The Scottish Government

DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP

DIAGNOSIS & EVIDENCE

NOTE OF THE MEETING

29th August 2008 10.30am - 12.30pm

Europa Building, Glasgow

Attendees

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

Colin Flynn, University of Strathclyde

Jill Hammond, Glasgow School of Art.

Victoria Beattie - Scottish Government

1. Welcome, Apologies and Minutes from Previous Meeting

1.1. The Chair welcomed members. Apologies were noted from Alan Scott, SAAS.

1.2. Apart from some typing mistakes which would require to be amended the minutes were approved by the group.

2. Update on Action Points

2.1. The action points have been completed and further discussions were scheduled during the relevant agenda items.

3. Paper 4

3.1. The Chair outlined that she would like the meeting's discussions to start to pull together draft short and long term recommendations. The Chair pointed out that considerable time had been well spent on previous discussions and recognised that there were still some outstanding issues to be resolved. She hoped that there was sufficient consensus on certain aspects which would allow the group to begin to construct the draft recommendations.

3.2. Members were asked to further comment upon the options contained in the paper and consider if any particular aspects of these models could be included in any draft new model.

Status Quo

• Whatever the model, it should be controlled, responsive and maintain some aspects of responsibility on the student.
• One benefit of the current system is that there is less potential for the learning needs assessor to be subject to pressure as it is another external professional practitioner who establishes the diagnoses. It is acknowledged that the actual diagnosis will only be useful to the assessor if there is good quality information provided in the diagnostic report/letter. For example rather than a GP providing a sentence stating that a particular student has X disability it is more beneficial if the letter identifies what it is about the disability that might cause the student difficulties with their studies ie a certain illness may cause fatigue.
• Whatever the model, certain institutions and professional bodies require formal evidence from a practioner that a student has a disability in order for them to be able to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of disability ie they require evidence that a student has a disability. It was acknowledged that the status quo allows this to happen.
• The current system in most institutions means that there is no need for a student to have to pay for a diagnosis however it is worth noting that different institutions are using different processes for accessing the Discretionary Funds therefore there may be a need to improve the information/guidance relating to the actual process for using the Discretionary Funds. It might be useful to provide a case study, for example at Edinburgh University the cost of paying for a educational psychologist report for a home students comes from Discretionary Funds EU and for International students the cost comes from the University Common Bursary Fund.
• It was recognised that there are issues associated with using the Discretionary Funds - in particular that different institutions receive different amounts for the Discretionary Funds. Maybe the allocation could reflect the number of disabled students attending an institution. It was also acknowledged that use of the Discretionary Funds to pay for diagnosis could mean that there is then less money in the fund to meet the needs of other students with access needs and for whom there is not an alternative source of funding.

DSA Pays

There is a possibility that needs assessors could be under pressure to recommend as much funding via the DSA as possible rather than institutions developing more inclusive practice and thereby reducing the need for DSA support. Some members felt that when such a system was in operation previously there was a potential for institutions to see this as a way of funding the diagnosis and therefore justifying support through the DSA when it was not entirely necessary or the institution could have provided the support themselves.

• However some members felt that if SAAS required the evidence then payment should come from SAAS rather than the Discretionary Funds.

3.2 There was some concern that the discussion was moving into ground which had been covered before and that it would be more constructive for Members to discuss the general principles that they felt might be necessary within any recommendations. The following principles were then discussed:

