Rubric regaring examinations

[Greg]

Due to an unexpected seizure (not my own thankfully and it's likely that everything will be okay, or at least won't be any worse off than they were this morning :S) I'm back earlier than expected.

Yeah, we're talking about a lot of issues here so I'll do my best to have dividing lines between them so's we don't end up confusing not only each other but any unfortunate poor enough to come across this thread :P

Main point: Limited/Unlimited rescources

Anything you buy with money is a limited rescource, prices are set by supply and demand, as the supply approaches infinity the price approaches zero. You can't take one situation and say should this/shouldn't this be allocated rescources without taking into account that there are limited rescources and that there are other situations about which the same questions are being asked and there is only so much to go around. To make the claim condition X should have Y resources allocated you need to show that either there is no condition X' that needs the Y resources more or that there are ZY resources available (where Z is the number of conditions that require Y resources more than X)

As someone with good coping skills is a different condition to someone with poor coping skills and the person with poor coping skills clearly needs the help more I don't see it as impossible that the line (above which resources are made available and below which they are not) should be drawn somewhere between the two. I'm trying to refute the claim that it's wrong to deny help to someone because they have good coping skills, because I percieve a scenario (which may or may not be present, I don't have the evidence availably to assess the odds) in which it seems reasonable to do so.

As I said in my previous post extra time is an unlimited rescource. Hopefully nobody has been buying it (though if they had could you direct me to the shop) That being said that something has a monetary value attached is a sufficient but not necassary condition to show that it's limited.

Clarification: Ideology

My standpoint here is very much an ideological one. It's well and good to say that 'in an ideal world rescorces should be distributed to X rather than Y' (and I do, often) However I'm aware that in practical terms an individual will not often be able to make that call. It's more often a case of you can influence whether resources are distributed to Y or split between X, Q, S and B (or whatever) A practical personal call often opposes an ideological one because the ideology can't be guaranteed by the individual to an extent it makes sense and is the right call for the individual, but I think most people generally feel bad about making them. Like I said, I took the computer but in an ideally run world I do not think that I should have had the chance.

It's like the problem where you've a bunch of people living on an island off a city to which they most commute to work via a single bridge. If everyone takes their car there is massive congestion and everyones unhappy. If everyone takes public transport then they get through (less vehicals on the road as more people/vehical) and everyones happy. If some do each then everyones made unhappy by the congestion and those on public transport are a little more unhappy (since they can't play their own music, have their own space etc.)

Every individual would agree that it's best if everyone takes public transport. Most individuals will still take their cars because they cannot control what everyone else does so they percieve their decision to be a practical one (as from each individuals point of view they're choosing between congestion&car or congestion&bus) Practicality opposes ideology, but everyone does it anyway, they probably feel a bit bad about it, but they do it all the same.

Of course that's the nightmare scenario where the two are made to directly oppose each other, which is pretty rare, my point is simply that ideology doesn't always filter down to practicality. So why do I always discuss what I think the ideal solution is rather than the practical one?

I tend to talk in ideologies over practicalities for two reasons. Firstly I find them more interesting, in most cases. Secondly I'm more interested in improving my ideological standpoint (which I belive can only be achived by experiencing different views) than my practical one. The practical one is more important, but changes for every circumstance, so any change would be extremely temporary. Not really worth the effort.

For what it's worth I agree that the most practical way forwards for all of us is to get all of the comphensatory measures that we can to compete with non-dyspraxics as if we had no such problem. I just don't think that makes it right.

Clarification: Discrimination

Any discrimination based on an attribute other than rational decision making (such as in the example you put forwards, ignorance of a condition) is wrong. I think we can all agree on that. (Of course it happens an awfull lot, we all do it, but that's another thing entirely, I think we're primarily taking about irrational hostile actions only for now)

Aside: "Special considerations" forms

I do not know what other peoples experience of these things are, but of those around me the perception is that they're a waste of paper. Anything that can't be evidenced or that didn't lead to a diagnosed problem of some kind (physical/mental) is pretty much binned. Besides they only cover short term problems that came up during the course rather than longer term issues.

[arthmelow]

With regards to two people with the same problem (dyspraxia or otherwise) being treated differently, it's a limited rescources issue. No problem with extra time, there is an infinate amount of extra time to give out. However when we're talking about finite rescources (the need for a seperate room & envigilator, a computer to do an exam on, etc) then it's only possible to help so many people.

My preference would be for helping the people who were doing the worst first. It seems logical to me that it's better to help someone who will otherwise flounder and never manage much achieve enough to get them into a steady job than it is to help someone who could already achieve a livable amount reach their full potential. If not everyone is going to reach their potential the focus has to be on making sure everyone has a liveable situation rather than trying to make sure that some are able to generate an elite.

Now of course there's an argument for rescource efficieny. In our case it's often a situation where a small allowance can make a large difference. In that issue it makes sense to allocate rescources where they'd be most efficient first - however my point was within our group rather than between our group and other groups. I think given how little it can take for one of us to achieve a lot it would probably be acceptable to allocate rescources to a group of us over helping one person in a worse situation. It still rankles a bit though.

It doesn't work like that in real schooling. What does happen is that the better off middle class parents are more likely to recognise potential learning disorders in their children and act upon them. The kids that aren't doing so well are only recognised as suffering from a particular learning disorder if their parents are well off enough or educated enough to recognise that there may be a problem, or if the kid manages to get to find their way to university eventually.

As regards personal citrcumstances, in GCSE exams there are potential allowances made for a death in the family, severe disruption to the exam hall or something similiar. But again its only the knowledgable middle class parents who know about this and act upon this knowledge.

