MINUTES OF THE DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING
(2007/01): Monday 14th May 2007
Europa Building, Glasgow 10:30 - 12:30
Attendees:
Kathie Robertson, SE HELS (chair)
Victoria Beattie, SE HELS
Claire Neads, SE HELS
John Renwick, SE HELS
Cyril Hellier, SE PSPS
Simin Abrahams, Universities Scotland
Lesley Berry, SKILL
Margaret Bruce, Stevenson Access Centre
Pat Geddes, University of Edinburgh
Anne Simpson, University of Strathclyde
Jeanette Gillies, Motherwell College Access Centre
Alison Cox, BRITE
Anna Thomson, SFC
Fiona Burns, SFC
Lorna Caldwell, SAAS
Shirley Hill, Dundee University Access Centre
Apologies:
Alison Crookston, Open University
Kevin Morris, NUS
Gail Edwards, NUS
Sally McGreevy, RNIB
Alan Scott, SAAS
Chris Robinson, Equality Forward
Paul Brown, SDT
Part 1
1) Welcome & Apologies
1.1 Kathie began the meeting by welcoming everyone, and made apologies as above
2) Minutes of Previous Meeting
2.1 The group reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting, which was held in November, and agreed that these were an accurate reflection.
3) Action Points of Previous Meeting
3.1 The group had previously spoken about inviting a social work representative to join the group. Victoria had made some enquiries within the Executive, and had approached Karen Lax who is a member of the Scottish Executives Education Department, Social Work Branch. Karen was happy to take up the invitation, but was unfortunately unable to attend this meeting.
3.2 Kathie expressed an interest at the previous meeting, of working closely with the Scottish Funding Council on their needs led assessment pilot. One meeting has taken place to date, and SFC will keep HELS informed as appropriate.
3.3 HELS had offered to distribute the SFC consultation on the widening access and disabled students premia, to the members of the DSSG. This action has been completed.
3.4 It was requested that the link to the DSA assessor's network was re-issued among the group, this did not take place initially as decisions were being made whether to continue running the forum as the use of it had been minimal. However at the recent monitoring and quality enhancement workshops that were held an interest was expressed for an information sharing website for assessors across both HE and FE to be made available. The SE indicated that there was a site available and that we intend to revamp and re-launch the site to a wider audience in the very near future.
3.5 As part of the continuing monitoring and quality enhancement process of those institutes validated under the toolkit pilot, SAAS intended to issue a survey to a selection of randomly picked students who had been assessed for the DSA. NUS had expressed an interest in this and had asked to be able to feed in to this questionnaire.
SAAS created the form which was then issued to NUS via the SE for comments, NUS were happy with the form, as was the office of the chief researcher. This form will be issued to students in the next few weeks.
3.6 A point was previously raised concerning whether sick pay was an eligible cost under the NMPH allowance of DSA. SAAS indicated that they are still looking into this matter.
4) Update: Toolkit of Quality Indicators for Needs Assessments
4.1 Kathie informed the group that so far 29 institutions have been validated under the pilot. The validation panel were meeting that afternoon to discuss the 6 new applications which have been received for round 5, and also to discuss the 11 annual revalidation forms which have been completed as part on the ongoing monitoring and quality enhancement of the pilot.
4.2 Victoria updated the group on the monitoring and quality enhancement workshops which had taken place at the end of April in Glasgow and Dundee. Attendance for both of the workshops was extremely good, the focus of the day was on evidence and peer support. Presentations were given by several institutions and the attendees then split into groups to discuss the day's themes. The events were very well received, with the only negative comments being that the sessions could have been longer. A summary of the discussion groups will be placed on the DSA assessor's website. Kathie told the group that she would welcome feedback from them for future events.
4.3 Cyril asked if copies of the presentations given at the group would also be made available on the DSA site. Victoria said she would approach the institutions who gave them, and ask for copies.
5) Update: Needs Led Assessment
5.1 Fiona Burns from the funding council updated the group on the needs led pilot. The ten colleges involved are: Angus College, Banff and Buchan College, Cardonald College, Dumfries & Galloway College, Elmwood College, Jewel & Esk Valley College, John Wheatley College, South Lanarkshire College, Stevenson College and Stow College.
5.2 The group have agreed the needs led guidance on which to base the pilot. This is based on the Scottish Office Circular FE/01/94. The pilot will begin in June. The Scottish Funding Council has been out to visit all of those taking part to ensure that they are happy and confident with the new processes. Feedback so far suggests that this guidance may result in more claims for students from the NEET group.
