Cepas bacterianas, plásmidos y oligonucleótidos

Whilst there is much research about students, with dyslexia, in HE (Jamieson and Morgan, 2008; Pavey, Meehan and Waugh, 2010), and professional occupations, research regarding ITE students with dyslexia is lacking. Despite the introduction of legislation identified earlier in this chapter, Beverton, Riddick, Dingley, English and Gallannaugh (2008) assert that when applying for ITE courses and teaching

positions, many people with dyslexia still fear discrimination and are reluctant to disclose. Considering that Riddick (2003) found that seven HEIs specifically excluded students with dyslexia from their teacher training courses, through their

16

admissions processes, this fear of discrimination is not surprising. This practice implies that these institutions held negative views regarding the capability of those with dyslexia to pass the ITE programme and the professional standards in operation at the time. However, it must be noted that the research by Riddick (2003) was conducted prior to much of the equality legislation we now see in operation today.

For Griffiths (2011), the dominance of a standards drive approach to ITE has

perpetuated attitudinal and environmental barriers to the recruitment and retention of students with disabilities, including dyslexia. Whilst some authors recognise the potential benefits that teachers with dyslexia can bring to the profession such as possessing a greater understanding of barriers to achievement (Burns and Bell, 2011) leading to a more supportive and inclusive classroom (Duquette, 2000; Morgan and Rooney, 1997 and Riddick, 2003), Griffiths (2011) believes:

They are often seen as threats to standards and a burden, requiring extra work rather than a valuable source to promote understanding and acceptance of disability in schools (Griffiths, 2011, p.2).

A range of different public sector professions are subject to professional standards and/or fitness to practice indicators and so tensions between legislation, professional bodies and HEIs can exist. It is arguable that legislation is underpinned by social models of disability but regulatory entry to certain professions such as teaching and nursing, through the application of fitness standards, are based on medical models of disability (Beverton et al, 2008). As Wray, Gibson and Aspland (2007) argue this may lead to students being fit to study but not necessary fit to practice.

Although students with declared disabilities, including dyslexia, are now entitled to reasonable adjustments, reducing potential barriers to their level of success, debate continues regarding the threat that these requests for reasonable adjustments may have on academic standards (Riddell and Weedon, 2006). Whilst legislation is in place to promote the use of reasonable adjustments, definitions do not pervade the legislation describing what exactly constitutes reasonable adjustments and it remains unclear, in relation to professional placements, where the universities’

17

For those on an ITE programme, there appears to be a wider professional, ethical and moral tensions due to concerns that:

The drive for high literacy standards will be compromised if teachers with ‘weaker’ literacy standards are employed (Riddick, 2003, p.390).

This drive to promote higher literacy standards is evident in educational policy. In 1998 the Literacy Hour was introduced in England with the specific aim of increasing basic literacy skills. The impetus for this strategy came from evidence that literacy standards in the UK were much lower than those in other European countries (Brooks, 1998) yet, as argued by Fraser (1997), limited evidence exists to underpin the belief that these strategies are effective. For Fraser (1997), it is the teacher who makes a difference not the strategy.

This emphasis on standards has been further perpetuated by the media and a resultant moral panic (Crowley, 2003), underpinned further by the introduction of skills tests that prospective teachers have to pass in order to gain QTS and the revised Teacher Development Agency (TDA) Standards (TDA, 2012) which state that all teachers must have met standards in written and spoken English. For some, this perpetuates tensions between standards and equality for trainee teachers with dyslexia (DRC, 2007).

In relation to the QTS skills tests, the Dyslexic Teachers’ Association emphasises that people with dyslexia can request up to 25% extra time in which to complete the skills tests, however, they suggest, following an analysis of 2001 skills test data (obtained from the TDA), that people with dyslexia are still the least likely group of candidates to pass the tests. The Dyslexic Teachers’ Association questions whether such tests are necessary, for all teachers, stating:

Is it appropriate for an Art teacher, for example, who has passed all the other standards and requirements for QTS, to be subjected to more tests of their ability, when they have grade C and above in GCSE English and Maths? (Dyslexia Teachers’ Association, n.d)

18

This raises a number of considerations. First, being a teaching professional, in all subjects, requires basic competencies in English and Mathematics (for example, when marking student work, to complete reports and to conduct data analysis), therefore, should it not be an expectation that all teachers are required to show current competency in these subjects? Second, for some perspective teachers, there has been a time gap in gaining their GCSEs and entering ITE/the teaching profession, therefore, their current competency levels do require testing. Third, is it fair to give those with the label ‘dyslexia’ extra time, in which to complete the tests, when others, who may experience difficulties in some aspects of literacy but who do not have an official diagnosis, are not allowed extra time?

The wider moral and ethical debate here is whether adjustments, such as extra time, should be given to those with dyslexia when they complete the QTS skills tests or whether no such adjustments should be in place, owing to the professional demands of the profession. Furthermore, whether the skills tests, in their current format, are still fit for purpose requires question. Preparation for the skills tests can be

rehearsed and measure only basic literacy and mathematical skills, they do not ‘test’ any further competencies required of a teaching professional such as organisation or the ability to read aloud. However, it could be argued that this should be and is the role of the admissions process. Such issues are addressed further in pursuit of research objectives 2 and 3.

