John
If you are not happy with the report you must feed that back to the Centre Manager and then appropriate action should be taken. Would you consider feeding this information back to QAG members, who I understand are attending the NADO conference, as I am sure they would welcome this input.
Many thanks
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Conway
Sent: 04 June 2004 14:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Few Queries[Scanned]
Calm down guys - there is a very serious issue being discussed here which potentially affects MANY assessors. If only QAG could get a move on with some form of quality control it would help.
I'm sick of seeing reports that are obviously cut / pasted / amended form a standard form.
One higly personalised assessment referred to the student as "he / she" throughout the document.
Another simlpy listed loads of potential adjustments for blind, deaf, immobile and other people with disabilities withthe heading "the studnet should dicuss the revelance of these with the college disability adviser" - needless to say the studnet was dyslexic and clearly did not need a guide dog!!!! And how many REALLY have personalised equipment / software recommendations - when you compare subsequent assessments from the same centre????
I'm not an assessor, don't want to be [its too great a repsonsibility], but for £500 ???
Let's remember the DSA Needs Assessment either helps an individual student to realise the best access to higher education, or else condemns them [ or their didsability adviser] to endless correspondence to bring the support needed up to scratch.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Baxter, Chris
Sent: Fri 04/06/2004 14:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Few Queries[Scanned]
other assessment centres. Is what I said, not one. What EXACTLY are you calling a service?
Sorry folks if this is getting tedious but Terry and I don't seem to understand each other.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 June 2004 14:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Few Queries
Again Chris misinterprets what I have said, my comments are NOT focused on one centre they are of an ENTIRE SERVICE!
Terry Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Baxter, Chris
Sent: Fri 04/06/2004 10:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Few Queries
Dear Terry
Please do feel free to continue to make whatever observations you wish, as you say this is your experience and your observations. It was not my intention to try to silence you merely to point out that 'we are not all the same' on a list which includes a wide variety of readers. It is interesting to read of things happening in other assessment centres.
Best wishes
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 June 2004 22:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Few Queries
Dear Chris,
My argument is against people using the questionaire / report format as the absolute guide. If you read my comments I am saying that only by moving away from the prescriptive approach can you possibly be able to offer the level of assessment essential IF the assessor is going to be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the individual AND THEN be able to direct the selection and application of technology and training that will exploit the individuals strengths.
I stand by my claim that many assessors only seem to deal with identifying technology and implementing "strategy" that goes no further than saying - "use the recorder to record lectures", which is about as instructive as saying use your lungs to breath!
My so called sweeping statements are based on first hand observation, in addition to reviewing and correcting other assessors faulty assessments. This is particularly true in the more complex areas of Ergonomics but sadly the commonest area of our work represents the biggest area for concern (dyslexia) . Only by looking at the individual in great detail can you ever be confident that our efforts are properly focused and do not hide some factor that will create problems later. The conveyor belt approach that is all to common in hard pushed assessment centre's is hardly suprising given the pressure they are under!, this does not however, make it justifiable. My definition of conveyor belt is the short assessment 40 - 90 mins usually where the report is virtually writen during the assessment and most reports are a matter of cut and paste!. (devoid of personal observation and analysis)
For those that know me they will understand that my comments are intended to be creative. I have no interest in the petty politics of the situation, nor massaging ego's, my only interest is to try and offer the best possible service I can supporting the people that can (if they are supported properly) make a far bigger input into the daily life and running of this country and world than our efforts currently allow them to. My arrogence only stretches as far as being willing to pass on what experience I have to those that are prepared to listen. I do not pretend to be the fount of all wisdom, neither do I pretend to have all (or any) of the answers, all I ask is for the service to recognise that building a facility on a foundation that is faulty can only end up with one result. What I am suggesting is no more than those that we are supposed to support deserve and need, who's interest's are we serving by failing to recognise our own shortcomings and the shortcomings of the systems we employ?.
So far from taking your advice Chris I will continue to make what observations as I feel are reasonable and can be backed up by evidence. My attack is not of a personal nature, it is mearly trying to promote a fresh look at something I (and many others - including LEA's, suppliers, other assessors, and disability groups) feel very concerned about. If this service is to improve the whole process needs and deserves to be looked at again with fresh eyes and and open minds!.
Terry Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Baxter, Chris
Sent: Thu 03/06/2004 09:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Few Queries
Terry, please can we be assured that when you say things like:
The tendency with many assessors is to follow the routine of the
assessment as specified and indicated by the standard question / report
form - they afterall are the bible we are supposed to work from.
That you are speaking for yourself and your own practice, it certainly
isn't how we work, please don't make such sweeping statements based on
your own experience.
Whilst I might agree with much of what you say I don't recognise the
conveyor belt approach to assessment and neither would I want to see it
here.
