Dear Colleagues
I have been reading the thread over the "10 hours study skills" support with great interest. It seems as though the current debate is around who should be recommending the hours over 10 if that is needed and that a clarity over who has responsibility/authority for these recommendations seems a principal stumbling block.
The original guidance released said ( page 12)
"SLC will accept recommendations of up to ten one hour sessions of individual non subject specific study skills support made in the DSA Need 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. Copies of each student's ILP should be filed by the service provider and will form the basis of any subsequent audit by DSA-QAG."
and also ( page 14)
"Student A requires an hour per week with a suitably qualified study skills provider who can assist with her development of a range of study skills strategies which will serve to empower her and assist her in becoming an independent learner. Her study skills award should take the form of an initial 10 sessions and this should incorporate the compilation of an Individual Learning Plan (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."
Elsewhere, I recall others had commented that needs assessors should only be recommending 10 hours, and that it was the support providers responsibility to request hours above this initial 10.
It is encouraging to hear that the SLC will accept recommendations of support above 10 hours from assessors ( as stated below), although this seems to be at odds with the initial guidance. As this area is of such vital importance, perhaps the SLC might be encouraged to review and clarify explicitly their guidelines for all key stakeholders in the process.
The current information seems to imply:
1) Assessors can make a case for more than 10 hours if they feel they have sufficient information and evidence, (but this would need to be backed at some stage with an ILP if more than 10 hours is to be delivered ?)
2) Assessors can make an initial recommendation for 10 hours and then study support providers can make further recommendations based on the ILP
The positioning and dissemination of an ILP in relation to option 1 above would seem to be of key importance.
regards
James Kirby
Loughborough University
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pauline Sumner
Sent: 31 October 2008 10:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 10 hour rule for dyslexic support
Yes Bryan you are right - when ADSHE met with Elaine Urquhart she stated
that more than 10
sessions can be recommended if a sound case can be made by the DSA
Assessor. However, it does not seem that this has been made clear to
Needs Assessors.
Pauline
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryan Jones
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 10 hour rule for dyslexic support
Not explicitly stated but perhaps not that hidden away in my previous
response was, why is anyone telling students they only have 10 sessions?
And making them fret that this is all that they will get. We as know
anxiety, when confronted by the prospect of undertaking a written
assignment, is a significant issue for those with SpLd, why add to that?
Needs assessment reports have always contained a number (that was in the
last email). I assume you haven't just been recommending specialist
study skills sessions for each week of the academic year and for the
full duration of the course for all the students you have been
assessing. Or when / if you have been recommending a specific figure or
time period informing the student that this may well be their lot, so
use it wisely. unless of course the Study Skills Tutor can make a case
for more. And I believe SLC have also stated that more than 10
sessions can be recommended if a sound case can be made by the DSA
Assessor.
Bryan Jones,
Manager, Disability Support Services
& North London Regional Access Centre,
Middlesex University
Tel: 020 8411 5366
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Kent
Sent: 31 October 2008 08:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 10 hour rule for dyslexic support
Bryan,
I understood John Conway's point to be that students were interpreting
the
phrasing of NARs which describe the SLC-10 as meaning that there was a
numerical limit on the number of sessions. The NAR is a means of
communicating assessment of need outcomes to the student through
writing,
a method of communication that some of them may find problematic for
disability-related reasons. With one main administrative body on the
horizon
there is opportunity to create some sort of standard wording or baseline
explanation in Plain English. Presumably this would be an issue to go to
SLC as
some form of feedback but in the meantime, there's a risk that students
aka
customers will be adversely affected.
To evidence need is a sound approach to practice and audit; if the SLC
want
to place a checkpoint in at 10 that's up to them. It has the advantage
of
providing a sense of equal treatment (whereas the current situation is,
as you
describe- centres and LAs having different methods of quantification).
However, whether 10 sessions (or less) is an appropriate estimate for
most
students seems to me to be irrelevant within the wider context of an
individual
needs assessment. Some students will require more (such is the effect of
individual difference on the formation of need). If one 'beyond 10
student'
gets the impression that they are limited to 10 and modifies their
behaviour
accordingly, then that is one too many students adversely affected by
the
wording of reports fashioned by admin change.
Amanda
|