• The model should be flexible but it should provide a paper trail of evidence which would satisfy SAAS and Audit Scotland. For example if the evidence of a diagnosis has been sufficient to meet an institution's specific criteria for triggering reasonable adjustments then the DSA application/Needs Assessment Report which is sent to SAAS should be signed by a senior member of staff who can vouch that the institution is satisfied that the student requires assistance via the DSA.
• There would need to be robust quality assurance procedures for example a paper trail for the institution to evidence why decisions and support recommendations had been made. This paper trail should be flexible to meet each institution's requirements. For example institutions could confirm a student is eligible to apply for the DSA for example on seeing proof that the student is in receipt of DLA, or seeing that a student has a physical impairment.
• Institutions should be encouraged to become more inclusive and be willing to make some forms of reasonable adjustments without necessarily requiring a formal diagnosis of a disability from a practioner.
• It was recognised that a formal diagnosis is required by some professional bodies.
• Whatever model is developed it should not penalise the student and make them pay for their diagnosis.
• There should be a level playing field for the student - who pays for the diagnosis should be consistently applied across institutions.
• If the institution requires evidence of a disability for the purposes of providing certain reasonable adjustments, such as exam arrangements, then perhaps the institution should pay for the diagnosis.
• Any proposal that supports all institutions to become increasingly inclusive should have as its aim to remove all potential barriers for students barriers including those experienced by students with dyslexia. There would also need to be a continuum of support to meet a diversity of need.
• For some institutions there may be a need for staffing training and support to support the move towards inclusive practices - such training and support would need to be realistic, phased and comprehensive.
• One suggested model could be:
• that an assessment of need may be carried out as a precursor to gathering have any evidence of a disability if necessary;
• some reasonable adjustments such as access to lecture notes etc do not necessarily require evidence of a disability and these could be provided by the institution;
• if during the needs assessment it is determined that the student will require additional forms of support then the gathering of evidence of a disability should be part of the needs assessment process for the purpose of deciding if a student should apply for the DSA;
• If an institution requires evidence of a disability, which is required in addition to the evidence which is acceptable to SAAS, for other types of reasonable adjustments such as extra exam times then the institution should pay for the diagnosis. However there was some debate about which funds should be used for this process.
• The application process for the DSA should be improved - members questioned whether SAAS actually needs all the information that is contained in the Needs Assessment Report/DSA application. Would an institution which is validated through the pilot be accepted by SAAS as being able to confirm that they are satisfied that they have seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a student has a disability which requires support via the DSA? The validation process in the pilot may need to include a tighter more robust quality assurance process which would satisfy SAAS that the institution has robust procedures for confirming a student's disability.

3.3 There was some debate about who should be the judge of what would be deemed to be acceptable "evidence" - should it be the institution or SAAS? There was some feeling that SAAS might be reneging on their responsibility if they devolved this to the institutions. It was therefore suggested that SAAS could produce guidance on what they would accept as evidence. Other members thought that this was the purpose of the group and that the group should prepare some draft guidance.

3.4 Some members felt that during the needs assessment process the needs assessor should be able to judge whether or not they have sufficient evidence regarding the needs of the students which are a result of their disability. This could include confirming sources of evidence from "relevant others". There could be guidance on who would be regarded as a "relevant other".

3.5 There was some discussion about the ability of assessors across Scotland to be able to withstand possible pressure from their institution and the student or the parents and then make a reasoned judgement on whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify a DSA claim.

3.6 Members suggested the following points would need to be taken into account if guidance on this new model was produced:

• All quality assurance procedures associated with the validation toolkit/process and SAAS's own quality assurance procedures would need to be tightened up.
• There would need to be a general flexible descriptor of what data and which relevant other parties would be suitable for evidencing a diagnosis and the impact it has on the student.
• The development of a safety valve such as a robust appeals process for both the student and the institution would be required.
• A means for raising inclusive practice standards across Scotland.
• Procedures for ensuring a robust audit trail would need to be in place and linked to quality assurance.

4. ACTION POINTS

4.1. In preparation for the next meeting it was agreed that the:

4.1.1. secretariat would circulate dates for the next meeting;

4.1.2. secretariat would circulate the draft minutes

4.1.3. members will provide comments on these minutes in advance of the next meeting;

4.1.4. secretariat will prepare a draft recommendations paper;

4.1.5. members will provide comments on this draft recommendations paper in advance of the meeting so that it can be re-drafted in time for the next meeting.