I don't doubt your personal integrity or knowledge, St John,
but why is this any of your business? Let me put it another
way. If it is the repsonsibility of Awards Officers to
determine what equipment is appropriate and who supplies it,
why are any of the rest of us in business? Why does anyone
have to go about collecting quotes and listing specs?
On a related theme, I get to meet plenty of folk coming from
institutions in which assitive technology is supplied (or not
supplied) by LEAs, an area in which the officers of the
Authority quite plainly have responsibility. The results are
not generally of the kind that I would like to see applied to
DSAs.
Why have I not seen repeated statements from the DfEE, HEFCE or
LEA auditors that fraud and overspending is rampant in DSA
claims and the whole system is threatened by bankruptcy? Is it
because no one is concerned that it be driven by economics:
producing the cheapest solution over the best solution? Do
you want us all to fall into the pit of inadequacy that is
compulsory education? (By the way, congratulations on selecting
equipment for individuals without meeting them; great example
of good practice from which I think we could all learn.)
Yours in probity, Bernard
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:11:04 +0000
"Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well time for an LEA to contribute I feel :)
>
> We always purchase equipment for a student. 90% of the time we also use
> our own suppliers. However, as I do the purchasing and know a fair amount
> about the technical side of PC's I am at least in a position to ensure
> that the spec we supply is equal to or better than the recommendation. I
> couldn't comment on what goes on at other LEA's.
>
> The system seems to work for us and for the student. With one main
> supplier we can keep an eye on cost, delivery times and after sales tech
> support. The make of the PC is often immaterial so long as it is reliable
> and meets the recommended spec for any software packages that are being
> provided. We start with a basic PC package and then add to it depending
> on the hardware and software that has been recommended. Where other (ie
> non IT) equipment is recommended, I have a list of suppliers and those I
> don't have tend to have a web page with purchasing details so I can order
> direct. .
>
> Of course, no system is 100% infallible and we've had a few problems
> where students have complained that they are not getting what was
> recommended. However, such cases are rare and are usually the desktop vs
> notebook type of argument - let's not open that can of worms again :)
>
> I think sometimes it's easy to lose sight of the amount of admin that is
> involved with DSA - anything we can do to simplify the process is
> beneficial to the student and dealing mainly with one supplier with whom
> we have a good relationship is far more efficient than trying to order
> the exact make/model of PC specified in the report. So long as a report
> specifies why something is needed, I can ensure that the equipment
> supplied is suitable. However, if the equipment list specifies, for
> example, a 1.1Ghz PC with 256Mb of RAM when the only software recommended
> is Office 2000 with no justification given elsewhere, then don't be too
> surprised if we supply a PIII 833 with 128Mb!
>
> St.John Skeates
> Awards Section
> Bedfordshire County Council
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Doherty [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm
> Subject: Re: DSAs - Who arranges buying the recommended equipment?
>
>
>
> It isn't for me to speak for student advisers reading Dave not
> speaking for other folk, but I think there are some potential
> problems with leaving purchase in the hands of LEAs. I can
> think of at least one that shall remain nameless (called Luton,
> since you ask) that in the past has thought it perfectly
> reasonable to give students whatever seemed a close enough fit
> from stock (held either by the Authority or their favoured
> supplier; the difference seemed immaterial). As I have heard
> you say, Dave, Authorities do not have to accept ACCESS
> assessments. Fortunately, at the moment students do not have
> to accept the ways in which Award Officers might choose to
> spend someone else's money. I know you intend LEAs to deal
> with the recommended supplier on the assessment, but it's a bit
> difficult to ensure this if the principle that the DSA
> is genuinely at the disposal of the student is undermined.
>
> Laff, I nearly died, etc. Bernard
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:45:19 -0000 David Laycock
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > It isn't for me to speak for the officers at the DfEE but at the Skill
> > Conference workshop, yesterday, convened by Catherine Broyd
> > from the HE Students Awards Office at the DfEE, I got the
> > impression that we were in agreement that it is desirable for LEAs
> > to retain control over purchase of equipment.
> >
> > This point has already been accepted on the issue of potential
> > fraud, (student gets cheque, buys PC from Dixons or whoever,
> > sends copy of invoice to LEA, returns PC, pockets cash) as an
> > earlier guideline from the DfEE to awards officers has shown. There
> > it was pointed out that it might be desirable for LEAs to make the
> > purchases.
> >
> > Given the complexity of purchasing a range of goods (many of
> > which won't be supplied by the big box shifters) there is also the
> > potential for the student converting the cash into an entirely
> > different range of technology. Perhaps more related to the things
> > they like doing with computers rather then the disability-related kit
> > recommended. If awards officers accept this, then why bother with
> > an assessment? The easiest way to prevent it is by making the
> > purchases.
> >
> > The purpose of the DSAs is to provide goods and services not
> > money and there are many ways an undergraduate can learn to
> > become a responsible adult without a process which, if messed up
> > or abused, causes a load of headaches for other people.
> > Incidentally, almost every student I've ever interviewed has wanted
> > nothing to do with the purchase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Laycock
> >
> > Head of CCPD
> > Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
> > University of Westminster
> > 72 Great Portland Street
> > London W1N 5AL
> >
> > tel. 020 7911-5161
> > fax. 020 7911-5162
> > WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/
>
> ----------------------
> Bernard Doherty
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed.
>
> If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately
> by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
> Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer.
>
> Any modification of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
> unless expressly authorised by the sender.
> *********************************************************************
----------------------
Bernard Doherty
[log in to unmask]
|