 |
 |
Jo, I cannot see anywhere in the ‘Completing SLC DSA NARs’ document on the DSA QAG website, or in the FAQ on Study Skills issued today, the suggestion that contact time with the student is to be reduced in order to complete the required paperwork. The student should surely receive the hour of support?– if it then costs eg another 15 mins per hour to prepare/administer the associated paperwork, then that should be factored into your costs for service delivery. You then quote the rate for the job as £X per hour of contact time. Your point 4 about the lines of responsibility is crucial and will presumably depend on the terms of the contract for services between the supplier and the student. Amanda On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:50:09 +0100, Jo Bourton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I am really concerned about the impact the initial allocation of 10 hours is going to have on a lot of people and personally as a study skills tutor. > > > >The SLC have said they will ‘accept recommendations of up to ten one hour sessions of individual no subject specific support made in the DSA Needs Assessment report. Should the study skills support provider identify the need for support beyond this, SLC will require evidence in the form of the student’s ILP.’ – this is from the guidance for completing DSA SLC Assessment of Needs Reports. > > > >In terms of support for the students – part of the 10 hours is to be used to create the ILP and a ‘comprehensive report’ – this is then to be used to ‘form the basis of any request for additional DSA funding for further sessions. > > > >So surely this is going to affect the students and the providers severely as it will take a great deal of time and administration: > >1 – time taken out of support to write a suitable ILP > >2 – time taken out of support to write a comprehensive report for future support recommendations > >3 – time waiting for additional support to be awarded – pending assessors, LEA’s, HEI’s, SLC – > >4 – unclear procedures of who is doing what, how long it will take, does support stop while waiting for confirmation that additional support has been agreed…… > >5 – additional paperwork on top of usual for processing NAR’s/SA&SSR’s for LEA’s and the SLC > > > >So I do believe this is a serious matter and would welcome other people’s impressions of the 10 hour allocation > > > >Jo Bourton > >Study skills tutor > > > > > > _____ > >From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde >Sent: 12 September 2008 10:46 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: [ Possible SPAM ] Re: Y3 DSA Support refused > > > >"He is aghast at learning that his 1:1 support has been withdrawn on the advice of a needs assessor who met him once and has not even consulted him about this". > > > >Interesting. Do not take it too serious. It is Friday. Just to summarise: 1.- the University believes in the DOs' professional judgement that 1:1 tuition is not only essential but fundamental to obtain parity of opportunity. > >2.- The student needs assessor, is not convinced, after having a chat for 2 hours with the individual. > >3. The University has withdrawn the student 1:1 tuition in a huff because the LEA is not providing with individual funding. > >4. The disabled student may or may not take the responsible party to court. > > > >Who is responsible here? > > > >In my view, primarily, the University. Under SENDA, HEIs are responsible for providing auxiliary aids and services, even if funding authorities donot come to their rescue, and no matter how addictive HEI has become to it. > > > >And the LEI? They have the perfect excuse. > > > >The Assessor? Maybe, but only if the university wants to recover their loses and, I believe they have insurance. > > > >Hope this helps. > > > >Best, Andy > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: HYPERLINK "mailto:[log in to unmask]"Ros Lehany > >To: HYPERLINK "mailto:[log in to unmask]"DIS- [log in to unmask] > >Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:30 AM > >Subject: Y3 DSA Support refused > > > > > >I've been asked by a colleague to post the following - please reply to the list > >Can anyone help solve/give advice on this issue.. > >A student's needs assessment initially allocated him 10 hours of 1:1 support stating that if he needs additional support, "it needs to be requested in writing by his dyslexia tutor." This was duly done and sent to the student's LEA in May. The LEA officer contacted the needs assessor and notified us. After some delay, and hearing nothing, in July our administrator contacted the LEA and was told he hadn't heard form the needs assessor. We called and emailed the needs assessor, provided her with the requested dyslexia tutor's 'report' asking for additional hours for the student's final year. In the interim, the student had his > >1:1 support agreed by the assessor for his 2nd year post hoc, but she has declined support for his last year. > >The LEA officer has stated that he will only follow the needs assessor's recommendation. She has only agreed for funding (initial and additional)for his past support stating that "(the student's name)has already received 22 hours of support and one would expect suitable compensatory strategies to be in place by now. He should not need on going support. (the student) has access to mind mapping software for essay planning and text to speech software for proofreading. This should allow him to work independently." > >We know this student well and it is our professional belief that he will not be able to complete his course without on-going 1:1 support. He already has had to withdraw during his second year due to pressures of his work and has successfuly rejoined his course. He is aghast at learning that his 1:1 support has been withdrawn on the advice of a needs assessor who met him once and has not even consulted him about this. > >Thanks >Ros > >Ros Lehany >Chair- Association of Dyslexia Specialists in Higher Education >Tel 0113 2193038 >Email [log in to unmask] > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1667 - Release Date: 11/09/2008 18:55 > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1667 - Release Date: 11/09/2008 18:55 > >