Jo,
I think I have assumed, like others, that ‘hourly rate’ refers to how much
it costs in total to provide one hour of contact time to the student. So I
am assuming that the ILP is part of every hour, not just the first 10. I
can see that the ILP admin and the associated records storage is an on-
cost. The audit process alluded to rather than described in any detail–
that might be something to ask the SLC or DSAQAG about and then you can
anticipate possible time/organisational factors?
Amanda
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:58:11 +0100, Jo Bourton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Amanda
>
>
>
>Thanks for your points Amanda and I agree we all need as complete a set of
information as possible and yes John I am thinking about the time involved
for the extra paperwork etc and I do think this is going to affect how
things are done quite considerably. As the FAQ's state that ILP's are good
practice and are being used by the majority of providers - as a general
query - are lots of study providers using ILP's already?
>
>With regard to when the ILP is completed, in the 'Completing SLC DSA...'
doc, Example 2 states:
>"Her study skills award should take the form of an initial 10 sessions and
this should incorporate the compilation of an ILP."
>"The ILP should include a comprehensive report on the study skills
undertaken, including timetables, goals achieved and any remaining need.
This will form the basis of any request for additional DSA funding for
further sessions."
>
>Maybe its my interpretation here but I still read that as part of the
initial 10 hours?
>
>I'm just trying to get my head round this and getting ready for students
starting back next week
>
>Jo
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Kent
>Sent: 12 September 2008 18:13
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ Possible SPAM ] Re: Y3 DSA Support refused
>
>John,
>Sure, I understand that and I agree it will be interesting to see what
happens.
>In my view, it is only fair for everyone to be working with as complete a
set of
>information as possible when thinking through these things and taking
>decisions. Ideally, none of the DSA admin changes and audit hoop-jumping
>should have a detrimental effect on the student's experience, or on the
>meeting of the student's disability-related needs. Those would be my
preferred
>baseline conditions - near-complete information for all players and no
student
>experiences a fall in provision. And then - let the game begin.
>What I am saying in reply to Jo is that the SLC documents do not suggest
>that the contact time with the student has to be reduced. It would be a
>business decision whether to go down that route - not something stipulated
>by the funding body or the audit trail.
>Amanda
>
>
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:14:56 +0100, John Conway
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I think people are wondering how to incorporate the extra paper work into
>their schedules, and if they are self-employed / freelance, who will pay
for the
>time. Also, for HEI employees, there will be a question at least of who
pays,
>whether the HEI absorbs the extra time needed, whether the individual
works
>extra hard, or if the HEI tries to recoup its cost [as it is mandated to
under
>FEC] from the DSA in some way. After all, the Assessment Centres charge
by
>the hour for their work.....
>>
>>no axe to grind - simply wondering like many others how this will shake
down.
>>
>>john
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
behalf
>of Amanda Kent
>>Sent: Fri 12/09/2008 16:58
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [ Possible SPAM ] Re: Y3 DSA Support refused
>>
>>
>>
>>Jo,
>>I cannot see anywhere in the 'Completing SLC DSA NARs' document on the
>>DSA QAG website, or in the FAQ on Study Skills issued today, the
suggestion
>>that contact time with the student is to be reduced in order to complete
the
>>required paperwork.
>>The student should surely receive the hour of support?- if it then costs
eg
>>another 15 mins per hour to prepare/administer the associated paperwork,
>>then that should be factored into your costs for service delivery. You
then
>>quote the rate for the job as £X per hour of contact time.
>>Your point 4 about the lines of responsibility is crucial and will
presumably
>>depend on the terms of the contract for services between the supplier and
>>the student.
>>Amanda
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:50:09 +0100, Jo Bourton <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I am really concerned about the impact the initial allocation of 10
hours is
>>going to have on a lot of people and personally as a study skills tutor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The SLC have said they will 'accept recommendations of up to ten one hour
>>sessions of individual no subject specific support made in the DSA Needs
>>Assessment report. Should the study skills support provider identify the
need
>>for support beyond this, SLC will require evidence in the form of the
student's
>>ILP.' - this is from the guidance for completing DSA SLC Assessment of
Needs
>>Reports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In terms of support for the students - part of the 10 hours is to be
used to
>>create the ILP and a 'comprehensive report' - this is then to be used
to 'form
>>the basis of any request for additional DSA funding for further sessions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So surely this is going to affect the students and the providers
severely as
>it
>>will take a great deal of time and administration:
>>>
>>>1 - time taken out of support to write a suitable ILP
>>>
>>>2 - time taken out of support to write a comprehensive report for future
>>support recommendations
>>>
>>>3 - time waiting for additional support to be awarded - pending
assessors,
>>LEA's, HEI's, SLC -
>>>
>>>4 - unclear procedures of who is doing what, how long it will take, does
>>support stop while waiting for confirmation that additional support has
been
>>agreed......