It is clear that the requirement, for trainee teachers, to demonstrate that they themselves have high levels of literacy has been linked to improving literacy standards in schools, raising the question of whether those individuals with

difficulties in reading/writing, and indeed also numeracy, should be allowed to teach (Riddick 2003, 2006; Beverton et al, 2008). Such concerns are compounded further by the need for trainee teachers to, “develop a clear understanding of synthetic phonics” (DfE, 2011). This may cause difficulty for students with dyslexia given that the most widely accepted cause of dyslexia (as discussed later in this chapter) is that of a phonological deficit (Riddick, 2003). These issues are explored in relation to research objective 2 of this thesis.

19

The demands of teacher training courses are unquestionably high as these typically combine an academic degree and a professional qualification (QTS). Farmer, Riddick and Sterling (2002) identified several issues that may present particular challenge to students with dyslexia. These include: reading and memory tasks, written assessments, different types of organisational skills, oral language and the skills tests. Although the student with dyslexia may empathise with and understand the issues faced by children with dyslexia (Morgan and Rooney, 1997), they will, to varying degrees, require additional support during training to overcome barriers to their own pedagogical efficacy (Morgan and Burn, 2000). This in itself could prove problematic as Reid (2008) suggests, many students are not accustomed to

requesting help and may be intimidated by academia.

The issue of professional placements and mentoring also require examination. As ITE is moving more towards a school based approach, through the introduction of programmes such as School Direct (SD), it is arguable that both mentors and placements are evermore centripetal to the success of students with dyslexia. Timmerman (2009) suggests that it is vitally important that placements and mentors are carefully selected to support a trainee teacher with a disability. The Equality Act (2010) and PSED (2011) serve to protect those with disabilities whilst on placement. However, there are issues with this.

First, whilst a student may disclose a disability to the HEI, the HEI has no legal power to disclose this to the professional placement setting and/or mentor. If a student chooses not to inform their placement school, then a mentor may remain unaware of their mentee’s needs. Some schools, on knowing that a student has dyslexia may subsequently withdraw their offer of a placement. Examples of such behaviour have been witnessed personally. Various reasons may be attributed to such a decision, for example, the pressures of an impending Ofsted visit, SATs, parents and governors but at the heart of this decision lies the underlying notion that trainee teachers with dyslexia are somewhat of a risk compared to their non-dyslexic counterparts (Beverton et al, 2008).

20

The University of Southampton in their documentation, ‘Supporting Dyslexic Trainees and Teachers’ (n.d) identified a number of challenges that those with dyslexia may face whilst on professional placement. These included, issues with spellings, the completion of paperwork (such as report writing, lesson plans), remembering names of children, organisation and time management, marking of work and writing on the board. Griffiths (2011) similarly concluded that all

participants, with dyslexia, in her study reported challenges on placement linked to memory, organisation, communication and literacy. On the basis of such difficulties, this may explain why some stakeholders perceive those with dyslexia as a potential risk and develop negative attitudes towards such entrants to the profession

(Beverton et al, 2008). Perceived strengths and challenges are explored in light of research objective 2.

It is the perceived fear of stigmatisation and discrimination that Beverton et al (2008) and Riddick (2003) identify as being the one of the principal, underlying factors of non-disclosure of dyslexia. Riddick (2003) continues to assert that the value of positive attributes that a practitioner with dyslexia can bring to the work place are rarely acknowledged. Similarly, Morris and Turnball (2006) concluded that many people with dyslexia on professional placement felt disclosure would bring ridicule, embarrassment or at best apathy and misunderstanding of their needs. For Onken and Salten (2000) this is symptomatic of a society that prizes perfection, where “differences are not valued” and “…unique strengths and contributions are ignored” (p.101 and 110). The research of Morris and Turnball (2006) highlights how the culture of the university based training, for nurses, presents a stark contrast to the culture of many work place settings. This issue lacks research in the realm of education and serves as a driver for this overarching research aim of this thesis.

The lack of disclosure is not confined to the course application process and subsequent training period but rather continues following qualification and registration to a professional body. Blankfield (2001) concluded that many healthcare practitioners were reluctant to disclose their dyslexia fearing job

discrimination. These research findings are not confined to the UK but are replicated elsewhere. A study by Greenbaum, Graham and Scales (1996), in the USA,

21

investigated disclosure rates of 49 university graduates. Only nine of these

graduates disclosed their dyslexia when applying for their first post. The research findings suggest that those with dyslexia perceive potential mentors and employers as holding prejudiced and misinformed attitudes, due to lack of knowledge and understanding, regarding the disability and their potential to be successful in the workplace, a view also supported by the research of Morris and Turnbull (2006). McLaughlin, Bell and Stringer, (2004) investigated employer and co-worker attitudes towards disability. They concluded that disability type does not directly affect

acceptance, it is the role of stigma which determines acceptance. If this is the case, then this can be perceived as encouraging. If ‘stigma’ is defined as a set of social perceptions, these can be challenged through education/training.

The need for explicit dyslexia training and awareness has been acknowledged and is at the heart of a recent campaign by the British Dyslexia Association (BDA) which suggests that all students on ITE programmes should receive discrete sessions about dyslexia. This may influence future attitudes of those working within education, towards dyslexia, and potentially reduce prejudice.