There are at least two ways in which a student may be identified for assessment (Chin & Ashcroft 1998). The first is that the education institution recognises the presence of a learning or behaviour problem and asks the student’s parents for permission to assess the student individually. The teacher has to identify if the child has scores too far below his or her peers and to present tests in a particular grade.
Alternatively, the student’s classroom teacher may identify that there is some problem – possibly the student’s work is below anticipations for his or her grade or age, or the student’s behaviour is shattering learning – and so the teacher directs the student for assessment. The student’s parents can also call or write to the school or to the director of special education and ask that their child be evaluated. They may suspect that the child is not progressing as he or she should be, or notice special problems in how the child learns.
If the institution suspects that the child, indeed, may have a disability, then it must conduct an assessment (Riddick 1996). The SEN Code of Practice (2002) requires schools to provide appropriate support so that all dyslexic children have the opportunity to benefit from an education (Karp & Howell 2004). In line with the Code of Practice, the SENCO will made an Individual Education Plan, setting out the steps which the school will take to provide appropriate support for the child’s needs.
If local education authority does not think that the child has a disability, they may refuse to assess the child, but must apprise the parents in writing as to their reasons for refusing. If parents feel mightily that their child does, indeed, have a disability that needs individual education, they may request a due process hearing, where they will have the opportunity to show why they think their child should be evaluated. While all students are different from each other in very many ways, they may also share something in common.
Each may be a student who has dyslexia that will require special education services in the school setting. Before decisions may be made about what those special education services will be, each student will require an evaluation conducted by specially trained educational personnel, which may combine a school psychologist, a speech/language pathologist, special education and standard education teachers, social workers, and, when appropriate, medical personnel. Assessment in educational settings serves five fundamental purposes (Miles, Haslum & Wheeler, 2001):
Screening and identification To screen children and identify those who may be experiencing protraction or learning difficulties. 2. Eligibility and diagnosis To decide whether a child has a disability and is eligible for special education services, and to diagnose the peculiar nature of the student’s problems or disability. 3. IEP development and placement To present detailed information so that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) may be evolved and appropriate decisions may be made about the child’s educational. 4.
Educational planning To develop and design instruction appropriate to the child’s special needs. 5. Evaluation To evaluate student’s progress. A major issue seems to be identifying dyslexia across the population. There are problems within the school system of proper and early identification. Within higher education, a good idea would be a wider screening system for dyslexia, although this is already being used in some further and higher education institutions. One system is a fifteen-minute computer-based screening test.
It is an easy thing to do, and it is preferable to do this early on to avoid situations where students have been underperforming on their degree courses. For testing for numeracy difficulties, it is not a bad idea to create your own informal diagnosis. Think what the child needs to know, combining the prerequisite knowledge, and build your test accordingly. One of the most revealing diagnostic questions are “How did you do that? Talk me through your work. ” And remember, the mistakes are more revealing than the right answers.
The end outcome of a mathematics test should be a lot more than just a number. There is a test for dyscalculia, written by Professor Brian Butterworth (1987). He devised DfES (the Department for Education and Skills) tests which involve a sequence of simple maths questions, combining counting dots on a computer screen, or comparing two sets of images and indicating which is the larger. Children are classed according to the time they take to answer the questions, with different response times expected for different groups.
Butterworth’s test for dyscalculia will deal with early identification. Some children may then advance beyond the levels of concern. Early indicators will be problems dealing with sequences, problems with long retention of basic facts, no sense of number, an inability to see prototypes in information. Certain difficulties, for instance, reading and comprehending the unique language and vocabulary of mathematics, may “click in” after a comparatively successful start in the subject. A student may excel at mental arithmetic and fail when needed to document (or vice versa).
Different fields of mathematics may well produce different reactions from different students. It is often helpful to analyse a mathematics task in terms of, for example, vocabulary, basic fact knowledge, realising of the four operations, memory (short and long term), sequencing ability, generalizing, documenting, spatial awareness, and then to identify which area makes a problem for the learner (Miles, Haslum & Wheeler 2001). As a basic indicator of maths disability is when the student will not be showing expectations in studies with no obvious reason such as emotional state or an illness.
This underachievement may manifest itself in specifics such as difficulties with knowing the value or worth of numbers, in realising than 8 is one less than9, for example, or in being able to quickly recall (as the NNS requires) basic number facts – or probably in a absolutely mechanical petition of algorithms (procedures) with no understanding of why or what the result implies or how to reckon up the answer (Karp & Howell 2004). Some students with good memories and good general abilities may not present as underachievers within a class, but may be dramatically underachieving in terms of their true potential.
Some students just falter in the counting-on phase of development. The (part) question as to how dyscalculia differs from ‘dyslexia with numbers’ will depend on the explanation of “dyslexia with numbers”. Often, a primary part of the assessment process comprises examining a student’s work, either by choosing work samples that can be analyzed to identify academic skills and deficits, or by conducting a portfolio assessment, where folders of the student’s work are investigated (Karp & Howell 2004).
When collecting work samples, the teacher chooses work from the areas where the student has difficulty and regularly examines them. The teacher might identify such elements as how the student was instructed to do the activity (e. g. , orally, in writing), how long it took the student to finish the activity, the pattern of mistakes (e. g. , reversals when writing, etc. ), and the pattern of right answers. Analyzing the student’s work in this way can yield useful insight into the nature of his or her difficulties and advise probable solutions.
Sustaining portfolios of student work has become a popular way for teachers to track student success. By collecting in one place the body of a student’s work, teachers can see how a student is advancing over time, what problems seem to be re-occurring, what concepts are being understood or not understood, and what skills are being developed. The portfolio can be analyzed in much the same way as choice work samples, and can develop the basis for discussions with the student or other teachers about difficulties and successes and for determining what modifications teachers might make in their teaching.