Why has DS not been given extra time??

[Jodee]

Reposting from SN Education
DS has almost come to the end of the first term in Year 10 and (finally) this week I received his SEN Progress Tracker, where his "Proposed Access Arrangements" going forward is to use a Word Processor. I had chased this up at the beginning of term as he was assessed at the end of Year 9. (He was on School Action Plus before the changes).

I had been expecting DS to be given 25% extra time; he told me that when he had a History assessment recently, the other children on his table had extra time but he didn't, and as expected he didn't finish the assessment. He also didn't finish an RE assessment today.

I spoke to the SENCO today for an explanation of the Tracker form as it's the first one I've seen, instead of the IEP. I was told no extra time for DS, he can use a word processor - if he wants to!

His standardised scores are 76 for non verbal, 86 for verbal, 83 for quantative. (Below average is said to be below 85).

I have not been informed by anyone that his writing is so illegible that he requires a word processor (which we would have to provide) whereas he has difficulties processing information, needs instructions repeated and understanding checked (had speech therapy at a younger age).

As he has at least one score of 84 or less (I have been reading the new AA Regs for 2014-15), surely this qualifies DS to have the extra time? I want to go back to the SENCO and also the person who carried out the assessment with an informed argument.

thank you.

I've found this thread very interesting as my y11 DD has recently been assessed as dyspraxic.

Verbally she is fine, she clearly knows her stuff. In her CAs where she has time to think things through she has been getting good marks.

But in an exam where she has to pull info off the top of her head, she struggles to provide relevant info properly structured. I have asked that she be considered for extra time. I wasn't holding out much hope, and I've even less now after reading this discussion.

TooHasty For some jobs which are mainly reading and writing based, I can see where you are coming from. But many jobs are not reading stuff and writing reports or whatever.
Allowing a bright dyslexic / dyspraxic person to have the results to show that they can learn and apply information (all be it reading and writing slower than some others) can permit them at least to go to interview and show off all their other skills too.
I really hope you don't recruit blindly on exam grades as they only show a small amount of a person's ability to do a job.
Think of a medic - a lot of exams to get there, but at the end of the day their job is visual and verbal much more than reading/writing.

TooHasty - it is the output that you should evaluate rather than the processing speed. Your argument infers that each candidate will have output of equal calibre achieved at different rates, whereas given longer assessment periods you might find that both candidates achieve different output. It could be that the candidate with processing impairment may arrive at different and even superior output given sufficient time. Of course, if you consider humans as computers crunching numbers with predictable output then your argument might be tenable, but usually we employ humans to do what we cannot yet expect a computer to deliver; surprising and creative solutions.

The problem with the toohasty computer unit is that it has no input mode, no recalibration of output according to information input, just endless repetitive output..... Anyone can do that quickly.......

TooHasty, Would be interested to hear if you would have the same prejudice with a prospective employee if they were in a wheelchair over one who was not? Weak processing is a disability as is any other SpLD & if it does not affect the person's ability to take on the roll they've applied for, it should not therefore affect the interviewer's ability to treat them equally. Having an award of extra time in exams has nothing to do with intelligence levels. It's to give the candidate the same chance to answer the question/s as someone without a specific learning problem. If an employer discounts an application from a person because they have had extra time in exam/s then more fool them!

Hasty "The exam results should not disguise the fact these 2 candidates are not 'equal'."

Turn this around... if my DS were to achieve Cs due to a lack of extra time rather than the As his high intelligence, analytical ability, good memory, etc, suggests that he is capable of then this statement would be correct. These C grade students are not equal and the exam is disguising the fact.

I'm not sure there are many employers who see GCSEs as more than a 'sketchbook' guide to capability. Most jobs include an interview and some kind of job specific assessment.

In my job interview I had to answer job related questions regarding safeguarding and the EYFS, create an activity and run it with a group of children then evaluate it reflectively and do a snapshot observation of a child - these tasks were regarded as more important than my GCSE, A Level and Certificate in Early Years Practice grades. Likewise my DH works in IT and had to complete computer based tests to pass to the interview stage.

