Hello Penny. I can see you point. Ta. The angle  the emphasise on the
medical understanding of disabilities is that support services are
considered as 'central services' rather than  something that needs (nearly
said should) to be pervasive, embedded on the organisations interpersonal
relations. Best, Andy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Penny Georgiou" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs


> Dear Andy,
>
> My point was the Universities who do not provide support services for
their students are not exonerated from the problems involved in delivering
services, including as someone has just said, the accusation of 'ripping
off'.
>
> Regards
>
> Penny
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
behalf of A Velarde
> Sent: Thu 08/06/2006 15:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
>
>
>
> Hello Penny. I do not quite understand your point, but as I have still my
> cuppa would like to comment. I may be wrong.
>
> In the parable of talents, if I remember well, god gave unequal resources
to
> reasonably equal individuals. The only asymmetric power exited between him
> and humans (all males, that was possible the second asymmetry). Therefore
> doing nothing could be judged as immoral, quite rightly.
>
> That world doesn't exit though. In the world of humans morality is a
> political battle, because there are existing asymmetries (inequalities
> between genders, abilities, , class, social and symbolic capital etc, etc)
> that are created or/and reproduced by humans. Therefore you need to take
> into account that when we are born social resources are already been given
> in an unequal manner but not by god, buy by other humans. Of course this
> applies to disabilities too, if one believes in the social model.
>
> So when government provides approx 20-25 million pounds annually for the
> support of disabled student which is diverted to private companies rather
> than institution that require mechanism for change, one needs to ask a
> strait question: Is this the best for disabled people? In my observation,
> the current system operates to  perpetuate a medicalised approach of
> disabilities ('I.e. you are dyslexic, here is you pc and off you go.
Problem
> sorted) and an  identity for which the disabled person has to be
humiliated
> first to access his/her label before receives support.
>
> In social terms, this system is called of surveillance and disciplinary
> power over the 'other' (Foucault). Good busyness though. Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Penny Georgiou" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
>
>
> > In the parable of the talents, which is one of my favourite bible
> > stories, moral purity does not lie with those who do nothing.
> > Universities are necessarily best placed to provide services to students
> > with disabilities: Education support workers, specialist learning
> > support, Assistive Technology training, Mentoring etc and so be the ones
> > to charge these to the DSA. Many of these services would not be
> > commercially or logistically viable for those working outside the
> > institution to run, so it is dangerous and absurd to attack that
> > principle.
> >
> > One occassionally hears from LEA officers of some practices that seem
> > difficult to justify, even from an institutional perspective. This
> > inevitably triggers drives in some quarters to scrutinise and curtail
> > all activities. Is there anything that can be done about that, rather
> > than making it difficult for all institutions to administer the deliver
> > of support services.
> >
> > It is not inappropriate for there to be an annual review of specialist
> > learning support, where the student does continue to take it up. Since,
> > needs assessors and assessment centres are not always the font of
> > knowledge, sainthood and efficiency, I am not sure that it is a good
> > idea for these items to wait upon them indiscriminantly. In this
> > instance, I think that the DO or study skills tutor should be the one's
> > to make the recommendation. However, it should be understood that if an
> > LEA officer feels that further justification is required in a particular
> > case, then the specific instance can be referred to the Assessment
> > Centre.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claire Wickham, Centre
> > for Access and Communication Studies
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:38 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> >
> >
> > Well said Andy: thank you for reminding us all of the bigger picture and
> >
> > underlying principles,
> >
> > CLaire
> >
> > --On 08 June 2006 14:09 񩀔 A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. I just would like to place a thought, in the most
> > > speculative tradition. Yeah, lets take a cupa. The separation between
> > > assessment of individual needs (DSA assessment) vs assessment of
> > > barries (DO's job) may be theoretically possible but not realistic or
> > > practicle. DOs  do not conduct social model assessments (althoug some
> > > Universities believe they do so, they may be right) but duplicate
> > > individual assessments becuase their institutions send them clear
> > > signals that rather than being actors of organisational change they
> > > should keep to medicalise the condition of the disabled individual not
> >
> > > the disabled institution. Assessment of individual needs have been
> > > instrumental for the privatisation of an LEA function, and it is
> > > working reasonably well. At least  this appears to be the case if one
> > > counts how many companies have been established to support the
> > > disadvantaged. What appears that is not working is the Do's role
> > > applicable to Universities. This is a clear example of how government
> > > funding is being diverted to the private sector instead of supporting
> > > a social model.  Dos are not only underpaid (having to deal with
> > > 300-400 files per month, managing support workers, etc) but are a
> > > burger in the sandwish. It would change a bit if  HEFCE helps the Do's
> >
> > > function and support  their plea to updated their 1999 guidance (Base
> > > level
> > > provisions...) A clarification of their role/work load (post senda,
> > > postDES) would solve all these problems. This is something that if
> > HEFCE
> > > does not commit themself in doing this, noone would do. Unless of
> > course
> > > NADO wakes up.  Maybe one day.  Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "LINDA WALKER" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: One to one tuition and LEAs
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All
> > >
> > > Page 9 of the new (06/07) Bridging the Gap specifies "Your disability
> > > advisor should not carry out your DSA-needs assessment."
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Linda
> > >
> > > Linda Walker
> > > Blackpool & The Fylde College
> > > HE Support Co-ordinator
> > > Tel: 01253 504357
> > > minicom: 01253 355755
> > >
> > >>>> [log in to unmask] 06/08/06 11:25 am >>>
> > > Dear All
> > >
> > > This question has not gone away. Having talked to an LEA this morning,
> >
> > > they are intending to bring in a policy for 1:1 tuition based on a
> > > gospel truth attititude to the example of 23 hours quoted in Claire
> > > Jamieson's report.
> > >
> > > Despite the DfES assurance that recommendations will still be based on
> >
> > > student need, we need to be more pro-active about this now or the
> > > implications for the next academic year are not pleasant.
> > >
> > > Is anyone actually doing anything about this with the powers that be??
> > >
> > > Also, the LEA refuses to take Disability Officers recommendations and
> > > insists on going back to an Access Centre for even very small changes
> > > to recommendations - apparently DSOs are considered to have an
> > > interest if they are arranging a student's support. This is despite
> > > the DfES guidance to the contrary. Any comments?
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > Liz Thompson
> > > Learning Support Officer
> > >
> > > Student Services
> > > University of Brighton
> > > Room 2, Manor House
> > > Moulsecoomb Place
> > > Brighton BN2 4GA
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Claire Wickham,
> > Director: Centre for Access and Communication Studies University of
> > Bristol Union Building Queen's Road Clifton Bristol BS8 1LN
> >
> > Tel: 0117 954 5710/5705
> > Textphone: 0117 954 5715
> > Fax: 0117 954 5714
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
>
>
>