Policy Response

Capability Scotland
8th June 2012

Capability campaigns with, and provides education, employment and care services, to disabled people across Scotland.

Consultation on Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Candidates in National Qualifications in Scotland

Summary

Capability Scotland is an independent provider of specialist school education for children and young people with additional and complex needs. We offer a proven alternative to mainstream placements, providing an unrivalled depth of expertise in education, care, therapy and technology.

We do not agree with the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s (SQA’s) publication of a list of adjustments that should never be deemed reasonable. The test of reasonableness should be applied to each specific candidate and consideration should be given to the appropriate adjustments for that individual. To define particular adjustments as “unreasonable” in all circumstances fetters the discretion of teachers and will, in many cases, constitute indirect discrimination.

We also believe that the proposals, if implemented, would result in the SQA failing to meet its duty under the Equality Act 2010. The SQA has a duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. The duty is not – as the consultation document implies – merely to “minimise disadvantage to disabled people”.

General Comments
Capability Scotland believes that a more constructive approach to ensuring suitable adjustments are made would be to publish guidance and provide information on the process of making a decision about what is and what is not reasonable. Teachers should be given training and guidance – along with illustrative case studies – on what factors should be taken into account and how weighting should be attributed. This, rather than a blanket ban on certain adjustments, will secure fair and positive outcomes for candidates and compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

Such guidance should also highlight the need to consider the context in which decisions about reasonable adjustment are made. We have been made aware of numerous instances in which a pupil is half way through a course before s/he is told that her impairment or condition makes her ineligible for the award or that there is no way for him/her to be fairly assessed.

Our Advice Service, for instance, received a call from the teacher of a Higher Music candidate. The pupil had been permitted by the school to select the keyboard as his instrument of choice for the qualification. After beginning the course, the candidate was informed that in order to pass the performance element of the qualification (which was essential in order to pass the Higher) he would need to use both hands to play the keyboard. This was impossible because the boy had no right hand. Clearly, the school should have made the pupil aware of this before he selected his Highers.
Furthermore, the SQA should be more flexible in the design of its qualifications and its consideration of how disabled students can get the most out of them. In particular,where an individual cannot complete all elements of their course as a direct result of their impairment or condition, they should have the option of having this noted on their certificate.This would clearly be preferable to receiving no qualification at all. In relation to the example used above, for instance, there should have been an option for the candidate to complete his Higher music qualification, albeit without the Performance element. Or, as his teacher at the time wrote,

“The pupil has the necessary knowledge and understanding and can demonstrate that he has the technique with his left hand. If he can clearly play with his left hand, then only his impairment is preventing him from doing it with his right hand (not his musical ability). However, playing two-handed appears to be mandatory. What should be done is for application to be made to have this significant Learning Outcome changed to 'play one handed' and this would be noted on his certificate.”

Key Area 1: There should be a limit on the maximum percentage of a Course assessment that can be exempted

The document states that in relation to all new and existing National Courses, exemption of any assessment Component, which comprises 30% or more of the total course assessment should not be considered a reasonable adjustment.

The consultation document does not present any evidence to suggest that the figure of 30% is anything other than arbitrary. Before refusing this adjustment we would ask the SQA to demonstrate how being exempted from 30% of the course compromises the assessment objectives for all subjects.

Furthermore, as explained above, we believe the SQA should be more flexible about allowing disabled students to gain acknowledgement for those parts of the qualification which they can complete. They could then have the elements they had passed noted on their certificate and the option to include an explanation that the other element had not been completed as a result of their impairment or condition.

Key Area 2: There should be restrictions to the exemption of assessed skills in certain language and communication qualifications.

We do not believe that exemption from certain assessed skills should automatically be deemed unreasonable. As discussed above, we believe that the SQA should be able to make an award where one element of the assessment has not been completed as a result of disability.This point was raised by teachers at Capability’s Corseford School. They noted,

“The Literacy unit is not a standalone unit, but is combined with English Language. In order to gain the overall award for English, our pupils will have to pass the Literacy unit. By linking directly Literacy as part of the overall award, then many of our pupils will be blocked from receiving an award in English beyond National 2. They could be awarded component parts of the overall course, but it is unclear whether or not that will appear on their award certificates.”

There is concern that by placing a blanket ban on exemptions, the SQA may be preventing some of the candidates at Corseford School from completing their Access Level 3 award. The teachers also noted,

“In the past when Corseford School found that our group of pupils could not attempt Standard Grades because the demands of the assessments was becoming too great there was an alternative in Access 3. Pupils could gainanaward in Englishup to this level. My understanding is that this will not be possible now for many of our pupils. In that way the developments could be seen to be a step back for our pupils.”

