Good point. It might be worth checking the DSA-QAG Quality Assurance
Framework requirements that AT trainers are expected to comply with when
they register as an NMH provider? If it's not specifically mentioned in
there as a service level requirement maybe that could be ammunition to use?
It does seem like something that should be covered by DSA to me but
probably a moot point given most students I see seem to potentially
exceed the maximum DSA when interpreters are needed, meaning the HEI
ends up having to cover some of the cost whether it's the training or
the actual lecture support costs, but it's a point of principle I suppose.
Ian Francis
On 09/12/2016 13:04, Penny Georgiou wrote:
> There is also the matter of 'reasonable adjustment'. A sole provider
> might not reasonably be expected to fund, and then DSA may cover under
> exceptional case provision.This aspect is also negotiated between DSA
> and the Institution.
>
> Best,
>
> Penny
>
> On 9 Dec 2016 12:56, "Natalya Dell" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I haven't had a BSL user with AT training in the 15-16 cohort so
> this may be a new thing/interpretation. My last BSL using student
> had explicit funding for AT training + BSL support from her usual
> providers so she had someone familiar with her signing styles etc.
>
> I would ask SFE to provide a direct reference to the relevant part
> of the DSA regulations which both state that they can't pay for the
> terps AND the registered AT supplier's regulations which explicitly
> states they MUST pay for terps. I find even asking for a citation
> gets a resolution in some cases...
>
> Let us know the outcome as that's an important issue which we must
> not let drop quietly cos we need to make sure students CAN fairly
> and fully access AT training with whatever support is needed!
>
> Natalya
>
>
> On 08/12/16 16:58, Cheron Stevenson wrote:
>
> I have always sought AT quotes that include interpreting support
> for those students that require it. SFE have refused this as
> stated below:
>
>
> 'All AT providers who are QAG registered we feel should be able
> to provide their support in different formats and ways so that
> all student's can receive this including students with
> disabilities or difficulties. As mentioned in the previous email
> we feel we would not pay the additional costs for BSL
> interpretation to be used in AT training for the above reason.'
>
> Is this response familiar to anyone? I would appreciate any
> advice and whether anyone has successfully challenged it. I
> think it is highly unlikely that AT trainers/suppliers will
> absorb the cost of providing an appropriately qualified
> interpreter so that the student can access the training. What
> other appropriate formats could possibly meet the needs of a
> profoundly deaf students? I am at a loss to understand SFE's
> 'logic.'
>
> Chéron Stevenson
> Freelance Student Assessor.
>
>
|