 |
 |
So that's why I could never get a copy of the full report! Whilst it would have been better to have had more direct response from students, I would assume that a lot of the input from DOs, particularly, was based on the direct experiences of a much larger number of students. It is only recently that QAG has been able to get regular involvement from NUS (meeting at their offices helps!). Who else would represent students? What issues do you think might have been missed in consequence? Regards Ian Litterick Executive Chairman www.iansyst.co.uk <http://www.iansyst.co.uk/> www.dyslexic.com <http://www.dyslexic.com/> ________________________________ From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Beauchamp-Pryor Sent: 26 March 2007 21:13 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [DIS-FORUM] Computer suppliers As part of my research I tried to obtain a copy of the review from the DfES, but was informed that the full report had not been released because of 'confidentiality issues' (DfES representative: 29/03/04). I was able to establish that approximately eight students completed questionnaires, although in my discussions with Skill they could not be specific about this number. As to the number of students approached, Skill did not hold this information either. In comparison, 64 questionnaires were returned from HEIs. It would seem that the review most likely focussed on the experiences of LEAs, disability officers and assessors, and potentially failed to consider the direct experiences of disabled students. Karen Beauchamp-Pryor Student University of Wales, Swansea ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Litterick <mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: Computer suppliers Hi Alex I suppose that the partially negative reaction to your Quality "Freelancing", arises because a number of us on this forum have put an awful lot of work over the years into a Quality Assurance Framework which has resulted -- after a horrendously long gestation period -- in a QAG that has actually just started to work effectively and to start affecting the quality of the service that DSA students receive. As it has only just started working, from that point of view, a full review now would be probably premature. QAG itself, of course, arose directly from a review of the DSA process. Too many aeons ago, in 2001, Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities carried out and reported on a survey of the DSA in HE. (I still have a copy of the conclusions which I can send to those with an interest in history). I presume that Skill spoke to at least some students with disabilities, although I suspect that most of the consultation was with professionals -- like yourself -- who were aware of failings in the then existing system. You say: given the chance for review that a group of "representatives" decided that no significant change or improvement need be made. Instead what was required was the creation of QAG (at virtually no cost I believe) to audit the existing system. For some of us the current system embodies significant changes and improvements which QAG was created to monitor, and QAG is only part way through its first round of audits to test them, and help further improve practice. Also, those organisations who are paying for it don't regard it as having virtually no cost. The vast majority of Skill's many recommendations have, in fact, happened. (Not including one I notice, alas! -- "Consideration should be given as to how suppliers could be encouraged to become approved DSA suppliers. Financial incentives may be appropriate.") But there is no room for complacency. QAG has taken far too long and had too many stuttering starts before it has started to become effective. We are now nearly where we could have been three or four years ago with more favourable winds. This thread has already produced some useful comments. I hope that more come out of your work that can then feed back into all our quality processes. I do draw one conclusion already from the discussion: Under the SLA we are obliged to have a complaints procedure, which QAG can audit, and the SLA's complaints paragraph is mainly about resolving disputes. So, as someone suggested, yes, it would be possible to hide complaints (probably unwisely if you believe that truth will out). At the end of the first round of audits the SLA will be revised in the light of experience. I think that it would be appropriate for us to specify that our complaints procedures should end up with QAG, in the same way that insurance companies, solicitors, etc all tell you who to complain to if you don't get satisfaction first. And we also need to be more specific about how the complaints procedure is publicised. I shall suggest those changes. Regards Ian Litterick Executive Chairman (and QAG Suppliers' Rep) www.iansyst.co.uk <http://www.iansyst.co.uk/> www.dyslexic.com <http://www.dyslexic.com/> ________________________________ From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of alex larg Sent: 26 March 2007 02:29 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [DIS-FORUM] Computer suppliers Hi David, I agree with you. I agree that there is a training issue. But I also suspect that there may be a supply issue too. With certain suppliers at least. This is why I am trying to gather evidence from students and Disability Officers, of less than satisfactory equipment / follow up support, to support my personal experiences. It seems that some people are trying to discredit me before I have even started. But I don't give up easily and the support I am receiving in the form of off-list messages is very welcome, informative and saddening at times due to the nature of the information. I am certainly encouraged in my aim which is to challenge the existing system and ask why when given the chance for review that a group of "representatives" decided that no significant change or improvement need be made. Instead what was required was the creation of QAG (at virtually no cost I believe) to audit the existing system. In my view and I suspect in the view of a significant number of students (clients) and Disability Officers this may have been a missed opportunity. And how many disabled students were consulted about this review? How many D/deaf people? How many blind people? How many neurologically diverse people? How many mobility impaired people? How many people with mental health difficulties or Asperger's Syndrome or Autism. How many people who need to have full time or part time carers? How many people with disabilities not already mentioned like diabetes or epilepsy or Crohn's Disease or M.E.? Or people with two or more of the aforementioned socially challenging and disabling 'conditions'. I would also hope that any access needs