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? 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?.
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
|