GCSEs are the broad based foundation that serve as the first step in so many different paths that adapting them to give a chance to those with specific difficulties is vital as that specific limitation may not be important in a future career.

OP, it sounds like your DS should be being given extra time.

What I don't see is how this can be processing speed. The OPs child obviously has enough processing speed to provide the answers verbally. The problem seems to be one of either competition for resources when writing or some form of bottleneck. The obvious solution would surely be a computer with a speech to text facility. The child might need a little extra time to edit the text depending on the accuracy of the speech conversion.

Processing isn't just about knowing the answer, it is also to do with needing to express it on paper which in itself takes more effort in some people.

When we attended a recent parents evening, DS's teacher was praising his verbal answers, his wide range of interests, how he struggles to get down to written work, and how that which is produced does not reflect his abilities. Apparently no-one had thought to tell his glass teacher that he is dyslexic , when I mentioned this, his teacher was gobsmacked.

He looked down at the (rather long) list of things he wanted to discuss, and said that explained everything he had wanted to talk about.

DS has a reading level 2 full levels (not sub levels) above his written work. His maths is a level above his reading level (again, full, not sub).

Unfortunately, I also don't think he will receive any additional time.

Whilst the obviouse solutions are speech-to-text facilities and scribes, this doesn't fit in with resources available and standard school approaches, so are generally not allowed by either LAs or individual schools themselves. The crazy requirement to sit quietly at desks and read and/or write is exactly the bottleneck problem we have in education for dyslexics.

I went on a visit to a dyslexic-aware school once and it was amazing - all these vocal, interactive lessons, everyone working on tablets, people moving round the room every 10 minutes (they were hot on Dyspraxia, too). It was all counter to the 'be quiet and pay attention' mentality we expect in lessons. But it was working, both for the 45% dyslexics and for the 55% NT kids.

Access arrangements are a farce. Rich kids are far more likely to get extra time because of "low processing speed" than poor kids who are simply labelled as thick. It often takes pushy parents who care about education to fight to get a child extra time or a word processor.

Ironically profoundly deaf children who find reading incredibly difficult and may well be sitting an exam in their second language often get no extra time.

reallytired Not quite that binary is it? I agree it is a farce, that of the 1 in 10 pupils who have specific learning difficulties only a fraction get access to the special arrangements that would level the playing field for them and enable them to demonstrate their ability. Even more farcically, under the new arrangements, since access to special arrangements are being given to pupils with below average processing scores regardless of ability, those who have processing scores that are what you would predict for someone with verbal and non verbal reasoning skills that lie in the bottom 14% of the population are actually being given access to special arrangements that actually tip the playing field in their favour.

However the fraction of pupils who do have access to special arrangements are not purely the children of rich parents (define "rich kids", as far as I know very few children have the economic capital to be defined as rich, they don't get to choose the economic situation of their parents anymore than those who are underprivileged, and so it is a little unfair to slap on a derogatory label don't you think? Lucky but not culpable) . The children with access to special arrangements are the children lucky enough to have parents and / or teachers with the understanding and also schools and / or LAs with decent strategies for diagnosing and supporting SEN. Our LA, in spite of having special units that support pupils with SpLDs in some of it's comps, also sends a whole coachload of boys that it cannot provide the support for to a specialist private school. It pays the fees so that is not an opportunity confined to "rich kids"

Of course where schools and LAs do not have those sorts of strategies in place if parents have the necessary understanding they can fight to get a diagnosis or find the £400 to get an Ed Psych assessment privately. I know several parents who are not rich who have managed to scrape that money together, eg from Grandparents' s savings etc because getting the support for an unhappy frustrated child that will access them a chance to be understood and achieve their potential is sometimes going to come ahead of that new TV or whatever......

Obviously it shouldn't take having the luck to have access to these advantages, and many don't, rich and poor, but it really isn't as simple as being something you can buy....

