Unfortunately with the current uncertainty of who is providing the
training to the students (mixture of
Institutions/independent/supplier/friends of the family etc), when a
request for the training comes from a student (which is very frequent)
then the suppliers have to ensure that recommendation is not for another
training provider. Also, failure to proactively encouraging the student to
take up the training will result in thousands of students not realising or
not bothering to arrange their trainings.
If the LEAs and SFE make it clear on their approval letter the name of the
training provider (which most LAs don't do at the moment) then there is no
need for the suppliers to go through this exercise.
To my knowledge no supplier wants to offend or upset or step on the toes
of other providers and their sole responsibility has to be (as is in my
company) to ensure the student receives the training for the equipment
regardless of the provider.
Best wishes
Nasser Siabi
Managing Director
Microlink PC (UK) Ltd
Direct: 02380 240 316
Mobile: 07870603128
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Also
destroy and delete the message from your computer. Please note that any
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Microlink. Finally, the
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
viruses. Microlink accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email. Any modification of the contents of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender.
Registered address: Microlink House, Brickfield Lane, Chandlers Ford,
Southampton SO53 4DP
(Company number: 3325643)
-----Original Message-----
From: Penny Georgiou [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 October 2009 13:03
To: Nasser Siabi; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: privelege and confidentiality
Dear Nasser,
Your reading of the message is a little odd.
There is no objection being stated here to the AT trainer seeing the
report.
However, 'arranging' AT training is not the remit of the computer
supplier, and seeing the report with the express purpose of procuring
business is not in the spirit of bona fide support.
PG
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nasser Siabi
Sent: 14 October 2009 12:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: privelege and confidentiality
Penny
You are suggesting the training provided by equipment suppliers is
inferior to that given by independent and institutional trainers which
is
completely unfounded. Anyone involved in this market knows that good as
well as bad trainers exist in both sectors and you can not generalise
the
way you do.
Also I can't see reasons why the AT trainer should not read the NAR to
ensure they provide the training in accordance to the assessors
recommendations and unless this is available in a short summery that
they
can have access to, then it makes sense for them to ask the student to
let
them read it in advance of the training. I am sure this practice was
encouraged by most if not all institutions at one time hence I am
puzzled
why it would be different for supplier's trainers to have a similar
access
with the full consent of the student. If you think this is unethical
then
please explain your reasons.
Best wishes
Nasser Siabi
Managing Director
Microlink PC (UK) Ltd
Direct: 02380 240 316
Mobile: 07870603128
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Also
destroy and delete the message from your computer. Please note that any
views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Microlink. Finally, the
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence
of
viruses. Microlink accepts no liability for any damage caused by any
virus
transmitted by this email. Any modification of the contents of this
e-mail
is strictly prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender.
Registered address: Microlink House, Brickfield Lane, Chandlers Ford,
Southampton SO53 4DP
(Company number: 3325643)
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Georgiou
Sent: 14 October 2009 11:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: privelege and confidentiality
Dear Colleagues,
Some students have recently mentioned that their computer supplier is
asking to see copies of their needs assessment in order to 'arrange'
their training. The aim is to appropriate business for the company
concerned rather than arising from an act of service necessary for the
delivery of support to the student. This is not ethical conduct;
breaching principles of confidentiality, in spirit if not in letter.
Colleagues will know that, wherever possible, and with some notable
exceptions, I am recommending to students and on reports that suppliers
of hardware do not deliver assistive technology training. This is
because of repeated incidences of conflict of interest, as well as
inadequate service to students along this fault line.
Kind regards,
Penny Georgiou
Needs Assessor
|