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
|