Karen and John seem to share a misconception: I see no reason why students
should get only one shot at an assessment or making a claim against the DSA.
The award runs for the students' course. If a new product appears, if
students' conditions or courses changes or if there were errors or
oversights in the initial assessment, amendments and additions can be
considered. DSA assessments really aren't brain surgery: if a mistake has
been made, it can always be rectified later(particularly if the students
played no part in the making of the error). It is wasteful and inefficient
to make mistakes, but it is not a matter of life and death and there is no
need for hysterical denunciations of a whole profession, all the members of
which will sometimes perform at less than perfection.
In the same vain, I believe that the temptation to view assessors as
quasi-medical professionals should be resisted: we work in higher education,
not the Health Service or Social Services, and our goal is to assist
students complete their studies to the best of their abilities. While this
may coincide with the kind of generalised holistic concern for students'
well being that has characterised some recent descriptions of the assessor's
role, it is specifically not the intended purpose of DSA expenditure. The
recent references to an ever-expanding range of stakeholders perhaps
obscures the fact that the putative £500 comes from the DSA and the primary
purpose of the assessment is to identify legitimate course expenditure faced
by students as a result of disability, a finite and achievable goal.
Regards, Bernard
Bernard Doherty
Assessor
East Anglia Regional ACCESS Centre
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge CB1 1PT
01223 363271 x2534
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Farmer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: Few Queries[Scanned]
Dear all,
While it has really been very entertaining at times, and quite enlightening,
watching this debate ranging back and forth, I felt that someone really
ought to drop in at least a few interruptions from the assessor's side ...
But first, a question - do any assessors get paid £500 for "less than a
couple of hours work"?
(If someone out there is paying that rate, please feel free to get in touch
with me off-list, I could become available immediately (joking ;) )
As far as I know the fee for the assessment goes to the Assessment Centre to
cover their administration costs, investment in equipment, etc. The assessor
gets a percentage of the total fee for the assessment, but (usually) only
when the completed (and thoroughly checked) report has been delivered to the
Centre Admin team for one final vetting before it is printed and sent out to
the student.
As for some assessors being able to cobble together the student's report
during the "40-90 minute" run through on their 'conveyor belt'... Based on
the figures for the past two years I have worked out that it takes me (on
average) between six and eight hours to generate a completed report,
factoring in the actual face-to-face with the student, liaison with the
relevant Disability Officers, study of the supplied medical evidence,
proofing the damn thing before I email it in, etc, etc. Maybe I'm working
too hard?
Humour aside, I would certainly not be satisfied with handing in any report
that was not the best that I could do, and I find myself agreeing with John
Conway when he points out that the student only has that single opportunity
to experience the assessment process, and that it is therefore up to all of
us to ensure that everything is done properly the first time.
(So could the Disability Officer who is telling the September intake to come
and see an Assessor as soon as possible - you know who you are - please also
take the time to explain to the student that they need to have actually
applied for the DSA, as well as having received approval from their funding
body, BEFORE they try and book the assessment? I don't expect the students
to automatically know about this - but you should! Don't laugh - this
happened to me only last week - and I wouldn't have been quite so annoyed
if it had been the first incidence )
Also - if we are going to criticise 'cut and paste' methods, then there are
a few Educational (Chartered or whatever) Psychologists out there whose ears
should be singeing about now. I lose count of the number of reports where
the gaps (caused by not removing unnecessary spaces after pasting) are so
obvious that they affect the layout of the line, not to mention the times
where the student's name changes from one paragraph to the next, even some
where the poor student has obviously undergone a complete gender
transformation in the middle of the assessment if the rest of the report is
to be believed. Pick certain Psychological Assessments and read out
particular parts and I could not only name the author, I could make a
reasonable stab at the contents of the next paragraph!
But in case anyone thinks me a Luddite, I freely admit to making use of the
advantages of word-processing, certain parts of each report were made to be
automated - after all who wants to type out the addresses and contact
details of the student's particular Local Education Authority fresh for each
report? And I draw a line at typing in the address of the university by hand
each time. As my dear old Dad used to say - there's no point in cutting off
your nose to spite your face ...