Access arrangements are a bit of a lottery. It is a massive advantage if your parents can/ are willing to shell out £400 for private assessment. Sadly money speaks. What you define as 'rich' is completely subjective, the fact is that money helps with getting what a child is entitled to. I feel that Sen provision should not work like this in the state sector.

It is easier to get a dyslexia diagnosis if your parents are rich because they can pay for assessments. There is nothing wrong with rich children having extra time, if they are deemed to need it. The problem is ensuring that all children have a level playing field. Children from poor families with learning difficulties should have extra time as well.

In my experience as an exam invigilator children who can not do the exam paper sit there doodling and looking desperately unhappy. No extra time would help them as they make no use of the allocated time. Most children complete their exams with plenty of time to spare and would not want or need extra time.

Reallytired I think I made it very clear that provision should be consistent within the state sector, the pockets where there is best practise should be expanded to all schools and LAs. Achieving that end isn't helped by people peddling the stereotype that Dyslexia is something rich parents gain advantage by through paying to get a diagnosis, indeed it is pandering to that particular Daily Mail stereotype that has resulted in the government tipping the playing field against bright Dyslexics, rich or poor, by implementing a policy of only giving extra time to those with below average working memory and processing scores regardless of ability, when for bright dyslexics working memory and processing scores in the average range can be a significant disability.

I am not sure what your last para is trying to say. This is not about pupils who can't do the exam paper, it is about pupils who can do the paper but lose marks due to time constraints causing them to lose marks as a result of misunderstanding questions, making silly mistakes, having problems organising their ideas and knowledge on to the paper etc and are not able within the time constraints to demonstrate just what they are capable of. If you read back through the thread it is explained why if you have working memory / processing problems then you do need the extra time, to check understanding, apply coping strategies and plan and check your work, hopefully having received the proper support in developing these strategies and skills. One longstanding feature of the extra time regulations, that has now been tightened up on, is that schools have to provide evidence of need, proof that the extra time is needed and used eg by the use of a different coloured pen in the mocks for use during extra time so the marker understands how the extra time has been used.

My last paragraph is making it clear that a low ablity child who cannot do the work would not benefit from extra time.

The rules on extra time are not always logically applied. I feel a profoundly deaf child whose main language is BSL has a justifiable need for extra time or at least a BSL interpreter. Unlike an EAL child they cannot pick up English easily given time.

Processing issues are vague as we all process information at different speeds. I am not sure it's right that a child gets extra time for simply being slow. plenty of children misunderstand questions, make silly mistakes, write slowly etc.

reallytired these are not pupils who are "slow". These are pupils for whom the arbitrary time constraints set in exams are a source of disadvantage because their brains work differently. In terms of understanding concepts, generating ideas they might be very "fast", very fast indeed, which is why eg GCHQ are keen to recruit them. The problem with neurotypical people who have done well in a system that uses traditional teaching and testing methods is that they find it hard to step outside their existing paradigms of what is "clever", "slow /fast" etc. measured against success in timed tests of recalled knowledge. Richard Eyres was on the radio last night explaining how once he had got to Cambridge to read Natural Sciences he realise he had got there on excellent memory skills but once he came up against theoretical physics he realised he had reached a ceiling .

When bright dyslexics reach universities they might well find the ceiling placed on them by having to prove themselves in the school environment which values the very areas they have a weakness in is burst open and their skills in theoretical thinking , problem solving, holistically analysis suddenly come into their own. The frustrating thing for universities and for those teachers who understand Specific Learning Difficulties is that the school and exam system (increasingly so with recent developments) is a hurdle that prevents these students achieving their potential and contributing to society from their strengths.

reallytired "plenty of children misunderstand questions, make mistakes....." But plenty of children do not do so because their ability to process, use their working memory etc is well below the level you would expect for a child of that ability, so far below that it is judged a disability. You argue for a level playing field for a deaf child (agreed), you would not expect a child with a physical weakness to run a race on the same racetrack as an able bodied child, so why do you make an exception for a learning disability? It is not as though they have unlimited extra time, a Dyspraxic may write at the speed of the lowest 10% of the population, Working memory and processing skills have to be at the level of the lowest 14% (though sometimes verbal and non verbal reasoning may be at the level of the top 5%) but they are given just 25% extra time, so they are still working at a significant disadvantage, and the whole point of this thread is that now the government has decided to deprive some bright pupils with a significant disability of even that levelling of the playing field.....

why not give everybody 25 % extra time then?

