Original from S J Davies, Hull
> My collegue and I are currently handling a DSA claim for a
> dyslexic student who requires a multi-media PC, scanner,
> and OMNI 3000. His LEA, which we do not want to name at
> this moment, are being extremely difficult to talk with and
> are rufusing to pay for the equipment which was recommended
> in his formal assessment. His LEA say one reason is because
> they, in their years of handling DSA claim, have never paid
> for OMNI and will not listen to the arguement that its a
> new package and is the ONLY package to meet his needs.
If case is precisely as stated it would not be difficult to
challenge.
> More interestingly, they say that they make DSA awards
> according to condition and not need. She then said that
> their "Dyslexia band" is only stlg2000 and that they never go
> above this for Dyslexic students. This of course means that
> the assessment (done by a dis-forum member) is being
> disputed, as are Chris Singleton's recommendations which is
> very concerning.
>
> Has anyone else experienced an LEA awarding set sums of
> DSA according to disability?
Yes, we have one in London who has no background in dyslexia but
sums up all bids for himself and then pulls a sum out of the air,
like "this one is worth 600 pounds, this one 1000 pounds" etc. He can
be very resistant, but I have challenged him and drawn the DfEE into
the argument, when he then backed down. Such LEAs are a menace and I
have never disguised the fact that I find him difficult to deal with.
Despite that he tries to use us to second guess bids he dislikes
altogether, but we are very wary about doing so, and never would
without reference to the original source.
> Any suggestions would be
> welcome as this student is now facing serious problems.
Challenge them on the regulation that allows them to make such
arbitrary decisions. Make them understand that OCR software, of
whatever variety, is quite normal and their lack of experience with it
is their problem not yours.
Genuine problems arise where LEAs think an item has more to do with
the technology content of a course than the challenge of the
condition, and this can be a fine line to draw. It is always worth
dwelling on the arguments used to stress how the need is
consequential on the condition rather than anything else, before
sending in the bid. Doubts once raised can be a devil to remove
later.
Dave Laycock
Head of CCPD, Chair of NFAC
Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
University of Westminster
72 Great Portland Street
London W1N 5AL
tel. 0171-911-5161
fax. 0171-911-5162
WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|