In my experience the cost of non medical tends to be around the same
price as that of the technology recommended. The difference is that the
Non medical is for each year of the students course the technology a
one
off, therefore demonstrating that the allowances are not as stated by
Terry favouring the technology.
However I do concede a difficulty here in that students tend not to take up
their support so readily in their second and third years but do come back
near the end for help with final essays etc. If the job is to be done
correctly then the support should ease off gently during the students
progress through the degree. This I feel is something that the support
services within the institution should tackle.
Ian
Quoting Terry Hart <[log in to unmask]>:
> Despite what Ian may say I still believe that the relience on technology
is
> the major factor here. The introduction of the non medical helpers
allowance
> was primarilly aimed at those with a disability that required an
assistant to
> help cope with day to day matters. I am sure if the average cost of the
> system supplied to a student with dyslexia was compared between the
dates of
> say 1998 and today the cost of supply will be ssen to be higher even
though
> the price of technology has dropped. >From my own experience I have
seen
> individuals with relitively mild levels of dyslexia equiped with technology
> that actually gives them an advantage over their colleagues and the
supplying
> assessors glowing in the misconception of a job well done.
> I see little point in repeating this same argument, my views are well
known,
> if the QAG has actually reviewed it's standards so that the abilities and
> strengths of the individual is taken into account then this is to be
> applauded but until that message gets through to the students, their
families
> and the assessors then little is likely to change.
>
--
Ian Webb
Disability Adviser
MNADO
"We lack wings to fly, but we always have strength enough to fall"
Paul Claudel
|