DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP
DIAGNOSIS & EVIDENCE
NOTE OF THE MEETING
25 June 2008 10.30am - 12.30pm
Student Awards Agency for Scotland
Gyleview House, Edinburgh
Attendees
Alan Scott - SAAS
Cyril Hellier - Scottish Government
Shirley Hill - University of Dundee
Alison Cox - BRITE
Pat Geddes - University of Edinburgh
Norman Ritchie - Jewel and Esk College & Skill Scotland
Victoria Beattie - Scottish Government
Laura Worku - Scottish Government
1. Welcome, Apologies and Minutes from Previous Meeting
1.1. The Chair welcomed members and introduced Laura who was attending the meeting as an observer. Apologies were noted from Colin Flynn, University of Strathclyde and Jill Hammond, Glasgow School of Art.
1.2. A few points of clarification were raised regarding the previous minutes in sections 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.14 and 4.15. It was agreed that the minutes would be amended accordingly.
1.3. In particular there was some discussion about 4.13 however after some discussion it was agreed that the wording contained in the original minutes was correct.
1.4. It was agreed that if funding for IT was included in a grant then there would need to be guidance regarding the purchasing of equipment to prevent students from purchasing inappropriate IT equipment. It was also noted that if students had additional needs regarding software or additional IT equipment then the DSA would still be available if required.
1.5. Following a request for further information about the Fife Council example, Cyril explained that SAAS currently accept a letter from the Council stating that a student has a need and this is accepted as evidence. Thus following the SQA/ Transitional model.
1.6. If the needs assessment model was recommended (as per paragraph 4.3) it was felt that there would need to be a cultural shift in within other organisations such as the voluntary sector and professional bodies.
1.7. There was some discussion about the quality assurance procedures mentioned in paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12. One member commented that there is a need to bear in mind existing practices, for example institutions are already covered by the Disability Discrimination Act and the Scottish Funding Council Grant letter reflects what the priorities should be. There was suggestion that maybe the Grant letter could be more explicit.
2. Update on Action Points
2.1. The two action points have been completed.
3. Note of HE Disability Advisers Network Event
3.1. Members were provided with a note of the discussion which had followed the presentation at the HE Disability Advisers Network.
3.2. One member noted their disappointment with the content of the note and questioned how the discussions of the sub group had been presented to the attendees of the event. In particular it was felt that the presentation may have dwelt too much on the models from the SWOT analysis rather than on the most recent model and if the discussion had focussed on this model then the attendees at the event may have felt more comfortable with the discussions of the sub group than they currently do. It was thought that people are drawing conclusions from not understanding the whole picture.
3.3. In response to this it was pointed out that the purpose of the presentation was to provide those who were not on the sub group with a brief overview of the discussions of the sub group and this included the SWOT analysis. It was acknowledged that there needed to be further discussions with the sectors about any proposed models.
3.4. It was felt that use of the term 'sole needs assessment' model and 'needs assessment model' had caused some confusion about the role of diagnosis and types of evidence that would be required in these models. It was felt by some present that the 'needs assessment' model discussed at the May sub group meeting did have a diagnostic element.
4. General Discussion
4.1. One member commented that medical evidence from an expert in that field can be useful as it confirms that the student has a particular condition. There is a need to consider all the evidence. However another member felt that there is undue importance attached to diagnosis.
4.2. Members discussed the English model. It was suggested there are elements from this model which could be adopted in Scotland for example extending the range of who can undertake assessments and the types of assessments which are used. However it was noted that it would take several years for disability advisers to become PATOSS qualified. There was also a note of caution raised about the underlying purpose of the English model i.e. which may appear to be to reduce the number of students with dyslexia from claiming DSA - there is too much emphasis on dyslexia and not enough attention paid to other disabilities.
4.3. There was some acknowledgment that while the English model may be too focussed on dyslexia there was still some elements which could be adopted in Scotland.
4.4. One member commented by email that the group's discussions have been informed by a number of perspectives that are not an overt part of the group's remit. These are: an emphasis on specific learning difficulties and with it some sense that dyslexia is not a 'real' impairment; most of students' needs could and should be met by the institution which does not seem to arise with other impairments; the 'feeling' that institutions are exploiting the DSA (particularly in relation to SpLD); that there is limited expertise in HE to conduct learning needs assessments for the purposes of DSA; that the DSA is costing too much and in some way needs to be reduced.
4.5. SAAS commented that they would like a model that is clear and easy for staff to assess applications against. In this respect the current model is fine. Robust evidence is required.
5. The Long Term Needs Led Model
5.1. It was noted that the long term model actually represents how the DSA should currently work ie that institutions are becoming more inclusive and can provide reasonable adjustments from their DSP and core funds and then if students still have needs which cannot be met from institutional support then the student should be able to claim DSA. However the model does acknowledge that some institutions still do not have the necessary tools to attain this model.
5.2. It was agreed that this draft model still required the detail to be discussed i.e. there still needs to be discussion about the types of evidence required for claiming DSA.
6. ACTION POINTS
6.1. In preparation for the next meeting it was agreed that the:
6.1.1. secretariat would circulate dates for the next meeting;
6.1.2. secretariat circulate the draft minutes
6.1.3. members will provide comments on these minutes in advance of the next meeting;
6.1.4. members will consider the 'long term needs led model' and Paper 4 in more detail; and
6.1.5. members will prepare draft task analysis and time analysis for discussion at the next meeting.