Memorandum from Gabrielle Preston (DDB
62)
1. I am writing as the mother of a child
with special needs who I believe is severely disadvantaged by
the failure of the Disability Discrimination Act to cover general
examinations in the secondary school system.
2. My son has a condition called dyspraxia.
The main symptoms associated with dyspraxia (previously known
as clumsy child syndrome) are very poor co-ordination. Although
dyspraxia is not a serious disability, it is a condition that
does disadvantage children right the way through the education
system.
3. My son's dyspraxia became particularly
debilitating when he moved into Junior School aged five. He had
speech problems, was unable to play sports, his writing was very
poor and he found it almost impossible to draw. His work was always
extremely messy. In effect this rendered much of school life difficult
and irrelevant for him.
4. Although my son received both speech
therapy and occupational therapy, his primary school teachers
were unwilling to acknowledge his particular needs. I therefore
took him a private educational psychologist who diagnosed severe
dyspraxia, and suggested that he would benefit from one-to-one
support and should be encouraged to use a lap-top.
5. Although the headteacher finally (and
somewhat reluctantly) provided my son with a lap-top, and placed
him on level 3 of the special needs register, it proved very difficult
to persuade his primary school teachers that he should be allowed
to use his laptop in class. They were determined that he should
learn to write. This had a negative impact upon my son's attitude
to both himself and school.
6. We moved our son to new primary school
for just two terms when he was in year 6. His new school recognised
his needs and encouraged his use of the laptop. Thanks to this
support, he achieved above average grades in his SATS.
7. When our son moved to secondary school
in Year 7 he found it difficult to use his laptop because children
moved to different classes. His work during that first year deteriorated
markedly, and was well below average. This is hardly surprising.
The effort he puts into trying to control a pen leaves his hand
exhausted and detracts from his ability to concentrate on the
contents—rather than the mechanics—of writing.
8. When our son moved into year 8, the SENCO
at the school arranged for him to use a laptop for his classwork.
All his teachers commented in a sudden and dramatic improvement
in his work.
9. When he was preparing for his keystage
3 SATS last summer, the SENCO at his school contacted the OCR
Examination Board to ask if they would provide the science papers
on a CD-rom or some on-line equivalent, to ensure that he was
not unduly disadvantaged. The OCR refused to make any adjustments
on the dubious grounds that they were not legally obliged to so.
10. The school is concerned that my son—and
others like him—will be particularly disadvantaged in his
GCSE science because of the OCR's failure to provide examinations
in on-line format.
11. My son's secondary school is also concerned
that tighter restrictions are currently being imposed upon special
arrangements for examinations. It has been suggested that children
with special needs should either use a scribe (often the SENCO)
or write out their examinations and transcribe them later. Apart
from the fact that using a SENCO as a scribe is hardly the best
use of a busy professional's time (voice recognition programmes
would clearly be the best way forward for children who cannot
type) my son's speech problems would render it very difficult
for him to use a scribe. If he had to write out his examinations,
he probably wouldn't be able to read his writing afterwards. In
any case, the difficulties he has controlling a pen would not
only reduce the quantity but also the quality of what he's writing.
12. I believe that the failure of the examination
system to recognise that some children are unable to write and
to ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place not only
jeopardises a child's future, but may consolidate existing prejudices
within the education system as a whole, or undermine a school's
genuine attempt to make entirely appropriate adjustments.
13. Clearly it makes no sense at all to
have legislation that requires schools to ensure that disabled
children and children with learning disabilities or special needs
access the curriculum, and yet allows examination boards to discriminate
against such children with impunity.
14. The technology required to provide examinations
in an accessible format is neither difficult nor startlingly obscure.
Everything—from tax returns to job applications—can
now be accessed on-line. It cannot be beyond the capabilities
of the examination system to come up with a computerised system
that will enable disadvantaged children—who under the current
system may be forced to leave school without formal qualifications—to
get the results they deserve.
15. Research emanating from the DWP indicates
that one of the reasons why disabled people are disadvantaged
in the workplace is because they are more likely to have low,
or no, qualifications. It is utterly perplexing that discriminatory
attitudes that ran counter to Government policies on educational
inclusion and welfare-to-work continue to dominate powerful public
sector institutions such as examination boards, and equally perplexing
that a Govenrment that has done so much to counter discrimination
in education should regard this as reasonable behaviour.
16. I ask the security committee to recommend
the inclusion of examinations boards in the Disability Bill.
February 2004
| 
