Kath,
Here, here.
Terry's comments are historical as far as the Open University DSA Office is
concerned. The Awards Officers here now have experience of ICT nearing that
of many assessors and dare I say moreso than some. Their training has been
delivered by IanSyst, CCPD and CATER in the last few months and they have
tried and tested software firsthand. Combine this with the experience of
receiving NARs from over 150 different assessors for thousands of students
with, of course, a good knowledge of disability and you move to a point
where their difficult questions can't be dismissed out of hand. Painful as
it may be, AOs are gradually becoming more informed on what is and is not
appropriate relating to specific recommendations. Each AO takes about 100
funding decisions on an average day, so they are bound to get some things
wrong.
However, not only do they often save money for the taxpayers, but they often
correct recommendations on assessments which would never have worked for the
student.
In our experience, the best and most cost effective solutions are those
where there is good communication between assessor and AO. The worst are
where an assessor assumes all the knowledge (and assumes the AO has none)and
makes recommendations with little or no understanding of the ethos of the
DSA Award i.e. what it can and cannot fund. This results in delays at best.
We have over 2,500 NARs here in DSAO which range from outstanding (the usual
suspects) to very poor indeed (different, but usual suspects). An audit of
this information would prove highly enlightening to both the DfES and the
Assessment sector.
So my point is that there's a danger in making anecdotal assumptions about
AOs or assessors, and that there is a mass of evidence here for a proper
survey of how well everyone is doing that should be used to improve the
results for the taxpayer and the student.
For now, Kath and I will go back to basics in defining for the DfES QA group
what a Needs Assessment should do - discuss.
Steve
___________________________________________
Steve Clayton
Manager, Planning and Resources (DSAs)
Disabled Student Services Section
The Open University
Tel: ++44 (01908 858937) Fax (01908 659044)
-----Original Message-----
From: Katherine Henderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 January 2003 14:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time for a little controversy
It was written:
In the past I have identified many assessments that have not only given
advantage but also have included equipment that was both unnecesary but
overspecified.Has there been a change recently where these problems have
been weeded out?.
Mmmmm, should I forward this to the LEA discussion list for their comments
on whether there's been a change resulting in reasonable assessments where
it's completely clear why every item of equipment and support has been
recommended due to a student's disability-related NEED?
Sorry, but I'm prepared to bet we could spend the whole of next week coming
up with examples demonstrating that this hasn't happened. That's how we've
spent this week anyway........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Kath Henderson
Team Leader - Student Support
Education Department
Overseas House
PO Box 191
Quay Street
Manchester
M3 3ST Tel. No: 0161 234 7076
Terry Hart
<T.Hart-1@PLYMOU To: [log in to unmask]
TH.AC.UK> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Time for a
little
"Discussion list controversy
for disabled
students and
their support
staff."
<DIS-FORUM@JISCM
AIL.AC.UK>
31/01/2003 13:57
Please respond
to "Discussion
list for
disabled
students and
their support
staff."
Ian,
I am afraid I do mean the DSA Assessor!. The LEA's all to often have little
experience in technology let alone that related to disability and therefore
rely too heavilly on the recommendations of the assessor. Perhaps my
comments are historical in nature?
Terry Hart
UOP
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 January 2003 23:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time for a little controversy
Sorry Terry, excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand your comment. I
know it's off the point, but..
> As long as some assessments remain profligate with the tax payers
> money
there will always be a reason to question disabilities at the expence of the
genuine applicant.
>
Do you mean the diagnostic assessment undertaken by a qualified health
professional / chartered psychologist / etc involves reckless spending -
maybe using too much equipment or time spent testing for things before a
diagnosis of (e.g. CFS) is made because everything else is ruled out.
Surely you can't mean a DSA Assessor, who uses medical/psychological
evidence that's already been accepted by the student's LEA and who needs to
be able to argue a case clearly for every item recommended and must explain
this to the funding authority (who the assessor knows will themselves be
professionally audited by people who are very keen and actively seeking to
identify profligate - reckless- spending of taxpayers money).
As someone still painfully (yeah, too late as usual etc) working through
self-assessment, I'm very conscious about how much taxpayers cash gets blown
on various things. Despite this, for all it's faults I think the current
system works quite well, really.
Ian Francis
On 30 Jan 2003 at 17:18, Terry Hart wrote:
> Terry Hart
> UOP
**********************************************************************
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 have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
Please contact [log in to unmask]
with any queries.
|