Dear Colleagues, 
 
Currently, the SLC are writing to assessors one by one and asking for quotes for training from the computer suppliers, even though two NMH quotes for independent training providers have been recommended - and for strong professional and ethical reasons. If you remember our conversations a few weeks back, this is what I had feared. In effect, it means that the SLC are trying to legitimise awarding the training contract to computer suppliers on the pretext that this is a value for money action. The suppliers for their part are of course willing to drop their prices to untenable levels to cut out the competition. This is my 14th year in disability support work, and there have never been grounds to rest easy on the notion that computer suppliers would routinely deliver the effects that we want for a student, without the oversight . (Well running equipment, with a student confident in it's use for the study purposes intended.)
 
It is bizarre that the SLC are pursuing such a policy that attempts to use crude power to impose a policy so ill conceived as to appear distinctly corrupt. (It demonstrates a pure bias towards computer suppliers being awarded the training contract.) Why?
 
For some time now, I have been advising students that I see that I recommend that they do not accept training offers from computer suppliers as the training quality there is not good enough for what is needed for their support. Also, that computer supplier trainers never inform us if there are any issues with the equipment and so we cannot intervene to assist where there are problems. 
 
This said, for the purposes of SLC policy, I am not arguing that computer suppliers should be barred from training. What I am saying is that where an assessor recommends a supplier and training provider, this must be respected, and that the assessor can in turn be answerable for the quality of service delivered to the student, and be called in for follow up work to liaise with providers where the student is experiencing difficulties. What is so difficult about that?
 
In my exchanges on Tuesday and Wednesday, I argued these points. The response was that the SLC have agreed to let it go for this student but would expect to see quotes from computer suppliers in future. In a courteous and somewhat saddened reply, I said that I could not comply with this demand because it goes against everything that I have worked for. That is, I cannot make a recommendation for a provider where I believe that there will be serious problems. 
 
I have also written to BIS regarding these issues. If you want to defend the integrity of your practice, dear colleagues, this is a moment to speak up. I am not talking about a bolshy power battle, nor a kick the SLC day - which just harms everyone and doesn't solve anything at all. I am talking about taking our work seriously enough to get this right - we have enough experience between us to develop a working conversation to find the best way forward for all, rather than allowing the situation that is running the show now - dishonest lobbying by some, a persecution of the SLC to do the impossible yesterday, which just pushes the SLC into poor logic, poor decisions, and disasterous policy. If it goes wrong, it won't just be the SLC's fault. 
 
The story continues...
 
Kind regards, 

Penny Georgiou