Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Rise in dyslexia support sparks fairness concern
17 January 2008
Tutors worry that 'reasonable adjustments' may provide too much help. Melanie Newman reports.
Lecturers fear that they are giving an unfair advantage to the growing number of students declaring that they have disabilities such as dys-lexia, a four-year study indicates.
The researchers found that rules requiring universities to take into account students' disabilities when assessing their work were causing "major anxieties".
A study of four universities' responses to disability legislation requiring "reasonable adjustments" for disabled students found concerns at all four institutions. The research, led by Sheila Riddell, director of the Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity at the University of Edinburgh, highlighted "major anxieties about conferring unfair advantage on disabled students in comparison with other students having difficulty".
Disabilities that are seen as difficult to assess reliably, such as dyslexia, raise particular problems. Dyslexic students are the biggest single group of disabled students in higher education. The report quotes one academic saying: "Some varieties of dyslexia seem to shade into difficulties that are not just in a sense lexical ... one does get a little suspicious at the margins ... there are some grey areas, and the growing numbers make me a bit anxious."
A senior manager at the same university said: "Maintaining standards in a proper way and admitting some classes of disabled students is very, very difficult to do."
Staff questioned whether additional help, such as the use of computers in exams, should be given to disabled students only. At one institution, students from severely disadvantaged backgrounds often experienced difficulties with traditional forms of assessment, and staff believed adjustments should be made for them too, the report says.
Geoffrey Sampson, a professor of informatics at the University of Sussex, said the writing ability of his dyslexic students - about 10 per cent of the total - was little different from the average, but the rules forbid marking down language errors.
"I suspect the rule was written by somebody who doesn't realise how many of those errors are made by non-dyslexic undergraduates," he told Times Higher Education.
A policy paper on adjustments for students with mental health difficulties from the Universities Mental Health Advisers Network notes that decisions on adjustments depend on individual tutors' attitudes. Staff are more likely to make adjustments for students they feel are dedicated or gifted - but this distinction falls short of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.
melanie.newman@tlseducation.com.
Readers' comments
The concerns that are expressed here are not new. It's the bread and buter of our dialogue with some academic staff. But, as the article had the potential to raise the level of that debate somewhat by providing more tangible evidence, I'm a little suprised and disappointed that the author didn't name the report, say where it can be accessed, and provide more quantitative data. Ken
The full reference for this report is: S. Riddell, E. Weeden, M. Fuller, M. Healey, A. Hurst, K. Kelly and L. Piggott, (2007), “Managerialism and equalities; tensions within widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities”, Higher Education:Vol 54, No 4, 615-628, October 2007
Phil Baty, News Editor, Times Higher Education.
well said, ken grainger. this is not news. the work referred to in the THES piece has been around for a while as far as i know or can tell from a basic search. some clear signposts on the referencing would help a range of THES readers and might also show that this is an area that does have some data and is not all a matter of speculation. the concerns of the university mental health advisors would be related to, but perhaps different from, the academic staff concerns over dyslexia. that's two articles, if not more.
Once again an article appears to question the validity of dyslexia per se and further undermines the valuable work done and gains made over years of painstaking persuasion by suggesting disabled students are gaining an advantage. The imbalance in these articles is staggering and does a disservice to the readership by encouraging thinking born out of ignorance. <p>The impression given by the paragraph relating to providing PC's and non-traditional forms of assessment for all instead of just disabled students is that currently disabled students are gaining an advantage. Whereas infact it demonstrates that the assessments are disadvantaging many of their non-disabled students by failing to take account of the diversity of learning styles present in higher education . The primary aim of the disabled movement as it relates to education is to create an inclusive environment where alternative arrangements specifically aimed at disabled students aren't necessary. <p>The law determines that academic standards are sacrosanct. So tutors who are complaining of unfair advantages should think about how to reframe their courses, learning outcomes and assessment criteria to make them more inclusive and relevant. Too many assessments involve hidden criteria that are often actually irrelevant to the subject area - being able to see, speak, hear or handwrite for example.