This is effectively the second act of the discussion we had earlier. I am trying to think of any reason why the Government should not do this, other than the fact that they think it is difficult. We have already heard that certain people do not think there is the absolute killer test that will identify everything and I have had various discussions in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about the problems associated with this. However, there are plenty of tests and screening initiatives which can give a good identification for virtually all of these spectrum disorders. As the noble Lord has quite rightly put down, if you have two goes, you are much more likely to catch all of them. I have not heard anybody disagreeing with the fact that you are unlikely to get a system that is 100 per cent accurate in identifying these special needs.
No one would dispute the fact that, even if you get in early with coping and support strategies, you do not cure any of these conditions, but people can learn to live with them and deal with them properly. We need to make sure there is the right help and support for pupils with different patterns. If you are dyslexic, as I know to my cost, you are dyslexic for life. Someone comes up with a miracle cure for dyslexia, for instance, approximately every 18 months—sometimes more frequently, sometimes less. And every three years there is someone who knows that it does not exist. This is roughly the pattern I have noted. As these miracle cures come and go, and the person waving a theory disappears off into the night saying that the rest of the world is mad and he is sane, those of us who suffer from these conditions know that, if you identify patterns and put structures in place early enough, many of the downsides are removed—predominantly, the failure to jump through the hoops of the academic system to get into the right positions within it to access better training in later life.
The effect of not addressing these conditions can lead to a downward spiral of bad behavioural records, certainly for dyslexics but also for dyspraxics and dyscalculics. If we can address them, we will get rid of that. Also, if you train people better—for instance, dyslexics to use a voice recognition system on their computer—and get in earlier, they will be able to get into learning technology more quickly. Everything about these types of conditions will be made easier if you get identification and learning strategies in earlier. I would suggest that we really must travel towards this.
I thank the Government for their 4,000 newly trained teachers in about 25,000 schools. It would be a reasonable assumption that these 4,000 teachers have acquired a degree of knowledge. But it is still the case that only one in two schools has one specifically trained teacher. So unless it is written in the Bill that they have to buy in the expertise that is in the system for this function, we will be underachieving. I hope that the Government will see this approach as a way of cashing in on their assets in this field. At the moment, we are in danger of merely having slightly fewer holes in the system into which you can fall, as opposed to trying to make sure that there are no holes, or at least very few.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Addington
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c433-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:37:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573857
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573857
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573857