 |
 |
I agree that an SLA would help to establish some sense of reliance. It would clarify expectations. Before establishing a general baseline or SLA there would have to be either a survey of the existing models of supply and/or an open invitation for proposals which assumed a variety of possible models. The mixed economy already exists and is not going to remain static, so any SLA(s) would have to encompass existing good practice as well as acknowledging people signalling an intention to deliver. Scoping activity would provide more of a sense of transparency. As far as I am aware it is the SLC who are requesting two quotations for NMH. The other funding bodies have not signalled this intent. So that suggests there should be some inter-funding body discussion about why some DSA students are apparently to be offered more choice-related information than others. If the funding bodies look for best value then SLA could be a way of demonstrating value, in which case Ginny’s point about whether an outcomes based approach is an appropriate measure would need some attention. What would the alternative be? Task based? On the other hand, one generic SLA might reduce the sense of differentiation between suppliers and we would end up with a focus on price comparison (not comparison of value). There is no one right solution. In my view, moves to increase the amount of credible information available about the different ways in which supply of NMH demonstrates that it meets student’s identified needs (within the parameters of DSA) will increase trust. I think these moves can be initiated within the disability support sector – they may take the form of small, local actions because there is a great deal of local variation (which can be seen as adaptation). DSA is an economy and we use words, not numbers or pictures to describe it. The public/private dualism is language that is semi-familiar and it gets used because it is known. Respectful discussion between all parties operating I the sector should assist with some vocabulary extension, Amanda On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:01:46 +0100, Anthony Healy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Absolutely Amanda. Co-operation and communication between players should be entirely possible. This is not as simplistic as public (good) v private (bad), as has been suggested. As a private company we fill a need. Where there is none, we don't try to fill it! > >Trust is, as you say, paramount. Perhaps if there were an agreed set of student-centric baseline standards for NMH - an SLA of sorts - then trust could be developed. > >If there were, then some companies wouldn't be able to charge expensive admin costs, and HEI's would pass on details of other providers rather than leave students without support for two years. > >Anthony > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on behalf of Amanda Kent >Sent: Tue 6/2/2009 8:14 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: quotes for support tutoring > >Anthony H is correct, it is not a zero-sum game (the two quotations only >makes it look that way). Non zero sum is non-strictly competitive, therefore >communication and co-operation between players is the best strategy for all >in the game. In the case of NMH supply, the methods of communication >appear rudimentary and information is incomplete but cooperation between >players should in theory be possible. Trust is a key issue here, >Amanda > > > >On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:29:26 +0100, Anthony Healy ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>Dear Penny >> >>Couldn't agree more. This is not rocket science, but the fact that the big >mover in >>question can seemingly justify these expensive arrangements with relative >impunity is >>testament to the lack of "joined-up" thinking. >> >>A central register of 'non-medical helpers' as discussed by Ros with the SLC, >and a >>website where practitioners can list their credentials is a good start. Though >I suspect >>that until the much-awaited SLA for the NMH sector is hammered out, these >loopholes will >>continue to be exploited. >> >>Suffice to say, that there are private companies (e.g. Clear Links, Claro >Learning) - who >>do not charge an upfront fee, and who consider the initial risk assessment as >an on- cost >>of providing the service. >> >>Naturally, we would agree with Amanda that had the student been provided >with an >>alternative to an HEI, a referral at an earlier stage would have been >facilitated. But this is >>not a zero-sum game. Choice - even from the "dreaded" private sector - is >not >>detrimental to the service provided by HEI's, but complimentary. The key is >to keep the >>student, and the tax payer for that matter, as the central point of focus. >> >>Anthony Healy >>Director, Development >>Claro Learning >>www.clarolearning.com >> >> > >