The Scottish Government

Minutes of the Disables Students Stakeholder Group Meeting (2008/01): Thursday 23rd May 2008

Meridian Court , Glasgow10:30 - 12:30

Attendees:

Apologies

John Renwick, SG HELS

Shirley Hill, Dundee University Access Centre

Cyril Hellier, SG PSPS

Lesley Berry, SKILL Scotland

Simin Abrahams, Universities Scotland

Part 1

1. Welcome and Apologies

1.1 Kathie began the meeting by welcoming members, making apologies as above and introducing new members Marian Ewan and Julie Martin of Jobcentre Plus.

2. Minutes of previous meeting

2.1 The Group reviewed the minutes from November's meeting. Alison Cox requested that the wording be changed in the AOB.

• Action Point: Secretariat to revise the minutes from the previous meeting to reflect the amendments suggested by Alison Cox.

3. Action points of previous meeting

3.1 In the case of other organisations (ie those who are not colleges or universities which are funded by the Scottish Funding Council) such as RNIB, it was felt that it would be better to wait until after the evaluation of the toolkit pilot before making a decision on whether or not they could participate in the pilot.

3.2 SAAS has published guidance on DSA applications incorporating feedback requested in last meeting.

3.3 Meeting was held with relevant parties to discuss information, advice and guidance (IAG) for international students. At the meeting it was established that SKILL already produces a document to this effect, although it was agreed that more dissemination of information is necessary for it to reach intended recipients. Attendees at the meeting agreed to work together to improve the distribution of all IAG.

3.4 Members were reminded that Needs Led update had been circulated prior to the meeting.

3.5 The diagnosis subgroup has been formed and has already met on three occasions. They are expected to report back to the main group in the near future. Papers from the Sub group can be found on the Scottish Government website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Funding-Support-Grants/FFL/PMB/Disabled

3.6 With regards to the secondee position, Victoria has been conducting interviews and will inform members about the decision once the interview process has been completed.

4. Update: Toolkit applications and yearly revalidations

4.1 Kathie informed the Group that the next round of validations would take place later today. To date there are 30 institutions currently validated (18 colleges/12 universities). In this round of the validation process there are 12 annual revalidations and 6 new applications. Of these applications 3 out of the 5 traditionally validated institutions have applied for validation, the other 2 institutions are expected to submit their applications at the next round.

5. Update: Scottish Funding Council (Brian Grogans/ Susie Rice)

5.1 The SFC have competed a series of visits to colleges regarding the Needs Led pilot, final reports are expected to be published in October this year. They have agreed to present their findings at the next DSSG meeting.

5.2 Regarding the complex needs mapping study, Members were informed that the study is almost completed.

5.3 Members were also updated on the progress with Infrastructure for Assessment Study report which is being undertaken by Equality Forward.

5.4 Susie informed the Group that there were some similar recommendations between the two afore mentioned reports.

5.5 Susie also mentioned that the SFC's new Access and Inclusion Committee will hopefully be meeting late summer this when membership has been finalised.

• Action - Report or presentation on outcomes of the Complex Needs and with Infrastructure for Assessment Study at next DSSG meeting

6. Update: Partnership Matters

6.1 Victoria began by giving a brief progress report on the evaluation of the guidance document and told Members that they had visited a number of colleges and universities to discuss partnership forums. There is evidence to show that new partnerships are emerging and that existing partnerships seem to be working, it is hoped that the new document will include case studies to demonstrate good practice

6.2 One of the main barriers which is affecting partnership working is that institutions continue to find difficulties in identifying a contact in social services / NHS boards to attend partnership meetings. Victoria informed the Group that they are continuing to work closely with colleagues in social work and health directorates to try to improve this matter.

6.3 From the university perspective, members were told that the principles of the document still apply, however the challenge has been the practical difficulties faced when trying to engage with social work/ NHS Boards/ Local Authorities from different areas. To tackle this, some institutions have suggested joining some existing college led forums in their locality, whilst others have suggested that it may be more useful to have thematic forums i.e. mental health. This is something that the team will look into in more depth as part of the review.

7. Update: Review of DSA project

7.1 So far, the Review Team have visited 15 institutions across a wide geographical spread to speak to Disability Advisers to discuss their views on DSA. They have also conducted telephone interviews and had contact via email with student representatives. Particular thanks was paid to the students at the University of Strathclyde and Stirling University for participating in these interviews.

7.2 Members were informed that Claire and Victoria are going to Cardiff in June to discuss the Review DSA with their Welsh counterparts.

7.3 There have been 3 meetings of the diagnosis and evidence subgroup. At the next meeting, which is due to take place 23 May, the sub group will look at strengths of all 5 models which were discussed as part of the SWOT to decide on possible recommendations.

7.4 There are also plans to meet with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to discuss the Review of the DSA.

