Colleagues

I would like to temper the latest communications.I would like to see
clear boundaries drawn up between all the various DfES spin offs.As a
support service we offer assessments  and support to all students within
reason. Some are funded by the DSA some are not.I am very supportive of
quality measures from stakeholders.There is a clear line between quality
of service provided by a  University student support department (which
is only partly funded by DSAs) and transparency of public funds used to
support individual disabled students.It seems symbolic that the lack of
official reporting from the various sub groups which seem to be
multiplying beyond control results in mixed messages to various
discussion groups plus often inaccurate facts being spread around. I
wonder what the cost implication is of the various meetings, sub groups,
working groups which often entails key support staff being absent from
their principal places of work and thus not supporting their staff or
students during those times. Can we have some clear blue sky thinking,
let us get on and support our students and staff and not feel confused
by conflicting messages and constant changes from the DfES ? Emma
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Bloor
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Computer training


Perhaps the type and level of reaction this issue provoked is an
indication of how QAG has been received "in the shires"

I'm sure that most of us involved in the delivery of DSA related
services would welcome an examination of quality and standards with the
aim of raising our game in the interests of disabled students and all
those who support them...but perhaps the suggestion that QAG might get
involved obviously touched a few raw nerves - mine included!

We need to remember that QAG was established with representation from
what the DfES considered to be key stakeholders in the assessment
process. This suggests to me that at the very least, should QAG concern
itself with other areas of DSA support, it will need need
re-constituting in order that proper representation be achieved...QAG as
it stands at present is not a representative body in terms of say NMH
Support Delivery.

I would venture that if QAG took such issues on without re-constitution
at the very least there would be some pretty strong reactions.

The Round Table seems to me to be the appropriate forum for such reviews
and developments to be aired in the first instance and rather than it
dissolving I'd have thought it should be the other way round...QAG
should dis-band having done its "good work" and the Round Table should
be consolidating itself...and now be getting ready to move on to other
areas of support needing attention.



Simon Bloor
Access SUMMIT




-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Trott
Sent: Thursday May 2004 20:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DIS-FORUM] Computer training


In a message dated 26/05/04 23:26:51 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
writes:

<< If you feel that Needs Assessments, Equipment, training and
dyslexia/study support should come under scrutiny, which areas will QAG
 *not* be looking into?  If it does look into dyslexia/study support,
what sort of issues might it focus on? >>

OK, well I was originally passing on a request from one of the training
organisations that training came under a similar arrangements as the
Suppliers SLA. Several people suggested just today the organisations
providing study support MIGHT also be considered appropriate services.

I don't see why not but I don't at present have any specific views on
what they might look at. It might be qualifications, it might be
demonstrating the they have no connection with the assessment service
that recommended them or if they have, establishing that they were not
the only service suggested.

Having said that, I exprect to get shot dowen for meddling All I would
say is it wasn't my idea and I don't have a view on what should happen.
As the topic was raised I thought it worth mentioning that QAG MIGHT
look at training and support.

In answer to your question, no I don't think there is anything within
the DSA process that QAG can be expected to ignore. This is not saying I
want to be involved in those things myself though.

Mick Trott