 |
 |
I love this one because it is so obviously deliberately confusing. This is how I interpret the whole thing: Institutions have a responsibility under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments when a student is disadvantaged - this exists irrespective of DSA. The ability or otherwise of an Institution/student to claim DSA for an adjustment will affect how reasonable it is. So, if providing papers in Braille doesn't attract DSA then it becomes less reasonable for the HEI to do it. If the University refuses to produce the papers in Braille then it is down to the student to challenge this through the law which will then decide whether or not the Institution has a case or not - whether it was or wasn't reasonable to do so. What is very clear (on this list) is that different Institutions/LEA's/Assessors interpret the DfES guidance on DSA differently, some claim and get it, some don't - some allow the claim, some refuse etc. Why is this? It is because the guidance isn't clear, it is only guidance and the ultimate arbiters are LEA's. If the DfES provided hard and fast rules then ALL HEI's would claim what they could and nothing would change - there would be no incentive to become more inclusive - and some HEI's who previously didn't claim would start to do so. DSA costs go up! If the hard and fast rules were more prohibitive ie no costs associated with exams are allowed (invigilators, interpreters, readers, scribes, language modification, coloured paper, braille papers etc etc) then there would be an outcry and some of the poorer HEI's wouldn't provide, risk the unlikely event of being taken to court (more probably being able to make an out of court settlement for less than it had cost them) and students would be disadvantaged. DSA is expensive for the DfES, support/adjustment is expensive for HEI's. The balancing act being played out here is to encourage/cajole/force HEI's to change practice, become more inclusive and reduce additional costs whilst at the same time not penalise students or HEI's who perhaps have many more disabled students than others. Not easy, but I guess this is how the DfES are trying to get there...... Now if we could just persuade academics to do away with exams......... Paddy -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryan Jones Sent: 08 September 2006 12:26 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Invigilator, scribe and other costs in exams Yeh but, no but, it is the institutions reponsiblity to make the course, and all Student Services, which includes exams, and course hand-outs / handbooks, accessible, not the student. The £1500 DSA General Allowance (or what's left of it after other items of expenditure on this allowance) shouldn't be used for such things. Bryan Jones, Manager, Disability Support Services & North London Regional Access Centre, Middlesex University Tel: 020 8411 5366 -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ginny Stacey Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:04 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Invigilator, scribe and other costs in exams It doesn't seem to me that SENDA alters the situation SENDA Chapter 6 section 8: *Grants or loans likely to be available to disabled students* Some disabled students following higher education courses receive Disabled Students' Allowances, the specific purpose of which are to pay for additional aids or services which students require because of a disability. It would not be reasonable to expect a responsible body to fund aids or services if Disabled Students' Allowances are already being used to provide these same services. Your point about paper adaptation for blind students using Braile not being minor, whereas altering the colour of the exam paper or the font for dyslexic students is pretty easy, just re-enforces Andrew Sinclair's feeling that spelling out all possibilities wouldn't be helpful or appropriate. Ginny Ian F. wrote: > Discussions do sometimes come round again. I'm curious how the > conclusion was reached that 'altering exam papers' is a 'minor change' > that should be funded by the HEI while providing 'equipment or human > help' can be met from DSA. I wonder how people involved in converting > confidential exam papers into accessible formats for blind students > (into Braille, enlarged print and/or tactile diagram form) or for deaf > students (into specialist modified language form) feel about this > being considered a 'minor change'. In my experience, this can be a > much more complicated, time-consuming and costly process than > providing a reader, interpreter or equipment, but the outcome is the > student has an accessible exam paper they can work through at their > own pace without the added stress of having to rely on someone to help > them read it. How does the advice you received in 2001 fit in with > DDA/SENDA? > Ian F. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ginny Stacey" > <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:07 PM > Subject: Re: Invigilator, scribe and other costs in exams > > >> Discussions do come round again, don't they? >> >> I have just scanned in an email I sent to CCPD assessors in May 2001 >> when at Oxford Brookes and doing assessments with CCPD. In short, >> extra exam costs are reclaimable from the DSA. Minor adaptations >> aren't. >> >> Ginny Stacey >> email of May 2001: >> >> Having discussed The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations Notes >> for Guidance (5th Edition 2000/01) Part IV, paragraph 3.51 d and >> April edition of DFEE Student Support Update with my managers, I rang >> Catherine Broyd's number and spoke to Andrew Sinden who works with her. >> >> He had in front of him both documents before we discussed the issue >> of exam costs and DSAs. >> >> He is surprised there is any debate and can't think how the wording >> could,be made clearer. >> >> Universities put in place exam arrangements for all students. Where >> the provisions for disabled students are a minor extension of the >> usual exam arrangements, then universities cannot cover the costs >> from the DSAs. >> >> All students need group invigilators; altering exam papers is seen as >> a minor change; these costs must be borne by the university. The >> article in the April edition of the DFEE Student Support Update is >> about these costs. >> >> Paragraph 3.51 d, part IV, in The Education Regulations is about >> exams costs for equipment and human help that is specific to a >> particular individual and they can be paid for through the DSAs. >> Andrew didn't think it would be helpful or appropriate to try to list >> all the possibilities. >> >> Andrew said that, if we experience any problems from LEAs with the >> payment of these costs, we should contact his department. >> >> I hope this helps clarify the situation. >> >> I am proposing to our Finance Department that they make reference to >> the relevant paragraph on the invoices. >> >> As NFAC assessors, shouldn't we be including extra exam provisions in >> our considerations, recommendations and quotes? >> >> >> >> >> Ian F. wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> I met a student today who told me her university had refused to make >>> special examination arrangements because, while they accepted she >>> had a disability, her ability to cover the cost of providing an >>> invigilator through DSA funding was unclear at that time. I thought >>> it was the responsibility of the HEI to cover any additional costs >>> that might be incurred in ensuring students with disabilities >>> receive appropriate accommodations during exams. Are people (still) >>> charging students for any extra costs of making exam accommodations? >>> Is this legal? >>> Ian Francis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Disclaimer. >>> This information is intended only for the recipient (as specified in >>> the header code of the original message). If you are not the >>> intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, >>> distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of >>> this information is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Ginny Stacey >> Senior Dyslexia Study Tutor and Researcher >> Tel: (01865 2)72495 >> >> University Laboratory of Physiology >> Parks Road >> Oxford OX1 3PT > -- Dr Ginny Stacey Senior Dyslexia Study Tutor and Researcher Tel: (01865 2)72495 University Laboratory of Physiology Parks Road Oxford OX1 3PT