----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:32
PM
Subject: Re: Computer suppliers
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
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 -----
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)
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>
----- 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/*http://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