>>>
>>>5 - additional paperwork on top of usual for processing
NAR's/SA&SSR's
>for
>>LEA's and the SLC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So I do believe this is a serious matter and would welcome other people's
>>impressions of the 10 hour allocation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Jo Bourton
>>>
>>>Study skills tutor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde
>>>Sent: 12 September 2008 10:46
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: [ Possible SPAM ] Re: Y3 DSA Support refused
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"He is aghast at learning that his 1:1 support has been withdrawn on the
>>advice of a needs assessor who met him once and has not even consulted
>him
>>about this".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting. Do not take it too serious. It is Friday. Just to
summarise: 1.-
>>the University believes in the DOs' professional judgement that 1:1
tuition is
>>not only essential but fundamental to obtain parity of opportunity.
>>>
>>>2.- The student needs assessor, is not convinced, after having a chat
for 2
>>hours with the individual.
>>>
>>>3. The University has withdrawn the student 1:1 tuition in a huff because
>>the LEA is not providing with individual funding.
>>>
>>>4. The disabled student may or may not take the responsible party to
court.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Who is responsible here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In my view, primarily, the University. Under SENDA, HEIs are responsible
for
>>providing auxiliary aids and services, even if funding authorities donot
come to
>>their rescue, and no matter how addictive HEI has become to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And the LEI? They have the perfect excuse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The Assessor? Maybe, but only if the university wants to recover their
loses
>>and, I believe they have insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hope this helps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Best, Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>From: HYPERLINK "mailto:[log in to unmask]"Ros Lehany
>>>
>>>To: HYPERLINK "mailto:[log in to unmask]"DIS-
>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:30 AM
>>>
>>>Subject: Y3 DSA Support refused
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been asked by a colleague to post the following - please reply to
the
>list
>>>
>>>Can anyone help solve/give advice on this issue..
>>>
>>>A student's needs assessment initially allocated him 10 hours of 1:1
support
>>stating that if he needs additional support, "it needs to be requested in
>writing
>>by his dyslexia tutor." This was duly done and sent to the student's LEA
in
>>May. The LEA officer contacted the needs assessor and notified us. After
>>some delay, and hearing nothing, in July our administrator contacted the
LEA
>>and was told he hadn't heard form the needs assessor. We called and
emailed
>>the needs assessor, provided her with the requested dyslexia
tutor's 'report'
>>asking for additional hours for the student's final year. In the interim,
the
>>student had his
>>>
>>>1:1 support agreed by the assessor for his 2nd year post hoc, but she has
>>declined support for his last year.
>>>
>>>The LEA officer has stated that he will only follow the needs assessor's
>>recommendation. She has only agreed for funding (initial and additional)
for
>his
>>past support stating that "(the student's name)has already received 22
>hours
>>of support and one would expect suitable compensatory strategies to be in
>>place by now. He should not need on going support. (the student) has
>>access to mind mapping software for essay planning and text to speech
>>software for proofreading. This should allow him to work independently."
>>>
>>>We know this student well and it is our professional belief that he will
not be
>>able to complete his course without on-going 1:1 support. He already has
>had
>>to withdraw during his second year due to pressures of his work and has
>>successfuly rejoined his course. He is aghast at learning that his 1:1
support
>>has been withdrawn on the advice of a needs assessor who met him once and
>>has not even consulted him about this.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Ros
>>>
>>>Ros Lehany
>>>Chair- Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education
>>>Tel 0113 2193038
>>>Email [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG.
>>>Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1667 - Release Date:
>>11/09/2008 18:55
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>Checked by AVG.
>>>Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1667 - Release Date:
>>11/09/2008 18:55
>>>
>>>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date:
14/09/2008 07:16
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date:
14/09/2008 07:16
>
|
