Identification of students with SpLD in primary schools in KSA

In chapter three, section 3.9 I stated that in KSA the Ministry of Education (2013) has a provision for supporting children with SpLD, which aims at ensuring that they have equal educational rights as the rest of the students. In this section, I present data from the two schools regarding identification and assessment of SpLD. I start the section by highlighting the criteria for identification and assessment of students with SpLD. Data regarding the perceptions of teachers and parents of the assessment of students with SpLD is also presented in this section.

5.4.1 Identification process

According to the SEN policy guidelines, assessment of SpLD is generally done by the SEN teacher, the regular class teacher for the student, the child’s parent and other professionals like the student advisor and other social workers. The aim of this section is to determine whether policy on identification and assessment translate into practice. The data was collected through interviews and observations from participants in the two schools.

Nonetheless, although the SEN policy provided guidelines on identification and assessment of SpLD, data collected from the two schools suggested lack of standardised tools for assessing students with SpLD. As a result, teachers had devised their own tests for assessing students suspected to have SpLD in their classrooms, resulting in each school having different assessment methods for SpLD. For example, in School 1 the SEN Teacher stated that classroom teachers conducted pre-tests on

158

students suspected to have SpLD which included writing tasks. Both SEN teachers explained in detail how they conducted the assessment to determine whether students had SpLD.

Nonetheless, there were discrepancies in how they were doing it. For example the SEN Teacher in School 2 stated that she used to use survey method but she stopped due to the high population in the school. There seemed to be inconsistencies in the method designed for use by all institutions; hence it was at the SEN teachers’ discretion to use the method they thought was better.

From what I gathered in School 1, the first step to the assessment process was by identifying students whose academic performance was significantly low as compared to their peers. Their persistent poor performance was taken as the indicator that the student could be showing signs of SpLD. According to SEN Teacher in School 1, simple tests would be administered to determine the student’s level of performance. After that they would then move on to preparing an IEP for the student (SEN Teacher, School 1, Appendix 13: 62).

School 2 had a different strategy for identifying and assessing students with SpLD. According to the SEN Teacher in School 2, they used a survey method to identify them. The SEN Teacher however described the process as lengthy because it involved conducting surveys in every grade. The surveys would initially be done by the SEN teacher, who would then identify the students who showed difficulties in reading, writing and spelling and then do further assessment.

I used to use the survey method. But you know this method is useless. Can you imagine that I would scan 706 papers or results alone and then I would identify those who didn’t achieve their academic level and then pick them and do further assessments? This sounds crazy. I can apply this method with one or two or even three classes but not the whole school. I did this method

159

a few times but not anymore, it is very difficult. I rely on the transferring method, which is easier (SEN Teacher, School 2, Appendix 14: 215).

According to the SEN Teacher in School 2, students referred for further assessment would then be subjected to more tests before they were finally determined to have SpLD or not. When the students were transferred to the SEN teachers they were given reading, writing and spelling tests which were blew their actual level. The SEN Teacher then explained that after identifying the students with and before enrolling them in the support progrmme for SpLD she had to contact their parents in order to do further assessment before designing their IEPs (Appendix 14: 215).

In School 2, once the identification and assessment procedure was complete and students suspected to have SpLD identified, their parents would then be invited to the school to discuss how they would be supported. According to the SEN policy guidelines, SEN teachers were expected to liaise with the parents once they identified children with SpLD. The parents were then expected to sign a consent form to allow the school to provide assistance to the child and move them in the support programmes for SpLD.

Data collected from both schools indicated a lack of supervision on how the SEN policy guidelines were implemented in the schools. For example, whereas the SEN Teacher in School 2 seemed keen to follow the policy guidelines, in School 1 the SEN Teacher appeared not to be very keen. From this discrepancy in the data schools, I sought to find out from the SEN Supervisor how the students with SpLD were assessed, but the information I gathered just complicated the information I already had. According to the SEN Supervisor there was a committee or team of professionals who were required to conduct the assessment, but according to the data gathered in

160

the two schools it is only the SEN Teacher who was conducting the assessment (SEN Supervisor, Appendix 17: 462).

