Neither the thinking behind the ten-hour rule nor the process by which
additional hours are secured have been clarified. It smacks of policy made
on the hoof by people with a less-than-perfect understanding of the
complexities of dyslexia support in the HE context and questionable sympathy
with the government's fundamental objective of widening participation. One
suspects that the "rule" emerged as a rather crude device for safeguarding
public funds. In fact, any savings will be imperceptible in DSA budget terms
while the potential downside, if students do end up disadvantaged, will be
an increase in the drop-out rate.
The discussion - rightly in my view - is now turning to means of a) ensuring
that vulnerable students are not disadvantaged by this rule and b)
increasing the number of hours and/or circumventing any implied restriction
of provision. If these aims are successful, the ten-hour rule will quickly
become ineffectual - an outcome that many of us would consider desirable.
We continue to believe that assessors - working within established DIUS-DSA
guidelines - are best placed to estimate individual student support
requirements and, at appropriate intervals, to review provision levels.
In stipulating a ten-hour limitation, the SLC has stepped out of its
competence level. We should, perhaps, try to confirm the rule's underlying
purpose and then help the SLC to work out an alternative means of achieving
the end they are seeking.
|