green Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 So what is the solution? People who can't spell, can't spell. Employers aren't going to make allowances for dyslexics so why should schools? We need to stop worrying about upsetting kids so much! Think you may have missed the joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 So what is the solution? People who can't spell, can't spell. Employers aren't going to make allowances for dyslexics so why should schools? We need to stop worrying about upsetting kids so much! The law recognises severe dyslexia as a disability. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (1995 and 2004), you have the right not to be treated less favourably if you have dyslexia which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, such as weak memory, poor concentration or problems with co-ordination. Where an employer is aware of such a condition, they are obliged to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to help you manage your difficulties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The law recognises severe dyslexia as a disability. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (1995 and 2004), you have the right not to be treated less favourably if you have dyslexia which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, such as weak memory, poor concentration or problems with co-ordination. Where an employer is aware of such a condition, they are obliged to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to help you manage your difficulties. Interesting. What adjustments would you need as a dyslexic ? This isn't meant in a horrible way, just as an employer, surely certain jobs would be off limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Gove is basically trying to undo all the damage done by league tables that rewarded schools that "gamed the game" yet seems to be blaming the schools and pupils for responding to a system his party introduced in 1988. Instead of whining about how English kids are underperforming compared to their european counterparts, he needs to take a closer look at how these countries are outperforming the English education system. Any sensible parent will be enrolling their bright kid in the IB, as it actually has a pedigree, rather than this half baked confection of borrowed ideas. I don't see any modern languages in the EB (or history, or music, or art). There's a constant repetition of the word "rigour" yet a breathtaking lack of it anywhere in the proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 17, 2012 Author Share Posted September 17, 2012 Interesting. What adjustments would you need as a dyslexic ? This isn't meant in a horrible way, just as an employer, surely certain jobs would be off limits.My job is off limits to dyslexic persons. Potentially £-millions turn on the use of a single word or turn of phrase, and in that context I just can't see a diagnosed dyslexic ever getting professional liability insurance. This disability doesn't however hinder all bright and capable persons to the extent many people think, IMHO. My best friend (British) is quite dyslexic, struggled academically in his early years (before the disorder was mainstream-acknowleged, and factored accordingly) but yet very successful, with a Degree and MBA, very senior appointments in the past with top-level UK plcs, and now his own company. I don't see any modern languages in the EB (or history, or music, or art). <...>The EB is supposed to have modern languages and history 1. Why the delay? Discuss. The EBAC or EBC won’t be taken until 2017 – for English, maths and sciences. It’ll be possibly 2018 for most languages, history and geography. The Lib Dems won on this. If it had been up to Michael Gove and the Tories the new exam would be up and running in Autumn 2014. The Lib Dems were nervous of the Whitehall machinery’s ability to get things done and had allies in Whitehall, which doubted its own ability too. Tories wanted to get things done, crank up and stretch the machine. The Lib Dems won. source (not quoted for the political angle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 You see what I mean, an astonishing lack of rigour for a proposal that uses the word so liberally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The law recognises severe dyslexia as a disability. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (1995 and 2004), you have the right not to be treated less favourably if you have dyslexia which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, such as weak memory, poor concentration or problems with co-ordination. Where an employer is aware of such a condition, they are obliged to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to help you manage your difficulties. So employers have to make adjustments, but it's ok for our education system and exams system to discriminate against dyslexics, is it, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 A quick post from the Fleet Street Fox, compare and constrast children: 43 and never been spanked. LET me tell you about a benefits cheat. In 2005 he got a job which gave him access to the public purse, from which he obtained thousands of pounds to equip a posh London home which was already quite-well furnished. He used the money to buy a £331 armchair, a £493 cabinet, and a pair of elephant lamps for £134.50. He also got a £750 Loire table, a birch Camargue chair worth £432 and a birdcage coffee table for £238.50. He got us to pay for Egyptian cotton sheets from the White Company, a £454 dishwasher, a £639 range cooker, a £702 fridge freezer, a £20 toaster, a £35 children's mattress, and a £30 doormat. Having fitted out the house he decided to sell it, and moved to a new home in Surrey. Once there he carried out the same trick and dipped his hand into the taxpayer's pocket to fund the moving costs and stamp duty to the value of £13,259. When he stayed in a hotel for a night during the move, he thought the public should pay his £500 bill. He took his furniture with him, and his bottom still sits in our armchair. In the two years that followed he demanded - and received - public funding of £45,193 which paid for his mortgage on the new house, his utility bills, TV licence, council tax and telephone costs, which he thought he deserved despite being among the top 10 per cent of earners in the UK. The man's misdemeanours are well-known and have caused public revulsion. His punishment was to repay £7,000, and to be made Secretary of State for Education. He now tells us how to raise our children, for which he is paid from that same public purse a grand total of £145,492 a year. He has not learned from his offence, and still makes us pay for his mortgage interest, council tax, home insurance and utilities. Then there's a 22-year-old girl from a good family who was going to start university next month. During the riots last week she, her sister and a friend went out to rubber-neck what was going on and were drawn to the Argos store in Croydon, where a gang of 100 other people had torn through the shop stealing stock. The girl didn't steal anything. She didn't smash anything. Her sister had nicked some chewing gum from a Kwiksave. The girl and her friends were arrested outside the shop, and when they were hauled to court last week all admitted intent to steal and were sentenced to six months in jail. Now, there are looters who carried out awful deeds and caused terrible damage and deserve a strong sentence, but Shonola Smith isn't one of them. If you sentenced her to go down to Argos and fix the shop up that's all the punishment she'd need and she'd never do it again. Intending to commit a crime is different to actually committing one. Getting swept up by an event is different to a pattern of behaviour planned and conducted over a period of years. Michael Gove is a a greedy man who has gained financially from playing a system which was never intended to pay for sheets, doormats or flippin' elephant lamps. But he has never been brought to court, and nor will he, because he was "following the rules" which he helped to write himself. Shonola was stupid, and Gove was clever. She has learned that rules are just for the poor, and he has learned how to get away with it. The law must be robust, it seems, except with those who make it. Dishface said of the rioters last week: "You will feel the full force of the law. And if you are old enough to commit these crimes, you are old enough to face the punishment." Michael Gove is 43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Interesting. What adjustments would you need as a dyslexic ? This isn't meant in a horrible way, just as an employer, surely certain jobs would be off limits. Do you have anything in mind that any of these people can't do: Alexander Graham Bell Richard Branson Roald Dahl Thomas Edison Prince Harry Albert Einstein Michael Faraday Bill Gates Steve Jobs And ....Peter Stringfellow – oh well, you can’t win ‘em all! All famous dyslexics. Wouldn't it be great if the next generation of exceptional people were placed on the scrap heap due to an exam that discriminated against them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Do you have anything in mind that any of these people can't do: Alexander Graham Bell Richard Branson Roald Dahl Thomas Edison Prince Harry Albert Einstein Michael Faraday Bill Gates Steve Jobs And ....Peter Stringfellow – oh well, you can’t win ‘em all! All famous dyslexics. Wouldn't it be great if the next generation of exceptional people were placed on the scrap heap due to an exam that discriminated against them? And I would also like to add the fonze (Henry winkler) to that list of luminaries. But they had drive and ability to succeed anyway and support could easily pay for itself. But a Call centre worker ? Why spend the money when there are no doubt 20 other people could do the job without the expense to the employer. Not saying its fair or right but from a cold hard business perspective it must be valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.