Mick,
Thanks for your response, the sentiments of which I agree with absolutely - I can only apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I certainly
was not intending to accuse people of attempting to deny access, I assure you.
I did feel that in the enthusiasm of thinking of alternatives, the prime reason for providing a service such as ENT - to provide live access
as opposed to a full set of revision notes - was getting forgotten. I felt this because the alternatives that were being suggested seemed
less focussed on this need.
Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding - I'm cross with myself because I know how easy it is to do this kind of thing with e-mail
and made several changes to my original posting to try to avoid any ambiguity. Ah well!

(Just for interest - I was encouraged to contribute to this debate by someone who refused to enter it for the very reasons you outlined -
fear of being attacked/belittled etc so I honestly do take your point!)
Paddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Trott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 October 2003 20:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Electronic Notes for deaf students


In a message dated 01/10/03 17:15:16 GMT Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< A crucial point that seems to be missing from this debate so far is what
the student needs to achieve equal access. >>
Dear Paddy,
The points you make about the technicalities are very interesting and
informative but I think this statement is unfair. Although not explicitly stated
everyone who has contributed to this debate has been enthusiastic of the
principles and keen on exploring ways that results might be acheived without
necesarilly going for Stereotype.
I think many people have enjoyed contributing ideas and discussing pitfalls
of various alternatives.
In the original case I was faced with a parent had been told that the DSA
would pay for establishing the service (paying for the note taker's laptop and
the software) DfES confirmed that the DSA should only be used to pay for the
student's laptop and possibly their licence if it was required. I think you just
reworded what I said in stating your own position.
If putting forward suggestions for alternatives on this forum results in
people being accused of attemting to deny students access then I feel that some
people might be put off contributing ideas.
I'm not in favour of DO's struggling to manage with inadequate resources but
sometimes it is difficult to obtain or justify funding to one's masters. If
something can be acheived with resources available, why not try it? If your
point is, don't waste your time, the software to do it properly is cheap and has
lots of advatages I think that point could be made without accusing those
discussing alternative ideas of not considering equal access.

Mick Trott

Full text of Paddy's email below
Dear Mick and all,
I'd like to clarify a few aspects of the electronic note-taking debate, if I
may.

Mick wrote:
"In the case in question I was happy to recommend paying for the note taking
service but had to point out that the DSA would not pay for the 'university'
laptop, the software or cable."

We have been supporting students using this system for 3 years and LEA's are
perfectly happy to pay for ONE lap-top and the Receiver's software. As a service, we pay for the other lap-top and the Sender's
software. It has never been queried.
We support/have supported as many as 15 students using this service and, as
someone who has some experience of supporting and providing support for deaf students, I can say with some confidence that it gives these
students access that is both inclusive and equal.

You went on:
"Enquiring about the costs of this equipment (or rather the software) seemed
rather expensive for what is essentially a keyboard echoing program with knobs on. The sort of thing us old BBC micro users used to knock
up in a lunchtime."
The Receiver's license is £100, the Sender's £150 - lap-tops are the same as
always.
 Not sure what you mean by your final statement, but it seems from your
contributions so far that you have not researched and understood quite what the software does. Further, it seems that students attending
Assessments of Need are not given the opportunity to trial it. This is surely not empowering the students or enabling them to discuss the
relative merits of the system, from their own point of veiw, as against the alternatives.

You added:
"It occured to me that similar results could be obtained by connecting an
AlphaSmart to a laptop by cable or Infra Red."

Using Stereotype software means a cable is not required to connect the two
laptops because unlike other systems it works with wireless networking. This has advantages over the two you describe. Infra red needs
line of sight making it very vulnerable to interruptions. USB cables are quite often not possible with modern lap-tops because the ports
are no longer incorporated. In addition an important aim of disability support is towards inclusion. Cables and infra-red systems force
the student and support worker to be in close proximity whereas wirless networking enables the student (or students) to sit anywhere in the
lecture room allowing much greater sense of independence and inclusion. Much has been made of the problems related to battery life and
cables - as I mentioned above, we have been using the system here in a variety of environments with a variety of students and with a little
bit
of adjustment (sometimes none but never unreasonable) plug sockets can be made available and cables can be safely stowed. Batteries can
be used as back up. Not a problem - take it from one who has experience of providing this support.

Throughout the debate that is taking place, the "knobs on" elements are being
ignored. The features of the Stereotype software that cannot
be achieved using any of the various methods described so far, are as follows:

Editing - the note-taker can return to any point in the text and edit it to
correct mistakes or add material in the appropriate place;

Abbreviations - these can be created and saved in separate files according to
the subject being taught and then re-loaded as appropriate. This saves time and increases the ability to produce a fuller text;

Meeting mode - enables the names of participants in a meeting to be saved and
then produced on the screen by a single key press;

Student input - the Receiver's screen is split which allows the student to
add his/her own notes without interrupting the flow of incoming information and to add a marker to the text for easy reference later.

One-to-many - One sender can transmit to many receiver's thus allowing more
than one student to be supported in the same session...now there's a money saving option!

A crucial point that seems to be missing from this debate so far is what the
student needs to achieve equal access. As everyone should know, lip-reading is notoriously difficult and in most teaching environments in
HE,
almost impossible for the student to get access 'live' without much missed information and potential misunderstanding leading to general
confusion. Yes, handwritten notes will give the student adequate notes to revise from, and some of the methods previously mentioned (like
Rhun's) will give a fuller set of notes for revision purposes. None will give decent live access that enables the student to contribute and
integrate without being tied to a support worker.

Cheers
Paddy Turner