7.5 As a result of the IAG meeting with NUS, SKILL and SAAS the Review Team will produce a booklet to improve potential student's knowledge about the DSA. The Team have also helped to produce an information leaflet on the DSA for JobCentre Plus Disability Advisers.

7.6 Victoria informed the Group that the Review team had completed an analysis of NMHP rates of pay which will be discussed during the next part of the meeting.

7.7 Members were told that a questionnaire had been issued to all institutions on the issue reasonable adjustments. 22 responses were received and the information contained in these response will help to inform a position paper which is being prepared on reasonable adjustments..

7.8 Thanks were passed on to Universities Scotland for organising the questionnaire on the links between the DSA and students who are undertaking access courses. The Review Team are now analysing the responses to the questionnaire and using the information to help inform the review's draft recommendation's.

7.9 the next steps for the Review process will be for the Team to continue their discussions with the sector on some of the issues and possible recommendations and to present a progress report at several different network events including DASNEt and HE Disability Advisors Network.

7.9 The intention is for the team to draft their recommendations over the summer and bring these draft recommendations to the next DSSG in Oct/November for comment before they are submitted to Ministers in late November.

• Action - Present the draft Review of DSA's recommendations at the next DSSG meeting.

8. NMPH Rates of pay - Alan Scott

8.1 Alan Scott highlighted the increasing fluctuations in hourly rates for NMPH in the review of DSA payments 2007/08. The highest proportion of these claims were for Dyslexia and IT support.

8.2 From the discussion that followed amongst the Group, it was recognised that institutions would benefit from greater clarification of person specification, expected qualifications and correlating rates of pay. It was recognised that Alan Scott would require assistance from Members and possibly other stakeholder to produce NMPH guidance.

• Action -Members are asked to provide a note of interest to Alan Scott if they wish to participate in a NMPH sub group to look at the issue of rates of pay.

8.3 There was concern raised over long-term NMPH use, particularly in the area of IT support. Some members felt that for some students the level NMPH support they receive should diminish over time and it was felt that some students are not taking advantage of the opportunities to become as independent as possible, which leads on to transition issues from education to the workplace.

9. Equality Forward update - Suzanne Marshall

9.1 With regards to the Infrastructure for Assessment research, Suzanne told the Group that the schedule for publishing the report had slipped somewhat due to a number of factors. However the main reason was due to field work being extend into Jan/Feb, which delayed the drafting of report. She also mentioned that a proportion of the research time was spent on the structure and focus of the research. It is anticipated that a final copy of the report will be issued to the steering group in early June, with the final report being published 26th June.

9.2 The Group were informed that from the end of July 2008 the work of the Scottish Disability Team will be encompassed into Equality Forward and that from the 1st August there will be consultation with stakeholders to discuss the impact of this decision and to discuss next steps.

AOB:

10.1 NUS Paper. Members were informed that NUS had provided a discussion paper on the transition from college/university to the work place. Unfortunately as NUS were not able to attend the meeting it was decided that Members should read the paper and e-mail their comments back to NUS.

• Action -Members are asked to read the NUS paper and provide their comments back to NUS.

10.2. Alison Cox informed the Group that she recently met with Universities Scotland's Educational Development Committee to discuss the enquiries made by HEI's around the issue of accessing BRITE Services. It is her intention to speak to other colleagues to see if the level of demand really exists and will be looking at the specific contributions BRITE can make to the sectors, for example, transition issues for people with additional support needs.

10.3. The Group were told that Alison Cox had received an email from Belfast Metropolitan College requesting to be part of the Toolkit and validation process. The email explained that as BMC are the only access centre in Northern Ireland and are seeking ways to be quality assured by an independent organisation.

10.4 It was felt that are some complications with this request. The main issue regarding this request are that the purpose of the Toolkit and the validation process is to make institutions validated to undertake needs assessment on behalf of SAAS, and as BMC is not funded by SAAS it would not be appropriate fro the validation panel to assess them. It was also felt that as the Toolkit is still at the pilot stage and until it is independently evaluated, its future is uncertain at this point. It was therefore decided that BMC would not apply to become validated thought the Toolkit but that they could be invited along to a DSSG meeting.

• Action -Scottish Government to respond to the request made by Belfast Metropolitan College requesting to be part of the Toolkit and validation process.

Summary of Action Points:

• Secretariat to revise the minutes from the previous meeting to reflect the amendments suggested by Alison Cox.
• Report or presentation on outcomes of the Complex Needs and with Infrastructure for Assessment Study at next DSSG meeting.
• SG to present the draft Review of DSA's recommendations at the next DSSG meeting.
• Members are asked to provide a note of interest to Alan Scott if they wish to participate in a NMPH sub group to look at the issue of rates of pay.
• Members are asked to read the NUS paper and provide their comments back to NUS.
• Scottish Government to respond to the request made by Belfast Metropolitan College requesting to be part of the Toolkit and validation process.