surely all approve suppliers should have a simple online quoting system and be expected to supply the majority of the usual items?
 
Dr John S Conway BSc PhD FGS FRGS FHEA MNADP
Director, MSc International Rural Development
Director, BSc Countryside Management
Chair, Research Committee
Principal Lecturer : Soil Science
Disability Officer
Royal Agricultural college, Cirencester, Glos GL7 6JS 
01285 652531 fax 01285 650219 
http://www.rac.ac.uk/?_id=590 <http://www.rac.ac.uk/?_id=590>  

________________________________

From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Martin Ladbury
Sent: Tue 14/10/2008 16:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SLC Three quotes



One reason I have objected to the three quotations stricture is that it will mean I spend a good deal of time on suppliers' websites which would be better spent assessing students, ensuring that I do my best for more complex cases, or dealing with queries and supplementary recommendations. Even producing quotations for dyslexic students becomes very time consuming when, for example, one supplier lists a particular item or piece of equipment which others do not. 

 

To illustrate, I use a supplier who can provide overlays as well as computer equipment, but don't know of two others who do so, which means I need to produce two separate quotations from that supplier. There is variation in the type of CD-Rom dictionaries, PDAs, and other peripherals, between suppliers, and choice of these can be important. Course specific software is another area of variation (particularly with regard licences). And, of course, variations increase as soon as you move away from "straightforward" dyslexia assessments. Each variation could result in the need for additional quotations. 

 

No doubt, the SLC would not insist on multiple quotations if there is only one supplier who can provide the equipment, but I am not confident that this would be the case when there are minor (financially) but important (in terms of assistance) variations such as those mentioned. In any case, I don't particularly want to waste time repeatedly justifying using just one supplier in an assessment report in which I'd rather be writing about assistive strategies.

 

I wouldn't say I was upset about it, though. 

 

Yours,

Martin

 

DSA Assessor

University of Plymouth

 

From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Jarvis
Sent: 14 October 2008 11:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SLC Three quotes

 

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the three quotes requirement applies to equipment and taxi fares only, at the moment at any rate. As far as I know the new Quality Assurance Framework document by which Assessment Centres are audited has still to be finalised and sent out from DSA-QAG. 

I agree that trying to find three distinct quotes for human support seems unnecessary and in some cases impossible, but can't see why people are so upset about having to produce three equipment quotes. 

Simon

BERNARD DOHERTY wrote: 

The original post to which Ian refers pointed out that three quotes are required for every element of the recommendations, including non-medical helpers spending.  This idea seems to have been accepted because London HEIs use agencies for virtually everything.  I suspect few other universities around the country will be prepared to tolerate granting access to others in this way, especially when they're in competition with their own in-house service.

 

I discussed this matter with a disability officer, who noted that he worked for an autonomous university, not the SLC or QAG.  He was confident that any external attempt to micromanage or dicatate University disability policy would result in many complaints to the DIUS.  While assessors seem helpless in the face of this unwanted juggernaut, the reality is that no outside body has power over a university. I hope that if the SLC witholds funding for lack of compliance with their arbitrary rules, they are sued repeatedly for acting in a discriminatory manner.  

 

Assessors are asked to find cost-effective solutions to student problems.  What possible advantage is it to anyone to oblige them to also find the next two less optimal solutions?

 

Regards, Bernard

 

Bernard Doherty

Assessor

Cambridge Access Centre


--- On Tue, 14/10/08, Simon Jarvis <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

	From: Simon Jarvis <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
	Subject: Re: SLC Three quotes
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Date: Tuesday, 14 October, 2008, 9:58 AM

	Regardless of the poor spelling / typing, the message that the SLC want 
	three equipment quotes in assessment reports seems quite clear.
	 
	Ian, why do you think this has dire consequences for disabled students? 
	The three quotes will all have to be from audited suppliers on the 
	Service Level Agreement list, so surely the service shouldn't be
	'dire', 
	at least it shouldn't if the audit(or) has sufficient bite.
	 
	Simon
	 
	Ian F. wrote:
	> Just to make sure everyone is aware of the changes to the 
	> administration of DSA that are being implemented by SLC, a recent 
	> email sent by a colleague asking for clarification resulted in the 
	> following response "in accordance wight eh guidelines set by
	ourselves 
	> and QAG we require three quotes to be provided with the NAR."
	> 
	> I think this means: "In accordance with the guidance set by ourselves
	 
	> and QAG we require three quotes to be provided with the DSA Study 
	> Aids/Strategies Assessment Report".
	> 
	> I feel we've sleepwalked into this situation and it could have dire 
	> consequences for disabled students. What do others think?
	> 
	> Ian Francis
	 
	 
	-- 
	Simon Jarvis
	Head of Disability and Dyslexia Service
	Queen Mary University of London
	Tel: 020 7882 2765
	          

 






-- 
Simon Jarvis
Head of Disability and Dyslexia Service
Queen Mary University of London
Tel: 020 7882 2765