The specialist is at risk of repeating proven solutions. The risk is that
improvements may have just arrived. The padigm specialist should be
keeping a close on developments in the specialism. The risk is then
added that the 'student;' in question has a preference for an arguably 'less
effective', earlier solution. This gives rise to a need to convince the
student that the new idea is better than the old one. Ultimately though,
surely the student's informed/expoeriential choice is the specialist choice
that decides? This though is not a question of specilist v generalist but
of percetion/emotion v access to information.

I think I would argue that the Generalist has the advantage in that he/she
has to research the solutions each time and is therefore not at risk of
repeating tried and tested solutions (not that the 'true' specialist will do
this).

Immediate and direct access to a specialist in a field (e.g SpLD) is surely
a great advantage. Does it not follow that 'Quality of (and ease of Access
to) Information' is more important than individual specialism? In this
context, should we not concern ourselves with improving access rather than
gaining facts?

Lancaster-Miller divide our Assessors by their specialisms but keep the
specialisms fairly wide. So compromise. Also, we ask the student how
they want to be described in the Needs Assessment report - which generally
avoids upsetting.

There are then the factors a) of the student who wants the 'free computer'
but doesn't want the label and b) the student who thinks of themselves as
'different' rather than disabled, after all, the DSA is about 'enabling'.

I had a student recently who's justification for the equipment she was
demanding was that she was nearly 50 and 'She had never ever got anything
for nothing before' (the point being that she didn't see her genuine
disability as the justification) - an issue of 'label'?.

Similarly, another student who demanded 'luxuries' based on minor
impairments while not asking for kit that was appropriate to their very
major 'significant' disabilities. The perception the student has of their
own disability brings in our knowledge of the effects of the actual problems
upon study for others (earlier students) with similar/same disabilities.
The specialist may not have knowledge of the secondary (albeit student's
preoccupation) disability.

TWO PROBLEMS:
1) A Specialist may not have experience of the secondary disability.

2) The student's perception/emotions are factors. Assessors are clearly
there to recommend an appropriate response to the actual disability
(regardless of the student's perceptions of the disability) but on ocassion
(StJohn may remember who I mean) the student insists on the solbution they
perceive as the 'best', despite the facts, and their 'specilist status' in
being that disabled student can lead to the 'wrong' IT being provided.

Ergo, maybe the specialist is potentially less use than the generalist? -
OK, it's sophistry.



Stephen Lancaster
Lacaster-Miller Group





-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Eileen McCabe
Sent: 25 July 2002 12:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: generalist/specialist assessors


"Specialising in one disabiilty makes better DSA assessors as
they are more likely to have an in-depth knowledge of that disability
and be better able to understand the student's requirements than
generalists (those who assess for a range of disabilities) who will
have superficial knowledge of the disability."

Does anyone agree/disagree or have any point of view on the above
comment?

Regards
Eileen


CCPD
University of Westminster
email [log in to unmask]
tel: 020 7911 5163
fax: 020 7911 5162

This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named
only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must
not copy or show them to anyone, nor should you take any action based on
them, other than to notify the error by replying to the sender.