JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DIS-FORUM Archives


DIS-FORUM Archives

DIS-FORUM Archives


DIS-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DIS-FORUM Home

DIS-FORUM Home

DIS-FORUM  2003

DIS-FORUM 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Time for a little controversy

From:

"S.D.Clayton" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.

Date:

Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:32:05 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (183 lines)

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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager