Hello Sarah,
It is good to hear what people often say privately said on list.
For matters to improve, those who grasp the necessity of real quality in assistive technology training (and other services) need to be the ones writing the requirements for audit/quality appraisal. Please contact me off list if you would like to participate in this work. This invitation is extended to all, of course.
Kind regards,
Penny
-----Original Message-----
From: smye sr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 May 2013 00:11
To: 'Penny Georgiou'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Successful Equipment Use
Hi Everyone,
This discussion has been very interesting, thank you, but I would like to add a couple of things for consideration
I am aware of some very poor training from people who have no experience in teaching, or working with those with disabilities. Where they get the idea you can just rock up, show a couple of buttons and features and that is enough to train someone, is beyond me. As pointed out below, that is familiarisation not training. If you can tell a story about the usage of the button, why they would use it and when, it makes more sense, they see the benefits and the software is less likely to be left unused. The software usage and training has to be tailored to the individual student. I was lucky enough (although I didn’t feel it at the time!) to initially be taught by a company who would not let me loose on the clients until I really understood what I was doing. This has stood me in good stead when learning numerous other software programs with a view to training others.
To illustrate the above, the old adage, “Pay peanuts, get monkeys” is clearly being born out in an advert I have seen on the internet over the last few months and currently - Assistive Technology Trainer at various positions around the UK for £14 -£18,000, and you need to have your own reliable car. This is pathetic quite frankly.
I experienced hideous OFSTED inspections as a primary school teacher, and where I wouldn’t want to wish that on my worst enemy, some kind of regulatory training inspection is needed if the training is to be standardised and fit for purpose. QAG create a number of hoops to jump through to obtain their approval, and yet don’t see the need to ensure the students they are “doing this for” actually receive adequate training.
Rant over!
Have a nice evening
Sarah
Sarah Smye-Rumsby
Disability Advisor and Assistive Technology Trainer [log in to unmask]
07515 274734
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Georgiou
Sent: 08 May 2013 17:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
Hello Steve,
You are right about the should. If we want the should to happen in practice, then we need to be asking the detail to be written into the service level agreements and that audit look at the specific details on the ground in practice, not simply the paper in theory. We have an opportunity with the BIS review of the quality of needs assessment provision to do just that. Understanding the context is key to effecting the delivery of services in reality rather than just on paper.
Some context:
The responsibility for recruiting people suited to the work, for briefing, for training, for supporting and for paying them to deliver the quality of service that we know has transformative effects on students ability to access learning lies with the providers. It is not easy work and actually carries with it a high level of responsibility. Handling the pedagogical transference, being in a student's home, students sometimes not being at home when they are supposed to be, travel to new places consistently, the vagaries of parking, keeping abreast of technological developments, dealing with students consternation about other aspects of support, as well as being able to teach the software within the context of study in order to create the incentive for students to use it after the training is completed are all in a day's work.
That this is not as commonplace as we know it could be places responsibility on us as a sector to acknowledging the scope for improvement willingly and put matters right without having to be forced to.
Assessment Centres have a responsibility to be knowledgeable about the provision of service on the ground to students and to recommend the provision that offers best value for money by actually doing the work that is being paid for, rather than continuing to recommend services in supposed ignorance. As specialist consultants, we are paid to know something beyond whether or not a MAC is permitted this week. The political movers in the sector also have a case to answer for using assistive technology training as a political football. The focus of providers on dealing with a forced competition, within a context that refuses to acknowledge that a service worthy of the name has a certain floor in terms of costing, which may have regional variations in practice but still the push of the politics of the sector has been to try to drive it below that threshold.
Kind regards,
Penny
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Metcalfe
Sent: 08 May 2013 16:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
Sureley any organisation delivering AT should ensure it employs experienced and fully trained trainers who will deliver a professional service. Furthermore, the chosen training provider should proactively contact the student to arrange their training, students have enough to do.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tony Lees - Avantek
Sent: 08 May 2013 10:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
Hi Jeremy,
Yours is a point of view, for sure. But let's not get personal.
Some independent trainers appear to have little knowledge of IT which can (and in our experience has) caused problems with student systems.
The point I was trying to make is that separating the training from the equipment supply means that the student has yet another provider to contact.
Many, many students have given up at that point, resulting in wasted investment in the solution.
Kind regards, Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Fox
> Sent: 08 May 2013 15:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
>
> I would like to correct Tony Lees' account. The separation of
> Equipment supply from subsequent AT training happened several years
> ago and for a very good reason: many equipment suppliers do not have a
> nation-wide training capability (or in some cases any training
> capability at all). Moreover, AT Training is defined as a separate activity for DSA budgetary purposes.
> Some equipment suppliers appear to believe that they have a right to
> do the training if they are selected to supply the equipment; but
> there is no reason other than their own self-interest why this should be so.
|