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
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
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
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:47:35 -0000, E.Barakhta <[log in to unmask]>
>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.
>>The Access Centre
>>Disabled Student Services (Frank Henshaw Building)
>>The Open University
>>Tel +44 (0) 1908 655921
>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
>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
>We assume that 'they' want/need 'study skills support' and are
>discussing how many hours. Isn't it a real possibility that the students
>asking for a flexible curriculum and not only for more 'omega tree fish
>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
>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.
>----- Original Message -----