Totally agree with everything Poisonwoodlife has written.
TooHasty I wouldn't have a problem with everyone having more time BUT, as has already been mentioned, most NT students finish their papers with plenty of time to spare. Many weaker students finish with literally hours to spare. If you don't know the answers then no amount of time will help.

'why not give everybody 25 % extra time then?'

Because everybody doesn't need it.

Extra time is awarded on the basis of need. So it may not be awarded in every exam, depending on why the pupil needs it.
The school have to show evidence that it is the pupil's usual way of working and a history of need, alongside a below average score in one of the areas specified by JCQ. It's not awarded arbitrarily.

Why not allow any child who asks to have extra time? Children could be given a break point where they could choose to leave the exam hall. Why does it matter to you if an NT child had extra time on a particular exam? Extra time is only of any use if the child has the intelligence to answer the questions.

Reallytired isn't that exactly what happens when assessment is via coursework? Even on my DDs very competitive and demanding Science Degree / Masters courses more than half of the assessment is made up of coursework / lab work / projects. It is actually what tends to happen in real life, exams are a very artificial situation. The trend away from coursework in GCSE / A levels and other pre uni qualifications exams isn't because it isn't recognised as a good way to assess ability / achievement, it is because they couldn't police the cheating.

However we are now stuck with a system that uses timed exams to test ever more volumes of the "stuff" valued by the likes of Gove. So there is a system that gives extra time to those diagnosed with a disability according to evidence of need with the aim of levelling that particular playing field because given their disability that time constraint is a particular disadvantage . To twist your question back at you, why on earth would you remove the attempt to neutralise that disadvantage by giving the extra time to students for whom it would be an advantage, you just tip the playing field away again. It would be like allowing able bodied athletes to enter the paraolympics, after all they too would benefit from a head start etc.

"To twist your question back at you, why on earth would you remove the attempt to neutralise that disadvantage by giving the extra time to students for whom it would be an advantage, you just tip the playing field away again. It would be like allowing able bodied athletes to enter the paraolympics, after all they too would benefit from a head start etc."

It is stupid to compare GCSEs to a sporting event. Public exams are not like competing for medals. Unlike a competition there is not a winner as such. No one cares who came first in GCSE English. It makes no difference if some scraped an A* or got 100%.

The aim of a public exam is to show that person has a certain level of knowledge in a particular subject. Although there are some people who want to return to norm referencing, at the moment children are not competing for an A. It makes no difference to your child if other children are given extra time. If 90% is required for an A and ten children get 90% then all the children will be awarded an A*.

I think we need to think WHY we have timed assessments. Are we wanting to know how fast children can process information? Are we wanting to find who is a fast and accurate worker? Many children (without special needs) struggle with the pressure of exams. Anxiety is a major cause of illness in teens and certainly can affect exam performance. What are we hoping to achieve by an examination system? Is slow cognitive processing a disablity or simply lack of ablity? Coursework worked well before the internet made wide spreading cheating an issue. As a result coursework has been replaced by controlled assessments.

I think the reason for timed exams is simply because it's the easiest method for the people doing the assessing. It's a quick and dirty way to decide,in a way that appears at first glance to be fair, who has it and who hasn't.

Then once an exam system has been established they are trying to fit the children into the assessment model somehow.

You can't have it both ways poisonwood .
You cannot say slow processing speed is irrelevant when assessing a students ability in a subject, and then say giving extra time to NT students gives them an advantage.That is illogical!

As a graduate employer in an accountancy department i would certainly want to differentiate between the 'slow processors' and the NT students. I need people who can work accurately to tight deadlines.maybe the grade should show whether it has been obtained under special (easier) conditions eg grade B or B(ET) for a normal B or B ontained with extra time