Chris Baxter
0115 848 6163 voice and text
0115 848 4371 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/sss/disability/
This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private
or confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, you
must take no action on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to
this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this
email which do not relate to the business of Nottingham Trent University
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the university.
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Hart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 June 2004 15:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Few Queries
If what Becky suggested about the assessor identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of the student / applicant was done by the majority of
assessors then I think we would have a far better service than we do
now. The tendency with many assessors is to follow the routine of the
assessment as specified and indicated by the standard question / report
form - they afterall are the bible we are supposed to work from.
Unfortunately few if any questions, no matter how well put, do anything
to uncover the mental and physical processes the individual goes through
to perform a learning task. They all tend to address the problem from
the general teaching procedure sequence - attempting to identfy how the
individual performs against the norm.
As for the sequence of identification of disability the big area of
difficulty is for the Learning Difficulties type of disability and
primarilly Dyslexia amongst that group. Virtually all other disabilities
are identified and catagorised before assessment or even starting the
course. How easy would it be to establish a simple checking procedure
that identified someone as being in need of learning support which also
identified the broad outline of the nature of the difficulty also
identifying the technology to support the basic solutions.
Most of the important work in supporting the student with any form of
learning disability is not the technology but the strategy used to
supply that technology to best effect. To do that YOU MUST understand
how the individuals learning process functions - be aware of their
strengths and weaknesses before you can establish the full support
package. Part of this must be to identify if the individual has the
wrong learning strategy based on their specific strengths and
weaknesses. What is more important is to recognise that an individual
may not have the intellectual capacity to undertake the course!. I am
afraid we are all restricted by this premise that everyone has the right
to university education. This is as ridiculous as saying everyone has
the right to train to be a Judge or a Pilot or a Brain surgeon or a
Plumber - Perhaps i could pass down a rasonable judjment. Perhaps I
could Pilot a plane - Brain surgeon NO. Plumber No. - because I don't
have the physical skill/dexterity. Life is not fair and it is lunacy to
pretend it can be!.
As I said in my original rant nothing will change until we demonstrate
the confidence to completely re-appraise how and why we implement the
DSA funding. We must move away from this simplistic approach we have
that technology is the answer to all the problems. It is a tool - and
unless the manipulator of the tool firstly understands how they function
and how the technology supplied will aid them nothing will change. We
will continue to dish out costly solutions for an an ever shrinking
return. And before someone supplies stats to demonstrate I am wrong, I
would pooint out that the stats are all based on the premise that the
current process is correct. It does nothing to identify that there may
be a basic fault in the foundations of the service.
Sooner or later the matter will be taken out of our hands by the
politicians or even worse the accountants or civil service. Someone will
realise that there is little political benefit or kudos in maintaining
such a service and some form of imposed solution will be implemented -
Would it not be far better to have the wit and intellegence to recognise
that perhaps a complet re-apprasal is needed. Who knows someone with
more intelligence than me may say if I lead, I demonstrate the cost and
productive efficiency of an alternative procedure maybee I can
demonstrate the sanity of this thinking - the only problme with that is
that it will inevitably leave casualties - Those that wouldn't or
couldn't listen probably!.
I re-iterate - We must take a completely fresh look at the whole process
on the basic assumption that what we have now is not neccessarily the
starting point or the base from which to start and rebuild.
Terry Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support
staff. on behalf of Becky Campbell
Sent: Tue 01/06/2004 13:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Few Queries
Like Terry, I must say that my comments here represent only a
personal
view, and may not be shared by colleagues at Swansea, or the
Institution
itself.
In reply to Terry Hart...
I know I'm new to this assessing game, but I do have some
thoughts on your
comments.
In part, I agree with your views that the focus should go
beyond 'labelling' and look at an individual's strengths and
weaknesses.
However, the fact remains that, to unlock DSA funding, medical /
clinical
evidence of a disability or difficulty is needed. Whilst for a
person with
dyslexia, for instance, the label 'dyslexic' may serve only this
functional
purpose, it is nevertheless necessary as things stand at the
moment
(Another example of where a label is asked for is on the UCAS
form -
students are asked to slot themselves into a category, but this
doesn't
necessarily tell us anything about their individual needs and
experiences).
Surely the Assessment of Needs itself gives a chance to look in
depth at a
person's strengths and weaknesses, regardless of the 'title'
their
difficulties have been given? When assessing someone with a
particular
disability, I wouldn't just recommend a standard prescription of
assistive
technology, but would look in more detail at what equipment,
software, non-
medical support, etc. would help to bring the individual to a
'level
playing-field' with other students. The label of 'visually
impaired'
or 'dyslexic' would give some guidance as to where to begin with
regard to
software, etc., but what goes into the final report would be
more
individual in nature.
I await your comments (go easy on me please, remember I'm a
newbie! Also, I
say again, that these are my personal views, not those of the
Institution)...
|
