Correct terminology? Not an amanuensis (scribe)

[Minx179]

This has been bugging me for a few months, so I?d appreciate any response.

DS came home and told me he had been taken into a room by a TA and given pre-written notes of what to type for a piece of course work. He stated he had written about 4 lines for the coursework a few months previously (thought that was enough etc, he has SN in ms).

I contacted the school and the head stated the TA had been acting as an amanuensis. I queried this as DS didn?t have an amanuensis at other times, didn?t meet the criteria for one for exams etc. If the TA was acting as an amanuensis why did she have the notes pre-written for DS to type up as opposed to writing down what he told her and filling out the appropriate cover sheet etc.

The head then came back with I?m sorry I used the wrong terminology, I didn?t mean amanuensis, however he failed to say what the correct term was. Any ideas as to what he may have meant?

The correct term is cheating.

Think sassh is right, and the HT was flailing around trying to cover it up. Most odd.

Another vote for 'cheat' as the term, or possibly just 'cock up' as the situation.

Do let us know if you ever get clarification from the head.

I'm not sure it is cheating. There are a wide range of types of help allowed for SN children. None of them completely fits the description given above but one or two are close enough to mean the child could describe them like this, particularly if they misunderstand exactly what is happening.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks cheating, but PH47 I'd be interested in hearing why you think it may not be.

The head originally said the school 'were acting from the best possible motive to ensure a full and fair representation of his work. There is nothing to suggest cheating in intention or effect'. 'Particular aspects of the help given may be in excess of that strictly allowed' (he didn't expand on what aspects) If the complaint goes through to the exam board there was the possibility that all DS's work could be withdrawn.

School stated DS 'typed up notes handwritten by TA from his input, she did not tell DS what to write. She wrote what DS told her, DS then typed up the notes. She may have unintentionally 'tidied up' what he said'.

We were not aware at the time that he was behind on any work in this subject, we had asked for this information at the beginning of the year. However, due to complaints from DS about being told what to write in class, not understanding etc I asked to see his coursework. The day before I was due to view the work is when DS was taken off to finish it.

We progressed the complaint. The case went to the exam board, along with a query as to why DS had been told to leave his laptop logged on after completing the exam in the same subject. (Teacher, it's so we can put it onto a USB stick in case it gets lost! Exam officer DS misunderstood, he would have been told to log off once he printed off his work).

DS was given the opportunity to redo the piece of coursework under controlled conditions; he declined, because 'I don't understand and couldn't do it the first time'. The work was originally covered in Dec 10, DS was re-doing the work in May 11. He states he cannot remember what the book was about, we had gone through it with him and he had little comprehension of the text or interplay between characters etc at the time. This piece of work was withdrawn entirely from the exam.

In May 11 I also accessed teacher notes from this subject she had said in Nov 10 'DS is working hard on his work, but his progress is minimal. He hasn?t acted on advice (I?m not sure he can ? all targets have gone out the window)'. At the time these were written we had a meeting with the head(s) and HOD of this subject who told us none of his teachers had any concerns.

End of Jul 11 I received a letter from the head, which he had forgotten to forward in June. The school has to send the exam board an 'action plan addressing training, advice and guidance needed by staff (incl TA's) assisting students with coursework'.

The only reason I think it may not be is that there is a very wide range of assistance allowed for pupils with special needs including such roles as a prompter, reader or practical assistant. My initial thought was that if your son misunderstood the exact role of the TA they may have been acting as a prompter, possibly combining that with one or more other roles.

The exam board should have approved any special arrangements for your son. Without knowing what they approved it is difficult to tell how far the assistance given by the TA overstepped the mark, although the comment that she "may have unintentionally tidied up what he said" clearly indicates that the mark was indeed overstepped.

DS only had concessions for extra time and use of a laptop

I agree that there is a wide range of assistance allowed for pupils, but the things that would arouse my suspicions of cheating are:

1 The timelapse between your DS dictating the answers to the TA and him being given them to type.

2 The suggestion that she may have unintentionally 'tidied up' what he said. If someone is dicating to you 'opportunities for tidying up' are generally fairly limited.

Was it a controlled assessment? Were the notes ones he had made previously which had been transcribed for him?

In a CA, pupils have access to prepared notes but work in controlled conditions - like a cross between coursework and exam. CAs have replaced coursework pretty much completely now.

It was coursework not a controlled assessment.

To clarify DS said he'd written/typed about two lines in the Dec when they had looked at the book. March or April he stated he was taken to Learning Support the TA had some notes (not written by DS) and the book they were studying. He typed out the notes. She asked him some questions about the book, he couldn't remember.

He came home complaining, I saw the work the following day about 3/4 of a page. DS said that was the work he had copied.

Explained the seriousness of what he was saying, he stuck by it, didn't change his story (he's not very good at lying). I do believe him, it also wasn't the first time he has complained of being told what to write due to not comprehending, though it was the first time I had any foundation on which to base a complaint.

If the TA was acting as an Amanuensis and DS dictated the notes, why would there have been the need for DS to then type them up? Surely the whole point of having a Amanuensis is that they scribe what the child says then those notes have a cover note attached and are sent off to be marked. At least that is what it said on the JCQ website. The way his school did it would have effectively doubled the workload if their version was accurate.

Thanks for the feedback anyway. It's has helped.

If it was coursework then any assistance can be given, pretty much, as long as it is declared on the final form and your son could sign to say it was his own work. From your description, that doesn't sound like it was the case. If it was in March, then possibly they were panicking close to deadline for submission.