DISPOSICIONES DE CARACTER GENERAL QUE ESTABLECEN LA METODOLOGIA DE CALCULO, FORMULA, COMPONENTES Y SUPUESTOS DE LA GANANCIA ANUAL TOTAL (GAT)

Within the field of dyslexic research, the individual experience of the diagnostic assessment procedure is too often overlooked. Arguably such experiences should be taken into

consideration especially as identifying and labelling a student as dyslexic, is actively encouraged in England (Rose, 2009; Riddick, 2010; Dyslexia Action, 2018 and the British Dyslexia Association, 2019). Some advocate the ‘diagnosis’ of dyslexia based on it being beneficial to self-esteem (Riddick, 2010), and others suggest that it is fundamental for a child or young person to be able to gradually acknowledge their difficulties (Ingesson, 2007). The interactional approach to disability also suggests that it is necessary for an individual to acknowledge their impairments so that they can understand disability and their

experiences, an assessment of their impairments may, therefore, be beneficial (Shakespeare 2014).

While there are more affordable assessment procedures available today, many, including academics and charities, continue to stress that a diagnostic assessment is ‘critical’

(Shaywitz, 2005) as it “is the only way to really understand is someone is dyslexic” (British Dyslexia Association, 2018). Four students within this current research, Blake, Max, Alex, and Leslie, spoke about the assessment process they had undergone before this research, in their case, they had been assessed at least twice during their schooling. Although I had requested information from each of the student’s school file’s, for example, information on how each student had been identified as dyslexic. As previously mentioned, as this

information was only gathered from seven participants, the insights into the assessment students had undertaken is limited as it remains unclear how many students had

undertaken a diagnostic assessment. The information obtained from the student’s files, however, was only used as a commentary on the assessment process and although it remains unclear how many students undertook a diagnostic assessment; they all had the opportunity to speak about the process if they wanted to. Although it was not within the focus of this research, future research could seek to compare students’ experiences of diagnostic assessments and other forms of assessments to see if there is a difference in the experience.

Although Blake was subjected to two full diagnostic assessments during their schooling as the first assessment failed to diagnose dyslexia this can call into question the accuracy of the assessment procedure. Although Haydon’s assessment report provided by the school as part of the data collection process revealed he had undertaken three full diagnostic

assessments during their primary school, they chose not to speak about the process. Although the reasons for the students duplicate assessments remain unknown throughout this research, as the assessments had not been the focus of the research, it provided a useful insight that could be developed further within future research.

Once diagnosed as dyslexic after Blakes second diagnostic assessment, Blake had been assigned an additional judgement to their diagnosis. Their dyslexia had been classified as ‘stealth’ which Blake explained referred to the severity of their dyslexic difficulties. As Shakespeare (2014) argues, “all disabled people are of equal worth and are entitled to the

same human rights, and the same human flourishing” (Shakespeare, 2014: 81) and

difficulties associated with dyslexia are already acknowledged as existing on a continuum (Snowling, 2014). Again, although assessments had not been the focus of this current

research the insight offered from Blake regarding the additional judgements applied to their labelling of dyslexia could be developed within future research to see if there are any

impacts of additional judgements.

The students within this research, who were all school-aged, described their diagnostic assessment as long, “it was about three hours” (Leslie, year 8) and “challenging” (Max, year 5). Students within a previous study by Pollak (2005) described their assessment

experiences using terms such as ‘demoralising’, ‘embarrassing’ and ‘traumatic’. As the participants in Pollak’s (2005) study were over the age of eighteen when undertaking their assessment, a key insight of this current research is to suggest that the age a student is ‘diagnosed’ does not affect their experience of the procedure.

A distinctive contribution of this current research is the students’ experiences of

undertaking assessments and how this was influenced by their concerns that they were “not

good at doing tests” (Max, year 5) and how the assessment itself also heightened feelings of

confusion and failure. The students discussed their concerns that they had failed the assessment. For Blake, there was concern that he had not acquired the label of dyslexia during their first assessment. Whereas for Max it was because they felt that the assessment was stopped as they had begun to experience difficulties, “I had to stop cause I was getting

too many wrong” (Max, year 5).

Once the diagnostic testing is complete a written report is then produced and sent to the student later. The student’s experiences of the inaccessible, “very wordy” (Leslie, year 8) report, mirrored the experiences of one participant within Pollack’s study (2005), named Victoria, aged 49, who described the report as “an endless list of things I can’t do” (Pollak 2005:64). Students in the current research, described the report as something that made them feel ‘uncomfortable’ as “it has like a list of what I’m not very good at” (Leslie, year 8), and “it said all the things that I had wrong with me” (Quinn, year 9). Again, as with the student’s experiences of undertaking the assessment itself, a key insight of this current

research is to suggest that the age a student is ‘diagnosed’ does not affect their experience of the procedure or the report that follows.

Even though the interactional approach to disability suggests that a ‘diagnosis’ of a dyslexic student’s impairments “gives credibility to their difference” (Shakespeare 2014), an original contribution of the findings within the current research suggests that not only does the diagnostic procedure initially negatively affect a person’s self-esteem but it also has negative long-term effects. When Leslie, year 8, felt that the work in their current class, (they had been placed in a lower ability group) was “too easy”, the assessment report made them question their own thinking and abilities “sometimes I feel like I should be higher, but

then I remember the report, so I feel like I’m in the right set” (Leslie, year 8). As suggested by

Ingesson (2007), although Leslie had begun to accept their difficulties, their acceptance was detrimental not only to their self-esteem but possibly their future educational achievements as they now viewed their abilities through the constrained, reductionist interpretations of their diagnostic assessment (Poole 2003).