|
Dear Chris,
I am puzzled
by your reply. Are you saying that the cost of a BSL interpreter for
assistive technology training is not something that the student can
claim through the DSA?
There is a
difference between delivery/set-up and the training. The delivery costs
(including the set-up explanation) are in the Equipment section of the
DSA but the training is in Non-Medical Helper section. Furthermore, the
equipment supplier and the training supplier are not necessarily one and
the same.
I agree that
the DSA should not be used to underwrite the costs or legal obligations
of suppliers but this should be seen in the context of the DSA as
funding used to relieve the student of legitimate additional costs that
arise within the context of higher education.
The Code of
Practice on Rights of Access indicates that there are circumstances
where additional charges are permissible. It says on p
168:
“10.49 A
service provider can justify providing a service on different terms,
including charging a disabled person more for some services than it
charges other people in certain circumstances. These are where the
service is individually tailored to the requirements of the disabled
customer. If a higher charge or other difference in terms reflects the
additional cost or expense of meeting the disabled person's
specification, then that would justify the higher charge.
“
(Code on
Rights of Access:
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/drc/library/publications/services_and_transport/code_of_practice_rights_of_ac.html
)
The
assistive technology training is surely ‘individually tailored’? The
concept of the tailor-made and bespoke training plan and delivery seems
to be an underlying principle in the IT training section of ‘Completing
SLC DSA Assessment of Need’ document on the DSAQAG website.
(See
http://www.dsa-qag.org.uk/content.asp?ContentID=77 , pp 16-
18)
The
strategies approach in the ‘Completing SLC DSA reports’ guide seems to
me to include the assumption that equipping the student means both kit
and appropriate training. From a strategies point of view, the BSL
interpreter plays an essential role in facilitating a learning
development plan - they provide access to a detailed level of
information exchange and this is achievable due to specialist skills on
the part of the interpreter, skills employed to meet the needs of the
particular student.
The DSA
Guidance Chapter for 2008-09 suggests that if equipment is provided for
the exclusive use of the student and/or the associated support (in this
case training) is specialised, the cost is
DSA-able.
134
“The following principles could be used to decide if the support is
appropriate for DSA funding when it is unclear if the funding should be
met from the DSAs or the institution’s own funding allocation:
the support
in question is not provided by the institution for all other students;
and
the
equipment is provided for use exclusively by the disabled
student.”
135 “DSAs
may be used only where a student is obliged by reason of his disability
to incur costs in receiving specialised individual support..
“
(DSA
Guidance:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/studentsupport/administrators/dsp_section_115.shtml
)
The Code of
Practice Post-16 education suggests that if DSA funds are available,
then the HEI does not meet the costs:
5.48 “Some
disabled students following higher education courses will be eligible
for Disabled Students’ Allowances, the specific purpose of which is to
pay for additional aids and services which students require because of a
disability. It would not be reasonable to expect an education provider
to pay for the same aids and services for which Disabled Students’
Allowances are available.”
(Post 16
Code: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publicationsandresources/Disability/Pages/Education.aspx
)
Using the
sources above as a guide, I would conclude that BSL costs for training
are DSA-able. From what you say though Chris, it looks like I am wrong;
I would be interested to know why. It is possible that I am confusing or
conflating Parts 3 and 4 of DDA. Also I have a preference for referring
to Codes of Practice because they are easier to understand but of course
they do not carry the same weight as the actual legislation; my points
could be countered using a more general rule of law approach.
Furthermore, it is possible that my preference for a real-world
orientated strategies approach to the DSA is obscuring my understanding
of an alternative position, a position that argues that the trainer
should have anticipated the need to provide a BSL interpreter as part of
the service delivery.
Amanda
Kent
DSA assessor
|
From: |
Christopher Dunlop
<[log in to unmask]> |
|
Reply-To: |
Discussion
list for disabled students and their support
staff. |
|
Date: |
Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:56:41
+0000 |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain |
Hi Amanda Just a short reply to this, as it seems that Erin has resolved the issue. A supplier with fewer than 20 employees may be able to argue that the costs to deliver products and services to all in the community make it an unbearable business cost. DSA is indeed there to support students with disabilities and additional needs through University; it's not there to underwrite the costs of suppliers, or underwrite the duty of suppliers in fulfilling their legal obligations. Best wishes Chris |
| 
