Just a few points to clarify that may help people understand the issues
involved.

There is no intention to create 'generic' assessors but *some* people feel
that *some* assessors 'cherry pick' (NOT my term) and only do dyslexia
assessments, leaving those with other disabilities uncatered for in some
areas.
It has been suggested that assessors be encouraged to broaden their skills
through appropriate training.

Personally, I think that there is scope for 'specialist' assessors although
there are arguments in favour of building on existing skills and again
arguments for not pressing assessors to take on areas of assessment in which
they feel they have limited expertise.

It has also been suggested that assessors will be licensed for each area of
disability (excuse the shorthand) in which they have expertise E.g. VI, HI,
Physical, learning disabilities, mental health - quite the opposite of
'generic' if I understand your use of the term correctly.

The figures suggested to maintain registration as an assessor are a minimum
of 25 per year or 40 over 2 years but 40 to 60 a year is not a lot for full
time assessors. (35 hours per week, billing 9 hours per assessment gives 3 to
4 assessments per week (or 120 + per year) and allows time for training,
updating skills, admin etc.

An alternative view to the '60 a year is a sausage factory' is that if an
assessor only does a few assessments a year they do not maintain enough
experience etc. (not necessarily a view I agree with but I doubt if anyone
would argue that the more you do the more experience you gain).

On the other hand, there are many experienced assessors that might be happy
to cut back on their workload and perhaps do fewer but more complex
assessments - students with multiple disabilities or cases where previous
assessments have not been entirely successful (and this can be for many
reasons).

As for 'multi-disciplinary' approach. It has merits but I have met many
students who would be uncomfortable with more than one assessor in the room
or with 'serial assessments'.

In short, there are no definitive answers to these problems. I don't think
that the round table discussions took place in cloud cookoo land. There are
representatives from all the parties involved at the discussions and it is
not only the views of assessors taken into consideration. I can't say that I
am entirely happy with all the recommendations but I do feel that there has
been an attempt to create a system that better serves the interests of the
students. However, the guidelines are not going to be set in stone. The
Quality Assurance Group will apparently have a continuing remit to monitor
the system and recommend changes. An important end result should be that DfES
have more confidence in the system which may result in them being more more
willing to listen to suggestions for funding some of those areas such as the
inadequacy of the NMH for funding the full cost of Interpreters and note
takers for HI students.

Hope that allays a few concerns.

Mick Trott





In a message dated 25/04/03 15:44:48 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Simon,
 I've not been the quickest at catching on but did you say the new
 accreditation / licensing scheme criteria being introduced involves 40 / 60
 assessments to be undertaken each year? Is that for one assessor?? :-o If
 that's the case I just don't feel justice would be done for each student's
 particular needs - bearing in mind workloads and the varying specialist
 input required for different assessments. That approach would adopt the
 'sausage-machine' production line mentality serving only the interests of
 those that have already got themselves set up that way - rather than the
 student. I would definitely encourage the interdisciplinary approach. The
 notion of the 'generic assessor' must have been dreamt up in... I don't
 know but the words 'cloud' and 'cuckoo' come into mind!
 Rob

 At 02:19 PM 4/25/03 +0100, you wrote:
 >Wouldn't the key qualification required would depend upon the nature of
 >the need expressed / identified...so for instance a student with a
 >physical disability may need an assessor or assessors with experience in
 >assisting the student specify the need in terms of their physical
 >difficulty - such as an OT, physio and in some cases a SLT...in addition
 >an expertise in the applications of relevant technology such as
 >alternative keyboards, pointing devices, head mouse, switches and switch
 >access software etc etc etc would be needed - this is a unique person /
 >group of people - especially when you add in the need to identify,
 >specify requirements and identify appropriate support in an educational
 >context while maintaining and enhancing student participation in the
 >educational experience. I cant identify a course or courses available at
 >the prent time that would set somebody up with this range of skills but
 >I venture that among other a person with an OT / physio backgound would
 >at least be on the starting blocks in terms of facilitaing an effective
 >assessment process for a student with a physical disability.
 >
 >For HI I would have thought that a teacher of the deaf would be a good
 >starting point - or a person with experience of working in a hearing
 >impaire support service...
 >
 >For VI how about people with experience in a VI support service...once
 >upon a time the RNIB did a course (Diploma I think) in VI + ICT...
 >
 >The development of a "How to assess" diploma / certificate / masters etc
 >would be tricky but perhaps there is room for a set of competencies /
 >criteria against which people could be assessed themselves - more of an
 >evidence based system but written by leaders in each field...
 >
 >How does the notion of generic assessors fit in...which must be on the
 >cards with the Accreditation / Licensing scheme criteria being
 >introduced requiring what... 40 / 60 assessments to be undertaken each
 >yearand a model which doesn't seem to lend itself particularly well - or
 >certainly doesn't seem to acknowledge the need in some circumstances for
 >an interdisciplinary approach to the assessment process ie bringing
 >together a team of people offering different perpectives and expertise.
 >
 >The interdisciplinary approach is widely acknowledged as the most
 >effective approach to assessment for individuals with complex needs -
 >for persuasion do a websearch on
 >interdisciplinary+assessment+assistive+technology or see the
 >bibliography at http://www.ataccess.org/rresources/CARTbiblio.html ...
 >
 >
 >
 >Simon
 >
 >
 >
 >Simon Bloor
 >Access SUMMIT
 >St Peter's House
 >Precinct Centre
 >Oxford Road
 >Manchester >>