So it is really so much easier to stick with the HEI or risk messing up the whole system since as Andy was saying, HEI's do bear some responsibility for services, yet this move towards independence will severe the link and can only disadvantage students.

One wonders where this might do next - perhaps SFE will "privatise" disability officers and divorce the whole student support network from the HEI.  That would be extremely popular with HEIs who could then wash their hands of the whole business and leave it to the quasi-DIUS body which since it is part-government would in effect be an official divorce releasing HEIs from the DED.

I speak of course as a private individual ..............
John


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Kent
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quotes for support tutoring

Dear Penny,
Interesting idea about the DIY marketing. It could be started almost instantly 
using a free wiki, or Facebook, combined with a viral email campaign. However, 
I can see that marketing services in the way you describe would not fulfil the 
existing or proposed SLC-DSA needs assessment completing instruction which 
says:

"In Section E-1 support provider contact details should be provided.  Both the 
student and funding authority should expect to see full contact details for any 
suggested supplier documented clearly.   In this instance there is an 
expectation that such organisations would ensure that CRB checks are 
undertaken, health and safety is observed and that a clearly defined 
complaints procedure is available."

The list per se would not be an 'organisation' so individual practitioners would 
have to gather the CRB, the evidence of health and safety and the complaints 
procedure. Perhaps a template or set of instructions could be created to 
provide individuals with an indication of the baseline requirements - then if 
they are asked for a quotation the quote would include the information about 
complaints procedure and so on, and a service decsription (the qualification 
can be in there too, I am just thinking here of elements missing from your 
proposed NMH noticeboard). 

Amanda







Dear Colleagues,  
  
A request for tutorial support has just been put to me for a student presenting 
with SpLD (dyslexia) , as an assessor.  
  
The proposed provider is a large company -  a big mover now moving into 
specialist learning support. The costs quoted are £300 set up fee, plus £66 for 
a risk assessment ostensibly in order to work in a student's home.  
  
The student, when asked, didn't know anything about working at home. What 
she had agreed with the tutor was to meet at the British Library because 
there are no rooms at the University.  
  
There are no grounds to agree to this, and such a request trivialises the 
situations where there is a real need that warrants exceptional and expensive 
arrangements.  
  
The student says that she has not had any support so far, as there is no one 
available at her university. She is now just a few months from the end of her 
course, and she came to see me originally almost 2 years ago.  
  
Clearly, we have to do some joined up thinking as a sector here, and quickly. 
This is not rocket science. Isn't it time we had a website for the sector for 
non-medical helpers, where practitioners could list their qualifications, 
experience and contact details, so that students could go there and find 
support in their area when the University disability service is not able to place 
a student directly. There is a need for a fall back position, otherwise, the 
system becomes prey to either cynicism or gross misjudgement and loss of 
perspective.  
  
What can universities do to make suitable accommodation available for these 
encounters? 
What can ADSHE do as a key professional organisation in this field of work?
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipients. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and unlawful. The recipient acknowledges that the Royal Agricultural College cannot control the content of information received in transmissions made via the Internet.

Royal Agricultural College (Registered in England No: 99168) & Royal Agricultural College Enterprises Ltd (Registered in England No: 2752048) are the trading names of the Royal Agricultural College

Registered Office: Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6JS