Forgive me if I'm out of date - this NMH business is moving so fast -
but I thought there already was a requirement [or at least a strong
presumption] that all dyslexia skills support had to be delivered by a
qualified dyslexia specialist? I hear rumours from time to time of any
postgrad doing it, but surely that can and should be stopped. I suppose
a register of some kind may become essential if HEIs and private
companies do not themselves specify qualified staff? One tends to
think of trust being important here, but trust is not enforceable nor
auditable?
I guess I'm thinking aloud that a sense of distrust has created a
situation where qualifications must be evidenced by either a register or
membership of a body [e.g. PATOSS / ADSHE ???] though are either truly
'professional bodies which require qualifications for membership'.
Perhaps tutors should be registered with SFE as suppliers?
I doubt I'm helping with this, but I'm trying to clear my thoughts at
least????
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Kent
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quotes for support tutoring
I agree that an SLA would help to establish some sense of reliance. It
would
clarify expectations. Before establishing a general baseline or SLA
there would
have to be either a survey of the existing models of supply and/or an
open
invitation for proposals which assumed a variety of possible models. The
mixed
economy already exists and is not going to remain static, so any SLA(s)
would
have to encompass existing good practice as well as acknowledging people
signalling an intention to deliver. Scoping activity would provide more
of a
sense of transparency.
As far as I am aware it is the SLC who are requesting two quotations for
NMH.
The other funding bodies have not signalled this intent. So that
suggests
there should be some inter-funding body discussion about why some DSA
students are apparently to be offered more choice-related information
than
others.
If the funding bodies look for best value then SLA could be a way of
demonstrating value, in which case Ginny's point about whether an
outcomes
based approach is an appropriate measure would need some attention. What
would the alternative be? Task based?
On the other hand, one generic SLA might reduce the sense of
differentiation
between suppliers and we would end up with a focus on price comparison
(not
comparison of value).
There is no one right solution. In my view, moves to increase the amount
of
credible information available about the different ways in which supply
of NMH
demonstrates that it meets student's identified needs (within the
parameters
of DSA) will increase trust. I think these moves can be initiated within
the
disability support sector - they may take the form of small, local
actions
because there is a great deal of local variation (which can be seen as
adaptation).
DSA is an economy and we use words, not numbers or pictures to describe
it.
The public/private dualism is language that is semi-familiar and it gets
used
because it is known. Respectful discussion between all parties operating
I the
sector should assist with some vocabulary extension,
Amanda
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:01:46 +0100, Anthony Healy
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Absolutely Amanda. Co-operation and communication between players
should
be entirely possible. This is not as simplistic as public (good) v
private (bad),
as has been suggested. As a private company we fill a need. Where there
is
none, we don't try to fill it!
>
>Trust is, as you say, paramount. Perhaps if there were an agreed set of
student-centric baseline standards for NMH - an SLA of sorts - then
trust
could be developed.
>
>If there were, then some companies wouldn't be able to charge expensive
admin costs, and HEI's would pass on details of other providers rather
than
leave students without support for two years.
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
behalf
of Amanda Kent
>Sent: Tue 6/2/2009 8:14 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: quotes for support tutoring
>
>Anthony H is correct, it is not a zero-sum game (the two quotations
only
>makes it look that way). Non zero sum is non-strictly competitive,
therefore
>communication and co-operation between players is the best strategy for
all
>in the game. In the case of NMH supply, the methods of communication
>appear rudimentary and information is incomplete but cooperation
between
>players should in theory be possible. Trust is a key issue here,
>Amanda
>
>
>
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:29:26 +0100, Anthony Healy
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Dear Penny
>>
>>Couldn't agree more. This is not rocket science, but the fact that the
big
>mover in
>>question can seemingly justify these expensive arrangements with
relative
>impunity is
>>testament to the lack of "joined-up" thinking.
>>
>>A central register of 'non-medical helpers' as discussed by Ros with
the
SLC,
>and a
>>website where practitioners can list their credentials is a good
start.
Though
>I suspect
>>that until the much-awaited SLA for the NMH sector is hammered out,
these
>loopholes will
>>continue to be exploited.
>>
>>Suffice to say, that there are private companies (e.g. Clear Links,
Claro
>Learning) - who
>>do not charge an upfront fee, and who consider the initial risk
assessment
as
>an on- cost
>>of providing the service.
>>
>>Naturally, we would agree with Amanda that had the student been
provided
>with an
>>alternative to an HEI, a referral at an earlier stage would have been
>facilitated. But this is
>>not a zero-sum game. Choice - even from the "dreaded" private sector -
is
>not
>>detrimental to the service provided by HEI's, but complimentary. The
key is
>to keep the
>>student, and the tax payer for that matter, as the central point of
focus.
>>
>>Anthony Healy
>>Director, Development
>>Claro Learning
>>www.clarolearning.com
>>
>>
>
>
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipients. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and unlawful. The recipient acknowledges that the Royal Agricultural College cannot control the content of information received in transmissions made via the Internet.
Royal Agricultural College (Registered in England No: 99168) & Royal Agricultural College Enterprises Ltd (Registered in England No: 2752048) are the trading names of the Royal Agricultural College
Registered Office: Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6JS
|