I think the point was made that we should all fight for what we are entitled to even if other people do not get the chance to. That way, at least it could trickle to other people through word of mouth, or they could eventually provide better education in this area, or increase disability awareness.

As regards the testing everyone on the same level approach ( with no allowances made ) I don't feel that is appropiate. Examinations assume certain "base" skills and you are expected to use these to demonstrate your knowledge. Since dyspraxia affects the ability to handle these base skills, along with many other things ( possibly a broken arm! ), some allowance can be made. As regards personal circumstances or intelligence, even someone with lower intelligence will have the base skills to do the exam, they just wont have the same amount of understanding to demonstrate on paper. They are not deficient in the assumed skills, but rather in the material the paper is testing on.

[jme]

I don't really think anyone needs to apply ideology to the issue of exam provisions. what needs to be applied is common sense!

For what it's worth I agree that the most practical way forwards for all of us is to get all of the comphensatory measures that we can to compete with non-dyspraxics as if we had no such problem. I just don't think that makes it right.

so do you apply this to other disabilities or is it just dyspraxia? I have a friend who has severe quadraplegia but is really smart and compensates brilliantly for her disability. is it not right for her to have someone helping her in exams? I think it does make it right to recieve provisions for exams if you have a disability. If a person doesnt really need the provisions they recieve then they have abused the system and then that is not right. If someone really needs it and doesnt have it, then thats not fair and the person is disadvantaged.

So I think you can rephrase what you said to still fit your ideology. You can say...

"For what it's worth I agree that the most practical way forwards for all of us is to get all of the comphensatory measures that we can to compete with non-dyspraxics as if we had no such problem. This is equality, but I think it is unfortunate that there are others who also really need extra assistance but miss out on this"

and I dont know about you guys, but i dont think that i will ever be able to compete with non-dyspraxics or people withought cp as if i have no disability. but for exams, i am on a slightly more level playing field if i get extra time. Even though i compensate well, it still has an impact on my day to day life. its not just exams! all we are talking about is a wee teeny tiny bit of extra time for exams (but if you wanna give me all ya money too.... )

[nick]

Im not to sure i understand to clearly what this post is all about. I must confess to being a little confused with the talk about limited and unlimited resourses and what is the right way to distribute the limited resourses.

my own thougths on the matter of, if it is right to assist nd people who could just about mudle through with out extra time and support, is a most definite yes. I have no doubt that if i could not use a computer to write my exam papers and if i was not allowed extra time and was made to sit my exams in a busy hall full of distractions, i would still be able to pass my exams. Just how much diffference all this extra help makes i'm not to sure of. when i was last in education, over twenty years ago, i fared very badly and left school with only three cse's. Now i'm a lot older and having developed better compensatory tools i did much better, even without any extra help.

I was only recently diagnosed and given the extra help. therefore, i'm not realy certain how much better i'm doing because of it. My condition is mild according to my diagnosis but i still don't realy know what that means. i have allways been dyspraxic and know nothing else. i guess no one who has developmental dyspraxia knows what it is like to have a brain that is fully intergrated with a working memory and a processing speed that matches ones verbal comprhensiion etc. Nor any one who is nt can realy know what it is like to be nd unless one has aquired dyspraixia. i guess the only way to acertain if extra time and all the other support we are eligable for can really level the playing field can only be measured in results.

for me to walk out of university with the best possible grade is realy important because future employment pportunities are dependent on those grades. therefore, any help any can receive to improve my chances in life have to be seized upon and if it is fair is of secondary concern. what i would be interested to hear from is any one who has aquired dyspraxia and knows what it is like to have experienced both sides of the divide between diverse and typical.

[Greg]

This is somewhat frustrating, I know what I'm trying to communicate but I seem unable to find the words to communicate it effectively. I'll come back tommorow and see if I can think of anything then.

One aside though, it really would be fascinating to meet someone with aquired dyspraxia. I wonder if there's anyone here on the boards? (looks at lurkers hopefully)

[Ruth]

harumph. I qwrote a big long well considered(!?) post here yesterday and it didn't post. Bum. I was coming back to see what was made of it. oh well of course I can't remember what I wrote and I have an exam today so don't want to think hard about anything.

one question - greg you said someone had a seizure I'm a bit wotrried are they ok now? and are you ok?

I do get what you're talking about an dI'm glad we're talking about it. Theseare things I'v wrestled with myself and I have no answers as yet so I'm glad it's up for discussion. I think it's fair for me to have help in an academic situation - at least O think I think that...but what about the work place? and life in general? darg I don't know but if I'm going to be able to defend myself then I need to figure it out. And my lap top cost £2K, that money would've made more of an impact on someone less fortunate than me so maybe they should've had the money not me. and um yeah!! I don't know


must be a real arse to be born NT and then become nd - acquired dyspraxia hey I wonder i fthey get suddenly really happy too, I'd like that to be dyspraxia.

off to revise forestry now, have fun x

[Greg]

It's all good, I wouldn't treat it in a flippant manner if it wasn't. As far as I can extract from her and her husband the most damaging part of it is that she's mortified at having done it in public and won't go into borders now. Since she hates waterstones with a passion she might not be doing any reading for a while now. Anyways, that means taking it less seriously is good because it's hard for her to be mortified if everyone else takes it lightly. Was a bit of a shock at the time though, I really should do a first aid course. I'm not sure what I'd have done if there hadn't been a trained nurse in the shop.

Your exams are still going? I'm done now, I got the impression you started first. Ah well, good luck with all of that and my sympathies for having so many.