My personal feeling is that you have to be rather dedicated to be an
assessor (or perhaps a little mad?) - especially if you aren't salaried (as
many of us aren't), and while it would be nice to think that we obligingly
make ourselves available to undertake a few bookings a week, rush the
student in and out of the room as soon as possible (or are we getting
confused with Doctors?) then sit down somewhere and slap in a few cut and
pasted phrases, and finally lounge back in our easy chairs reading the
latest 'debate' raging across JISCMAIL until the pay checks thunder in
through the letterbox. Reality is rather different.
Like most of you - I have a life. I admit it's not much of a one at times -
especially when I have put in a 52 hour week to make sure that none of 'my'
students has to wait long for their report. Weekends? What are those? Ah
yes, the two days a week when I only receive email from my friends and
family... But I digress...
Apart from a life I also have two teenagers and a mortgage, and it is a sad
fact that even though my opportunity to earn tends to dry up during the
summer, my bills do not shrink correspondingly. So while it may appear
greedy, I know that I have to put in for as many bookings as I can
reasonably handle while the work is coming in, in order to tide us over the
'quiet period' between the beginning of May and the end of July.
Normally I aim to have six booking slots per week during the winter, as come
the summer it will be a miracle if the office can get me three bookings per
week. That is bookings, mind you, and not the actual assessment. You soon
learn that nothing is certain until you actually get the report completed,
but for those of you who are starting to yawn at the back, let's leave that
for another time...
I expect many of the other assessors out there will be all-too familiar with
a scenario in which they don't find out until the afternoon before, whether
they will be working the next day. Perhaps not such a problem for those
people who are salaried and being paid to go in to the office and sit behind
a desk regardless? Maybe they might be pleased to have a couple of
unexpectedly empty hours to catch up with some other work? For those of us
who get paid by the report, empty time isn't at all funny, not when it
wasn't supposed to be empty. Because, let's face it, of those students who
book appointments, not all will actually attend - whatever their reason, and
without intending to be mercenary or ungrateful, while a cancellation fee
helps to cover the expenses, it is only a quarter of what I would earn if I
had actually been able to conduct the assessment.
I have had one particularly dire week when I was booked to see three
students on one day, with none for the next day at all, arrived to find that
the first was going to be unavoidably late, the second had already cancelled
(and obviously couldn't be replaced at such short notice), and the third
didn't have half of the paperwork, despite having been reminded repeatedly
to fetch all the necessary documentation along with them. Of course our
Admin staff advise what will be needed while the student is making the
initial booking, we write it out carefully in the paperwork that we send
them, and I go through it all again when I ring them night before to confirm
the appointment, but it still happens (or doesn't).
Then there are the follow-ups (all factored into the single fee for the
report - along with holiday pay, wear and tear on equipment, personal
development, travel expenses, etc.) On second thoughts we really don't want
to go there... at least I don't...
Well. it's late and I'm knackered, but hopefully this small rant will have
gone some way toward balancing the rather lopsided picture of assessing
which seemed to be in danger of emerging from the other side of the screen.
Okay - the usual end blurb - personal opinions, not that of the place I
work, blah, blah...
Regards
Karen Farmer
(Assessor - in case you hadn't guessed by now)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Conway" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Few Queries[Scanned]
> To James and Chris,
>
> I realise that assessors, like the rest of us, may make mistakes,
especially under time pressure, so I have never revealed the name of
assessor nor centre when I make comments like these, and obviously I am
referring to the bad examples without castigating all assessors. To put
Chris out of any misery I can honestly state that I have no complaints about
his centre and in truth the majority of reports are of reasonable standard.
>
> However, as someone pointed out recently at a meetng, the indivudal
student only gets one shot at university and cannot be expected to accept
that he / she is the unlucky one. And, as many students point out - £500
for less than a couple of hours' work [bear in mind they only see the
contact time] - they'd all lvoe to be assessors at that rate of pay.
Another comment made today at a local meeting - £500 for a postgraduate
assessment is 10% of the total DSA funding available - is that fair for a
cut and paste assessment???
>
> James, yes, I can come armed with examples suitably anonymised to protect
assessor, centre and student, to the NADO conference
>
> But surely, assuming some internal quality control exists voluntarily,
will the centre manager not have approved any report sent out in their name?
>
> John Conway
> Royal Agricultural College
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
behalf of James Palfreman-Kay
> Sent: Fri 04/06/2004 14:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Few Queries[Scanned]
>
>
>
> 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)...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