that these includees had were considered and taken seriously. After all it is about their disability-related support and their Higher education careers. I hope they were consulted. It seems only fair and equitable to do so. I think there is another issue as well. That of study needs assessment. I don't mean (good) assessors, by the way, I mean the process. You say that clients have some responsibility in the process. I agree, but my point here is that this whole DSA application process / "solution" is very burdensome to the clients. They have to have a diagnosis. They have to apply for DSA from their LEA. They have to understand or at least participate in a study needs assessment. They have to receive the report, file the report, order the equipment recommended or imposed on them. Engage with managing support workers, keep receipts for additional photocopying and stuff which is allowable to claim for and then claim for it after having had to pay for it in advance, etc. All this in the name of Bridging the Gap and levelling the playing field. I find it a little strange that students / clients have agreed to this after having been consulted about it. You kindly sent me off-list the Cambridge Access Centre template for needs assessments pointing me to the section on page 9 about the student's responsibilities. This is a bulleted list consisting of 14 items. This is followed on page 10, the last page, by a page of text on the importance of taking up training on any assistive technology recommended. So on top of this list of things that non-disabled students don't have to do comes the news that they have to relearn how to learn. As an independent freelance trainer, working in students' homes, on their own equipment, I tend to start by asking if the student has a copy of their needs assessment report that I can see, although I make my own brief assessment as a way of breaking the ice which often works well. They do sometimes have the report and I ask if they have read the report. More often than not they haven't. It is just too long and inaccessible for them. They are often dyslexic after all and reading often isn't their bag. It is probably just as well they haven't read it as the to do list of their responsibilities is quite long and then the news that they need to learn to use the technology too... Is it any wonder that they don't take up the training? I am not criticising your centre's report template. It is excellent in terms of current report formats in use, in my opinion. I am commenting on the overall system. Nasser (Microlink) wrote on Saturday afternoon, "...It is natural that you will have more issues with the suppliers than the rest of the service providers such as assessors/Dos/LAs merely because the suppliers have to deal with them for their entire course duration and as well as deal with the aspect of their life that involves a great deal of technical support..." It is interesting to hear a supplier's perspective on this. As a former disability officer I thought it was the DOs who were there on-site at the students' universities doing the casework and helping to resolve problems. I didn't realise there was so much involvement from the supplier throughout the student's time at university. I'd have thought that it would have been in the supplier's business interest to ship out a well made, reliable computer which would mean that the student need seldom contact the supplier again. Again I would be very interested to hear other people's views on-list, especially those who have not contributed yet. Thanks, Alex Alex Larg [log in to unmask] 07931 561 877 or 07916 175 077 Freelance Assistive Technology Trainer Freelance study needs assessor Former Disability Officer 23/3/07 08:35, "David Austen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hello Alex I appreciate the points you have raised and to an extent agree that there are issues here that need addressing. However I think you have 'hit out' in the wrong direction. I do not think it is an equipment issue but rather a training one. Where training is carried out by the supplier, the provision is more likely to be taken up than when it is being provided by the Centre. Too often the student will, for whatever reason, not have training delivered. This obviously will lead to problems. In some cases there are good reasons why the student should receive training from the centre in the host institution. However and at least the training should be carried out on the client's own equipment, not 'in house', and carried out by someone with the necessary expertise. And let us at least recognise that the client does have some responsibility in the process. This Centre does not, except for fairly rare exceptional circumstances, offer training, but we will continue to impress on the client the importance of the provision, continue to monitor take up and quality, and continue to recommend only highly competent, experienced professional trainers. Best David Austen www.cambridgeaccesscentre <http://www.cambridgeaccesscentre> <http://www.cambridgeaccesscentre> ----- Original Message ---- From: alex larg <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, 23 March, 2007 2:26:56 AM Subject: Re: Computer suppliers Nasser (re your message below following mine) and all, Often disabled students, in my experience, have been through an awful lot to get to where they are now; disbelieved, conveniently ignored, unrecognized as neurologically different, struggling but succeeding, battling for their rights and still not getting an accessible education. They are then encumbered by DSA, the additional needs assessments after diagnosis, continuing exacerbating stress (or CES), the need to consider learning new and more productive/sustainable strategies, management of support workers (although maybe not for much longer), confidentiality issues and additional, well.. additional additional that non-disabled students don't have to deal with. A level playing field? I think some suppliers might say that students have unrealistic expectations. I think that the students expectations are what they are and that is fine and how it should be. The students are forced, almost, to buy a premium service from suppliers and so they should have the best possible service at all points along the way - pre-sale, on delivery, in training (with a trainer of their choice) and then for the remainder of their course If they don't get that they should be able to complain - but where can they really go - that is my question. I am raising this on their behalf and NOT pointing fingers - I purely mentioned three suppliers (Microlink, Iansyst and Avantek) who I think have been audited - that's all. I know there are other paid up (or not) DSA-QAG suppliers out there too. I'm just raising