Hi there all,
I'm usually cautious about putting messages on these mailbases, and what
I offer below is my own personal opinion but I think that suppliers
(in-house service, private company, or self employed workers) need to
try and offer their opinions to the SLC. The SLC are currently
consulting with professional bodies (eg ADSHE and Patoss), but not with
suppliers (as far as I know).
Anthony is correct that Clear Links does not charge a fee for the
initial risk assessment. I explained in another email that we operate a
co-worker model when we work in a student's home. However as far as I
can see the fact that there are 2 models discussed here (and there may
be others that haven't been shared here) does not mean that either is
better than the other - just that they are different. We all need
(private company, self employed workers or in-house service) to consider
the costs associated with making sure our workers are safe, and the
costs associated with supporting the student (eg CRB check, insurance
etc).
Anthony's point about keeping the student as the central focus is key to
all our discussions. We do all need to keep talking to the SLC - they
seem to be bringing in the two quotations system in order to offer a
choice to the student. I'm not sure that the result will be choice ie
what information will be used to make the choice; what is each service
provider providing; do suppliers have workers in that area; how are
suppliers (in-house, self-employed and out-sourced) being compared? And
who is making the choice? Do we actually know why the 2 quote system has
been suggested? And it is 2 quotes for all NMH, not just support
tutoring.
I can see where the idea of a list and credentials is coming from, but I
don't think that is the answer. I think that sets us all up in
competition with each other, and offers no administration or management
of the service provided to the student. Instead of concentrating on the
improvement of the service to students, we might focus on proving why we
are better than another provider, rather than just different with an
alternative model of providing support.
My own personal opinion is that each university should be able to decide
what is the best service for their students, and work with their
provider/s (in-house or out-sourced) to make sure that the standards and
sevice level deliver what is required for those students in that area on
that course etc etc. Maybe the joined-up thinking that Anthony is
looking for is a set of standards for NMH which we can all agree to
start with, and then improve on. Is it time for suppliers (in-house,
out-sourced) to get together to talk about this? Or shall I just keep
quiet?
Very best wishes to you all, Marie
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anthony Healy
Sent: 01 June 2009 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quotes for support tutoring
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
|