely to use it on.
That I certainly agree with. But my original point of entry to the thread was that what you were saying about specificity, and specificity related to this particular test was simply wrong.
Similarly my point of entry was where oldandrew picked up a reference to MRI scans having been reported recently to have been able to identify markers within the structure of the brain that are specific to autism. He asserted that not only was this finding presently unsuitable for diagnostic purposes (which everyone would accept and nobody has said otherwise), but that it could not EVER be made so. There's simply no basis for that.
Leaving that aside though, it seems to me from reading this thread and his blog is that oldandrew has concluded that children with severe disabilities should receive help in school and children with incapacities that are not severe should not. That's a clear enough statement, but I would need to know how he would propose to administer this before I would be comfortable to dismantle all the provisions in our education system at the moment.
The first concern is how to define "severe", given that in reality most disabilities present on a sliding scale. Oldandrew accepts that in some instances it will be patently and objectively obvious to any teacher or school administration that a particular child has disabilities which are "severe". In every other case though, if the school administration (or presumably any influential dissenting voice within it) does not accept that a particular child is "severely" disabled they will be entitled to no help and no accommodation whatever from the school.
The only way past this all-or-nothing school gatekeeper would be to provide a medical diagnosis which certifies not only that the child has a disability, but that it represents a severe handicap to their coping in a mainstream school unaided. Presumably there will be scope here for dispute as to whether the diagnosis should be made by a general practitioner or only by a specialist in the particular condition(s) the child has.
The second concern is how to determine what the school could and should do about it. Presumably, whether or not the school has insisted upon a medical diagnosis before according "severe" status to the child's disability it is going to need some specialist advice at this point. Possibly that might also have to come from a medical practitioner, though it would surely make more sense for people with different letters after their name to play a role at this stage?
That all sounds mechanically similar to the existing processes for getting a Statement. So perhaps oldandrew's real issue lies with the ability for the school to make some accommodations on its own initiative when dealing with a child who seems to have symptoms of disability but who has not been through the Statement process. But my understanding is that schools have only very modest budgets for their own action. Is that not the case?
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Schools have incredibly small SEN budgets and get very few educational psychologist or specialist teacher visits in a year.
They have to prioritise - so the children who are on the spectrum of SpLD or neurological difference but not very severe don't get seen - especially and particularly if they are academically very bright.
As ADHD coach I find that bright, well behaved children with ADHD or ADD are not usually picked up until they reach university. The universities, in my experience, have excellent student support departments and (at long last) youngsters are getting the help and support which should have begun at the beginning of their schooling.
Girls, especially, are overlooked when it comes to ADHD diagnosis and support until they reach higher education in the UK.
[ 13. September 2010, 09:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