Interviews with classroom teachers in both schools suggested that they were hardly involved in the assessment of students as it was supposed to be. In fact, they were not aware how the assessment was conducted. When I asked them how students with SpLD were assessed some of them just said they did not know and that I should ask the SEN teacher. Teachers from both schools had no idea about the assessment and they only had to report or transfer any student whose academic achievement was low (Appendix 13: 64-65) (Appendix 14: 217- 218).

The findings about identification and assessment of students with SpLD in both schools highlighted the shortcomings faced by different schools in KSA with regard to the assessment of students with SpLD in relation to multidisciplinary teams, IQ tests, adaptive behaviour scales, and academic scales

5.4.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of the assessment process

In this section I present data on teachers’ perceptions of the assessment process. In the section above I noted that although according to the policy guidelines for SpLD, teachers were supposed to be part of the assessment team, the teachers from both schools said that they were not involved, and they were not aware how the assessments were conducted. While the Head Teacher in School 1 felt that the assessment was adequate (Appendix 13: 67), the rest of the participants chose not to make any comment (Appendix 13: 69-71). In contrast to School 1, participants in School 2 stated that the assessment was good (Appendix 14: 222-224). Nonetheless,

161

both SEN teachers in the two schools felt that the assessment for SpLD was inadequate and needed to be improved and to be more standardised.

SEN Teacher, School 1

The assessment is not good. Actually it is designed to test the students in the lower skills in Arabic literacy or maths. These skills were drawn from the MoE curriculum. This is not right, and this is not how SpLD are assessed in the advanced countries like the UK or USA. They should be given a suitable standardised assessment, which includes an intelligence test, and tests for developmental and academic skills. Here we just focus on the academic skills. The policies don’t care about the developmental skills, but as SEN teacher I try to include these skills in my lessons or some games or some teaching methods (Appendix 13: 68).

SEN Teacher from School 2 also agreed that the tests they used to asses students with SpLD were not standardised. The set of tests used were designed by a group of SEN teachers and they were curriculum based assessments where she had to find out how students were progressing in basic academic skills such as in reading, writing, spelling and maths. She further suggested that the MoE should consider this problem and try to come up with new standardised tests for SpLD (Appendix 14:221).

5.4.1.2 Parent’s perceptions of the assessment process

To determine the parents’ perceptions of the assessment process I first asked them whether they were involved in the assessment of their children. Their responses indicated that they only had to meet the SEN teachers in order to explain the idea of the support programmes to them. After that the parents had the choice whether they accept to enrol their children or not. Parent 1 and Parent 2 from School 1 stated that they have been contacted by the SEN teacher before the teacher conducted the assessment. The teacher explained to them the concept of the programme and how

162

their children would be supported. After their meeting with the SEN teacher they signed the consent letter straight away (Appendix 15: 337-338).

Parents in School 2 also had been contacted by the school before the SEN teacher conducted the assessment. It was important to gain the parents’ permission and give them enough information about the nature of the assessment and the support given to their children (Appendix 16: 403-404).

From the parents’ responses, it was apparent that they too were not actively involved in the assessment of their children. Although they were consulted before the assessments were done, they were not part of the team involved in the actual assessment. I then asked the parents whether they thought the assessments of their children were adequate. All four parents were happy with the assessment which they stated that helped them to understand their children much better hence becoming more supportive.

Parents in School 1

Pt1 S1 I think yes, it is good to have such assessment and support like that. It helps the students to identify their problems and help them to overcome their difficulties when they are still young.

Pt2 S1 Yes the assessment helps us to identify our daughter’s difficulties in reading, writing and spelling. We used to think that she hated the school or that she was just a spoilt girl.

Appendix 15: 340-341 Parents in School 2

Pt1 S2 Yes the assessment helps us to know about the difficulties was facing in reading, writing and spelling.

Pt2 S2 I think yes, without the assessment we wouldn’t have known about my daughter difficulties.

163