Kafkaesque? Really? You don't think this is the slightest bit over-dramatic?
"What is most dispiriting about this sad saga, is that when the Local
Education Authorities were responsible for administering DSA
applications,the programme was working pretty well".
Hmmm... I'm not sure that you would agree if you happened to live in
Southwark, Hackney or Newham prior to the pilot scheme (and yes I know
Newham wasn't one of the LAs included in the pilot scheme). The old
system was very much a postcode lottery with some LAs being very good,
some being very bad and most being somewhere in between depending on who
was handling the DSA process.
You sound rather like a conspiracy theorist, Jeremy - nothing more
sinister has happened at Darlington than an almighty cock-up, which is
down to SFE apparently not providing enough staff or sufficient training
to those staff. It is inevitable that in the current economic climate
they'll be an emphasis on saving money, particularly in a sector which
has seen expenditure mushroom over recent years, (despite it being small
beer in the grand scheme of things). I don't suppose it would have been
any different if DSAs were still handled by local authorities. Slagging
off CLASS for one comment in a 49 page document isn't particularly
constructive, however frustrated people are with the current situation.
That said, I agree that the bonuses paid to SLC executives is an
absolute scandal.
Simon
Jeremy Fox wrote:
> The CLASS submission made me wonder whether we are living on different planets.
> Before the Hopkin report was published, in an exasperated fury, I sent off
> the text below to the Guardian website comments section. It summarizes our
> experience of what has happened since the SLC took over.
>
> <<The SLC is basically a finance company that has blundered into the
> disability field without making the least attempt to understand it.
> In order to deal with DSA applications, the company employs a body of
> desk-bound scrutinizers with minimal training who spend their time
> second-guessing the recommendations of DSA assessors and student support
> workers. Although some of the functionaries try to be helpful, the managers
> who control this process are sniffily dismissive of the expertise and
> dedication of those who work in this field. Their general attitude is one of
> suspicion - that assessors' recommendations are over generous, that students
> should receive less rather than more support, that everyone and their uncle
> is on the make, that mistakes, errors, delays and mishaps are the
> responsibility of applicants and their feckless advisers. They have
> dreamed-up arbitrary rules based on a fundamental misreading if the
> objectives of DSA itself as enshrined in the legislation and the published
> government guidelines.
> Under the pretence of "safeguarding public funds", the SLC has built a
> bureaucracy that readers of Kafka will readily recognize: authoritarian,
> impenetrable, impervious to entreaty. Doubtless its corporate eye is fixed
> on the "savings" it can report to the government of the day, and thereby
> justify its year-end executive bonuses
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/16/student-loans-company-bonuses).
> Processing delays are not the only problem with the SLC. Under the guise of
> seeking "cost-effectiveness", it has also adopted a policy of imposing the
> cheapest solutions and the cheapest suppliers of equipment and services. As
> a result, many students whose applications have, finally, emerged from the
> SLC labyrinth find themselves with inadequate equipment, and training and
> support provided by poorly-qualified personnel. In a field that demands
> significant expertise and experience, the SLC is ineluctably downgrading the
> quality of provision.
> What is most dispiriting about this sad saga, is that when the Local
> Education Authorities were responsible for administering DSA applications,
> the programme was working pretty well. Was it ideology that led the
> government to centralize the process; or a fantasy about saving money?
> What about a solution? Best would be to return responsibility for DSA
> processing to the LEAs. In any case, the SLC should be trimmed of its
> superfluous bean-counters and their managers, and acquire a new executive
> team and board of directors. Without fundamental change at the top, it's
> hard to see how the SLC could justify any future involvement with DSA and
> vulnerable students.>>
>
> I believe Sir Deian Hopkin has been seriously misled by the CLASS submission
> and that we owe it to future DSA clients to try to correct it.
>
--
Simon Jarvis
Head of Disability & Dyslexia Service
Queen Mary University of London
Student and Campus Services
Room FB 2.30, Francis Bancroft
Mile End Road, London E1 4NS
Tel: 020 7882 2765
Fax: 020 7882 5223
www.scs.qmul.ac.uk
|