I'd go as far to argue that anyone who describes specialist non-subject
based dyslexia support as 'study skills support' really isn't in a position
to advise or assess students or administer DSA on behalf of the government,
as it suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the specialist nature
of this support and why it might be required.
Most universities provide 'study skills' support for all students
irrespective of disability, either in a group or one-to-one basis, but there
is no requirements for tutors delivering these sessions to have an
understanding of specific learning difficulties or training in delivering
specialist support aimed at helping the student address the specific effects
of these disabilities on participation in their chosen course. Personally,
if I was a fully trained, qualified specialist dyslexia tutor I'd be
offended if I was referred to as a 'study skills' support tutor. It's like a
university calling the job of disability adviser "that nice person we send
students to that we can't figure out how to help".
Given there's no statutory requirement for arbitrary limits to be placed on
DSA funding for students with a disability that don't apply to students
requiring other forms of support or don't have that disability, and DDA
prohibits organisations from treating people with a disability less
favourably than people without that particular disability e.g. by applying
additional criteria to a funding application (such as requiring provision of
an 'ILP') *without justification*, and there's been no justification or
explanation provided on the 'criteria' that will be used by funding bodies
when assessing claims for more than 10 sessions, I think assessors should
make a note of this guidance in their report but disregard it when making
their recommendations.
I think assessors who simply abide by the 10 sessions rule without providing
justification in their report risk being held personally liable for any
problems the student might experience as a result of this arbitrary and
potentially illegal restriction to funding. Assessors should make informed
judgments and reasonable arguments in their reports about the number of
specialist support sessions, so if this recommendation is ignored by the
funding authority and the student encounters problems as a result that ends
up in legal action, as I suspect this will inevitably lead to, the funding
body (and whoever advised them) will be liable rather than the assessor.
Ian Francis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: 10 hour rule for dyslexic support
Speaking as one who is well qualified in the field of education and SpLD I
am getting a bit disgruntled at being constantly referred to by most
assessors as a Study Skills Tutor. Study Skills Tutors are non-specialists
who deal with students who have no specific difficulty. We are experts at
mentoring students on the autistic spectrum, therefore it is courtesy to
call us Dyslexia Tutors or Specialist Study Tutors.
Malcolm Brown
Dyslexia Tutor
________________________________
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
behalf of Amanda Kent
Sent: Sat 01/11/2008 13:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 10 hour rule for dyslexic support
f th
Something like this? :
Non-subject specific study skills support
Suggested topics for inclusion in study skills support sessions:
(List as appropriate to student, as evidenced in Sections A and B. This is
where the assessor has opportunity to identify the reasons for more than 10
initially).
Recommended level of support: (INSERT HOURS RECOMMENDED).
Notes about this support:
This support is in addition to any study skills advice available to all
students
on the course.
STUDENT is advised to contact (INSERT RELEVANT CONTACT FROM p 2 of
NAR). Alternatively, this support can be arranged through (INSERT THE
CHOICE-FACTOR).
The support should be provided on a one-to-one basis.
STUDENT will be asked to sign a time-sheet to confirm support has been
provided.
The support should include the production of an Individual Learning Plan
(ILP)
compiled by the study skills tutor in consultation with STUDENT. The ILP
should include a report on the study skills undertaken, including
timetables,
goals achieved and any remaining need beyond.
Either:
The DSA funding body (INSERT NAME) may request a copy of the ILP as
evidence of continuing need for support beyond (INSERT HOURS
RECOMMENDED).
Or:
The Student Loans Company (SLC) will require a copy of the ILP as evidence
of continuing need for support beyond an initial 10 sessions.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:44:44 -0000, John Conway
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>PRECISELY MY POINT - Assessors are writing this into their reports!
>
>PLEASE find some wording that does not stop the students from coming
>forward to us! Several people spoke up about this at the SW Forum
>meeting in Bournemouth.
>
>Of course, it would help if we all had a clearer idea of who can
>recommend more - and on what grounds. We read variously that it is the
>Assessor or the Tutor - that it has to be countersigned by the
>Disability Officer or the Assessor. WHO??? I would ask why it has to go
>back to the assessor if the assessor can't recommend it in the first
>place.
>
>Still - why should I worry - less work for us if students are frightened
>off. Maybe I've seen the real plot?
>
>John
>
>
>-----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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1763 - Release Date: 02/11/2008
19:08
|