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.