 |
 |
Andy, Your ‘educate the educators’ could not be funded through DSA at the present time. DSA based on individual eligibility, individual needs. (Not general population need.) Furthermore, the medical evidence requirement means that there is focus on the impairment of the individual rather than the disabling environment as the means of explaining/justifying the additional costs to that person after they have paid the basic price to become a student. This and related matters discussed recently re; DSA Scotland. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Funding-Support- Grants/FFL/PMB/minutesmay08 Amanda On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:39:30 -0000, A Velarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Amanda. Thanks. Very useful and thought provoking. >Just to highlight one of your questions: "Is it possible for the SLC to do >anything other than work with in a medical administrative-centre model?" > >I think it is possible. We need lateral thinking here. The medical model is >'common sense' because none wants to question it. > >Now that it appears that May 1968 is gong to come back very soon, lets be >realistic and think the impossible: > >Why 'study skill' is centrered on the student only? >Aren't seminar leader, tutors, administrator also lack skills in making >'adaptations' because they only know/have been thought to know 'linear >thinking'? Why we donot spend say 2 X 1:1 sessions with each of them. Yes >educate 'them'. Yes. Pay the dyslexia tutor and the tutors time to 'train' >them. > >Let not make it compulsory, but pay their time. > >Just a suggestion > >Best, Andy > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Amanda Kent" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:43 AM >Subject: Re: 10 hour "rule" for dyslexic support > > >Ekaterina, Andy, all >In answer to some points in this thread: > >This is all very medical model, yes. That is what DSA assessors are being >asked to use. > >The SLC Needs Assessment model is a medical-administrative one which >advocates a strategies approach akin to a rehabilitation scenario, which in >the >case of non subject specific study skills support assumes a goal of being >able >to act without (human) help. The associated documents describe the report in >terms of it being part of an audit process, hence the emphasis on the NAR >being the instrument that justifies the release of monies from the DSA. > >It would surely be outside the remit of the SLC to start making decisions or >pronouncements beyond the immediate parameters of the DSA? Is it in fact >possible for the SLC to do anything other than work within a medical >administrative-centred model? > >Student input: The latest slides from the SLC show that they have surveyed >5000 students and have plans to build in more customer response and >feedback; that’s for their own purposes. The disability support in HE sector >would have their own reasons and mechanisms for fostering of student voice, >student feedback and student-centred services. Yes, this is something to >think about – for example, could the ILPs be used as means of canvassing >student opinion? > >NAR and ILP connection: There is a difference between 1. creating an NAR >model which references an audit tool (ILP) and 2. creating the audit tool >and >criteria for measurement/benchmarks. It would make things efficient from an >administrative point of view if the NAR and the ILPs operated on similar >framework but that separateness, the difference between spheres of >operation, perhaps suggests that the ILP does not have to be a clone of the >SLC needs assessment model. However, the DSA is an important element of >the disability support economy; it would be wise to acknowledge the basic >demands of the funding body. > >Social model ILP: would provide evidence that some aspect of the education >service for which the student has already paid fees remains inaccessible to >them. There would be room for the module by module approach and maybe >then leverage on the inclusive practice issues. There would also be the >strategies-type approach but with the assumption that independence could be >achieved through successful organisation of help by the student. The student >would have a significant amount of control over the resource allocation >(probably in the DSA case in terms of choice of provider, location, time and >method of delivery). Independence is relative to environmental factors, so >the >plan would assume funding body willingness to accept arguments based on >evidence of less than adequate inclusion/adaptation/adjustment in the >teaching and learning environment as valid justifications for continued >additional cost to the student. > >What does an ILP look like?: It remains to be seen whether the SLC-ILP >template and/or criteria for more than 10 hours of specialist service >provision >will be able to accommodate the social model approach, or indeed whether >relevant organisations propose social model ILPs as examples of good sector >practice. >Amanda Kent > > >On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:47:35 -0000, E.Barakhta <[log in to unmask]> >wrote: > >>Amanda, Andy >> >>Well, what I personally was thinking about was: a small group of people >>(assessors) influencing SLC and QAG, introducing their changes and >>everyone else having to go along with that. I did not feel that was >>right or in the best interest of students for that matter. >> >>As long as we all contribute and, as you have noticed, dyslexic >>community in particular and SLC/QAG collates the information and makes >>the best decision rather than relying on some group of people who >>happens to be closer to them then there is no conflict whatsoever. >>As long as majority is consulted and contributes their views, then I >>have absolutely no problems with that. >> >>Kind regards >> >> >>Ekaterina Barakhta >>Senior Assessor >>>The Access Centre >>>Disabled Student Services (Frank Henshaw Building) >>>The Open University >>>Hammerwood Gate >>>Kents Hill >>>Milton Keynes >>>United Kingdom >>>MK7 6BY >>>Tel +44 (0) 1908 655921 >>> >>> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. >>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde >>Sent: 07 November 2008 10:37 >>To: [log in to unmask] >>Subject: Re: 10 hour "rule" for dyslexic support >> >>Hi Amanda. thank you. Conflict of interest. I think this one would >>better be responded by Ekaterina. >> >>But I want to comment briefly on a closely related issue. The main >>stake holder that has not provided its view so far is the dyslexic >>community (students). >> >>Assessors, DOs. administrators, tutors, etc, we all are part of an >>institutionalised framework, suppliers of services. >> >>Shouldn't we better ask 'them' what is best? Isn't this a conflict of >>interest in itself. We all decide for them. Isn't this very 'medical >>model' >>approach? >> >>We assume that 'they' want/need 'study skills support' and are >>discussing how many hours. Isn't it a real possibility that the students >>are 'really' >>asking for a flexible curriculum and not only for more 'omega tree fish >>oil' >>in the form of 'study skills'? Are we with this approach reversing the >>blame (what the social model theorist have been criticising form more >>than 30 years)? >> >>Shouldn't we be advocating for dyslexic people to have all books in >>auditory format? >>Shouldn't the alternative examinations an entitlement rather than a >>verification of a real impossibility of writing to 'compensate it with >>25 minutes extra time'? >> >>Should academic tutors use multisensory approaches to teaching rather >>than asking dyslexia tutors to 'teach' students 'skills'? >>Shouldn't we encourage modules to consider problem solving assignments >>and not only 'essays'? The above are only examples. >> >>I think we all here have something to think about here. We are all >>focusing on auxiliary aids and services. Perhaps the issue is how tomake >>a flexible curriculum. >> >>Best, Andy >> >>best, Andres >>----- Original Message ----- >>