Furthermore, the guidance should go into more details about the circumstances in which it should be decided that the candidate needs to be exempted. The consultation document states that, in relation to National Literacy Units,

“Candidates must be able to demonstrate the ability to Read, Write, Listen and Talk. (For listening and talking it is accepted that Deaf students can use BSL).”

Many of Capability’s pupils do not have the ability to speak clearly and as a result, may use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). These candidates may be able to write, read and listen – but may use a picture board or electronic talker to express their ideas and opinions. This is often the result of physical impairment, including conditions such as Cerebral Palsy. We do not believe this should exclude them from being awarded a Nation Literacy Unit. The paper states that,

“The purpose of these Literacy qualifications is to develop candidates’ reading, writing, listening and talking skills in a variety of forms relevant for learning, life and work.” It is essential for the SQA to appreciate that for a person who cannot express themselves verbally the use of a picture board, symbols or an electronic talker is extremely relevant to learning, life and work.

The references to “listening or talking” also demonstrate a narrow understanding of communication. Focus should be on the individual’s ability to communicate their knowledge, ideas and opinion, not the medium they use to do it.

Key Area 3: There should be restrictionson the use of reading and writing support when reading and writing skills are being assessed.
In relation to National Literacy Units it is proposed that SQA specifies that human readers and scribes should not be considered as reasonable adjustments where Reading and Writing abilities are being explicitly assessed.

We are strongly object to this proposal, which could have a severely discriminatory effect on many disabled candidates, including many of the students who attend Capability’s Corseford School. As the Assistant Head Teacher at Corseford commented,

“If a pupil using AAC wants to create a piece of text for assessment, [under these proposals] the person will have to create the text unassisted. And if the person has limited use of their hands, and find it difficult to access a computer, then it could be impossible to properly assess the cognitive ability of that person beyond National 2.”

Other groups disadvantaged by this measure are those who rely on lip-reading. For them a recording of text will not be adequate. Furthermore, voice recognition technology may be of not use to individuals whose speech is unclear as a result of their physical disability. Where a person has extremely slurred speech, a stammer or stutter, words which a human scribe could recognise might not be picked up by a screen reader.

If the SQA is concerned about the scribe or reader interpret text, or providing vocal interpretation, they should provide training on how to minimise the effect of this.

Key Area 4: Support in accessing the written question paper in the external examination should not extend to the explanation of the words and questions.

We disagree with this proposal which will prevent the relevantskill, knowledge and understanding being assessed. Where, for instance,the candidate has Aspergers Syndrome, they may struggle to interpret the non-literal meaning of words or identify irrelevant information. Even where the subject being assessed is largely technical in nature (e.g, physics) the candidate may struggle to understand the wording of the questions, particularly where they involve some kind of case study or scenario. Without access to a wide range of past papers it is difficult to identify question of this type. However, in the one Physics paper we were able to access the following question was asked,

“At the kick-off in a football match, during the World Cup finals a referee blows his whistle. The whistle produces sound waves. Using the information in the diagram, calculate the time taken for the sound waves to reach the goal keeper.”

The question includes information that is not relevant to the skill set being assessed and the candidate may benefit from assistance re-phrasing the question. Staff should be given clear guidance and training on which word are technical and those whose use is incidental to ensure the candidate is not given an unfair advantage.

Key area 5: There should be restriction in the use of BSL in certain language qualifications.

We do not believe this should be an absolute restriction on the use of BLS in relation to Modern Languages.Why, for instance, should a Deaf candidate not be able to read written French and answer questions on the passage in BSL without unfair advantage or disadvantage? Furthermore, where Writing is being assessed the candidate may be able to use BSL to spell out the words they want to write – including any punctuation. For the Listening element of the exam, Deaf candidates may be able to lip read a French conversation and answer questions about the conversation in BSL.

We appreciate there may be difficulties in assessing an individuals ability to speak French while using BSL. However, the candidate should still be eligible for a qualification in Writing, Reading and Listening in French, with the certificate detailing that the Speaking part of the assessment had not been undertaken as a result of impairment.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this consultation.

About Us
Capability Scotland campaigns with, and provides education, employment and care services for, disabled people across Scotland. The organisation aims to be a major ally in supporting disabled people to achieve full equality and to have choice and control of their lives by 2020. More information about Capability can be found at

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this consultation. If you require more information on this response, please contact:

Hanna McCulloch
Senior Policy Advisor
Capability Scotland
11 Ellersly Road
Edinburgh
EH12 6HY

Tel: 0131 347 1025

E-mail:

Page 1 of 5