I did not receive a copy of Rob's reply and it was forwarded to me by another
member of QAG.
I probably did touch on a few things lightly but there is a lot to it all. It
seems that in trying to clarify things I may have confused some people
further.
However, I'm not the only person on QAG. I was invited to join as a
representative of independent (nonNFAC) assessors. There are reps from NFAC,
NADO, SKILL, LEAs and HEI on the group so I'll confine future responses to
any independent assessors who want to contact me off list for fear of
confusing others further. Perhaps a NADO or NFAC rep would like to take over
the baton?
Mick Trott
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rob Hayward
Sent: 28 April 2003 08:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New guidelines...
Mick,
Thank you for your generally addressed response. There are a few matters
which I feel you addressed and a few I feel you touched on perhaps too
'lightly'. I personally have been involved in HE support for 8 years in
various roles in various establishments and believe I have a clear
understanding of most of the issues (but won't pretend to know them all).
So I don't particularly consider myself here as 'out of depth'.
1) I stand corrected if your interpretation of 'generic' is that of
applying to assessors who have expertise in certain fields (so the 'cloud'
and the 'cuckoo' can be despatched with).
2) My concern about the 'sausage machine' production line is with reference
to those who carry out assessments as part of a much wider remit that may
include screenings, advice clinics, staff development, policy development,
liasing with staff, external agencies, etc.. I was concerned that the
40/60 quota would apply in these cases. At the same time I am well aware
that a full time assessor could do at least 120 per year and I wouldn't be
surprised if there are those that aim for the 200 mark.
3) Experience is an important consideration - but I would argue that an
assessor who has carried out, say, 15 assessments a year, who has addressed
the issues and has actually thought about articulating them (perhaps in
more accurate ways than those provided by template options), and who has
liaised with academic departments, Disability Advisers, etc - has the kind
of experience that is insightful and formative rather than template-editing
'fit-to-the-frame' experience that many with higher quotas would have to
resort to.
4) My reference to the inter-disciplinary (rather than multi-) approach
relates to those students with complex needs. I agree it's true that the
student is often not comfortable with more than one assessor but, overall,
I rather think that the reason this approach is not promoted is more down
to time and cost.
5) I agree that there are no definitive answers to these problems and
welcome attempts that have been made 'to create a system that better serves
the interests of the students' (for the 'student' body there is no doubt)
and that the guidelines won't necessarily be fixed and will be subject to
review.
However, I do have a concern about the new system being the old one with a
load of bolt-ons. I hope time and the positive experiences of students will
prove me wrong. I know the chances of root and branch change are zilch and
impractical in any case as there are too many established interests at
stake - honourable perhaps but 'assessment-industry'-driven also
(hopefully more the former).
I just hope that the Quality Assurance Group is not really about quantity
assurance (excuse the Q/Q clichi) and that the DfES?LEAs will have more
confidence in the system.
Finally, I know there are may be a number of people who consider themselves
to be 'in the know' in this field and that these people may have persuaded
others from the DfES through to the many newcomers over recent years that
this is the case. I don't necessarily doubt this wisdom, but I do feel the
more transparency there is the better - especially in the light of the
rapid expansion that has and is still taking place. Informed responses such
as yours are welcome and the idea of a website for quality assurance is
encouraging. Also useful is:
www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/uploads/DSAQA_terms_of_ref_web_version.doc
I would also hope that the guidelines regarding an assessor s suitability
apply also to members of groups such as QAG That is excluding those with
vested interests and tightening up potential for exploiting the scheme. As
long as we all follow these principles we have nothing to worry about. (see
Point 11, Minutes of meeting held on 11 November 2002 see
www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/uploads/DSA_minutes_11nov2002.doc)
Rob
|