questions, debating and trying to gather evidence for positive service development. That is also why I requested suppliers be informed of this in my initial message (via yourself) - to be open. I hope nobody objects to that. Alex Alex Larg [log in to unmask] 07931 561 877 or 07916 175 077 Freelance and Independent Assistive Technology Trainer Freelance study needs assessor Former Disability Officer > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nasser > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:22 PM > > I will naturally be happy to send this message to the supplier's forum > as this affects all of us. I think in gathering such information it > would be extremely important for you to collate the data from both sides > of the fence as I am certain every supplier will contest the version of > the truth told by the students. > > I hope the purpose of this exercise is to improve the quality of the > service and this can only be achieved by active participation of > suppliers and having the opportunity to reply to any unpleasant > accusations they may be facing from a dissatisfied student complaining > to their respective assessor/LEA/DO > > > Best wishes > > Nasser Siabi > Managing Director > Microlink PC (UK) Ltd > Direct: 02380 240 316 > Mobile: 07870603128 > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the > sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software > Also destroy and delete the message from your computer. Please note that > any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the > author and do not necessarily represent those of Microlink. Finally, the > recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence > of viruses. Microlink accepts no liability for any damage caused by any > virus transmitted by this email. Any modification of the contents of > this e-mail is strictly prohibited unless expressly authorised by the > sender. > Microlink House, Brickfield Lane, Chandlers Ford, Southampton SO53 4DP > (Company number: 3325643) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of alex larg > Sent: 22 March 2007 14:12 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Computer suppliers > > Dear Colleagues > > I have worked as an AT Trainer, assessor and Disability Officer for > around 10 years now. Over that time I have worked with hundreds of > students and some of them seem to have been supplied with unsuitable > computer hardware. This may be due to assessors not recommending > appropriate kit: we all make mistakes - I have made and learnt from many > myself, but this is not my concern here. > > It may, however, be due to the suppliers not providing adequate machines > and/or not providing good and accessible follow up support to their > clients. > > DSA-QAG has been set up, at virtually no cost I believe, to... Well I'm > not sure what for, but the point is they have introduced a service level > agreement (SLA) for suppliers who also have to pay for the privilege of > supplying equipment as a percentage of their turnover. (I'm sure I will > be kindly corrected for my incorrect facts within this paragraph by > colleagues.) > > My point, when I eventually get there, is that DSA-QAG SLA, is dentally > challenged, i.e. there is/are no teeth, or at least none that I am able > to find. (see above.) > > What I would ask of you is to ask your colleagues and students for their > feedback of experiences with suppliers such as Microlink, Iansyst, > Avantek and other DSA suppliers as I wish to collate some information > for evidence to take to DSA- QAG / DfES, as I fear from my experience > some students may be receiving a less that satisfactory service. > > Of course positive feedback is welcome, but I have to be more concerned > with the less satisfactory side of the service too. > > I am sending this message cross-forum, and so apologies for those > receiving this a number of times. > > I also ask Nasser at Microlink, in his position as representative for > suppliers and tier discussion group, to circulate this message on their > list. > > Please pass this onto any other appropriate lists so we can obtain as > wide feedback as possible. I am in the process of rejoining NADP (if > they will have me) and so this has not gone to that list. Maybe someone > at NADP could pass it on if that is deemed appropriate. > > I know that suppliers generally ask clients for feedback, but I feel > that system may be slightly compromised and I don't know whether that > information is published anywhere. > > > Please contact me off-list with your replies. > > Thanks for you time. > Best wishes, > > Alex > > Alex Larg > Freelance Assistive Technology Trainer > Freelance study needs assessor > Former Disability Officer > > Sent using the Microsoft Entourage 2004 for Mac Test Drive. ________________________________ What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship <http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/championships/quiz/*htt p://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk/> <http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/championships/quiz/*htt p://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk/> . Sent using the Microsoft Entourage 2004 for Mac Test Drive. ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/ - -------------------------Disclaimer--------------------------- Sign up for support and information in our occasional newsletter on "Technology and Dyslexia" at http://www.dyslexic.com/newsletter.asp This email is confidential to the intended recipient(s), unless obviously more public. If you received it in error please tell the sender and then delete it. We check outgoing emails but you should virus check incoming ones. Emails may not represent our official policy or a contract. Errors and omissions are excepted. iANSYST Ltd iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 1UN. Tel +44(0)1223 42 01 01; Fax +44(0)1223 42 66 44; [log in to unmask] http://www.dyslexic.com http://www.iansyst.co.uk http://www.itspc.co.uk ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/ - -------------------------Disclaimer--------------------------- Sign up for support and information in our occasional newsletter on "Technology and Dyslexia" at http://www.dyslexic.com/newsletter.asp This email is confidential to the intended recipient(s), unless obviously more public. If you received it in error please tell the sender and then delete it. We check outgoing emails but you should virus check incoming ones. Emails may not represent our official policy or a contract. Errors and omissions are excepted. iANSYST Ltd iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 1UN. Tel +44(0)1223 42 01 01; Fax +44(0)1223 42 66 44; [log in to unmask] http://www.dyslexic.com http://www.iansyst.co.uk http://www.itspc.co.uk