5.3 The pilot group will be feeding funding issues into the wider SFC review of how they fund colleges and universities.
5.4 Kathie asked if the updated guidance which the pilot institutions were using had been published. Fiona indicated that it hadn't as they were waiting for the colleges to implement what was being proposed and feedback into any future guidance, although it was based on the previous SO circular 1994. Jeanette Gillies indicated that she would like to see the guidance which the pilot institutions were using, Kathie said that HELS would be happy to circulate this on the funding council's behalf.
- ACTION POINT: SFC to pass pilot guidance to HELS for distribution to the DSSG
5.5 Lesley Berry asked how the £3 million pound initiative for NEET would tie in with this pilot. Fiona respond that the £3m that the SFC had identified for assisting with the Scottish Executive's NEET strategy was a separate exercise but there was still a strong link between a needs led process for recognising the additional costs and resources of meeting the additional educational needs of students and addressing the needs of NEET.
6) Update: Disabled Students Premium Funding
6.1 Anna Thompson from the funding council updated the group on the outcomes of the wider access premium consultation that took place in November 2006. The consultation was issued and the council have now approved the change of issuing disabled students premium funding on the basis of the number of full time equivalent students studying at an institution as opposed to the number of DSA applications from that institution in previous years. The Council was aware of the impact that basing the premium on student FTEs would have on small specialist institutions. The Council therefore decided there should be a baseline minimum allocation of £50,000. This new system was announced in the 2007-08 main grant letter (SFC/16/2007)
6.2 Kathie asked how the spend was monitored, Anna responded that it was likely to be covered under the general conditions of grant, and that the new system should make it easier to track. Kathie expressed the groups please at the method that was chosen, as this was the method the group had advocated, and that the group would be interested in the feedback in about a year's time.
7) Update: Partnership Matters
7.1 Victoria informed the group that she had been out visiting colleges and universities to have an informal chat about partnership matters, to find out if they thought it was useful, what works, what doesn't and what needs updating. Victoria is in the process of collating the comments and hopes that these will be published on the website. The general findings were that partnership matters works well, although it was felt that it need to be publicised better within certain groups and health boards. Victoria and John Renwick will be meeting with the Health Department to see how best to publicise this document.
7.2 Victoria and John are looking to do an initial electronic update, with a long term view to a complete update with a possible extension to HE.
7.3 Fiona asked if Victoria and John would be visiting all the colleges, and also mentioned that the needs led pilot identified provisions of transport as an issue. Victoria responded that they would be visiting a regional selection of institutions, primarily based on those who had responded to an earlier questionnaire issued on partnership matters, and also that they were aware of issues with transportation, and would be making contacts within the transport department.
8) Update: SAAS
8.1 Lorna Caldwell gave some clarification on the issue that had arisen regarding those students whose NMPH costs exceed the allowance available. When this situation arises, the student may use any money left over from the large items allowance to subsidise the NMPH allowance, although it should be remembered that where the NMPH allowance is given on a yearly basis, the large items allowance is to cover the duration of the course. Kathie informed the group that we will be looking more widely at DSA with the upcoming review, but at the moment the rules will stay as they are.
8.2 Lorna gave further clarification on the issue of early payments, she had sought advice from SAAS' audit office and it was confirmed that students could receive DSA up to 4 weeks prior to the start of their course, however if full information is received from the disability advisor and a declaration signed by the student to show they understand that a full recovery may be made if the student does not take up their place on the course, it may be possible to issue DSA earlier.
8.3 SAAS are currently in the process of reviewing the payment of DSA in order to create a better system. They anticipate that there could be some issues with people unwilling to supply their bank account details, specifically NMPH who are paid directly. SAAS can not enforce people to disclose their accounts but will stress that it will make payments quicker. Kathie suggested that further details could be included in the guidance.
8.4 Pat Geddes raised a concern of students employing their parents through the DSA as proof readers etc., highlighting the fact that the quality of using such people could not be assured, and that the institution had no control in these situations. Kathie responded that this was an issue for the DSA review with regards as to where the funding should lie, with the student or with the institution.
- ACTION POINT: Victoria to take note of this issue to feed into the review of DSA
9) Update: Review of DSA Project.
9.1 Victoria informed the group that a project to review the DSA was just underway, this is the first time the DSA has been reviewed since it's introduction, and we will be looking at several things: what is currently provided for under the DSA, what are it's limitations, what is reasonable adjustment, with a view to possibly creating updated guidance, dependant on the outcomes of the review. Victoria and members of her team have been out visiting institutions, to gather their initial thoughts on some of these questions. A summary of all the points collated so far will be put on the website shortly, the main issues which arose were; the purpose of DSA, the eligibility, assessment procedures, NMPH, how it can best be improved, examples of best practice, and the name of the allowance. The next stage will be to visit with DfES to discuss comparisons with the rest of the UK, and to undertake further visits with institutions, compiling some case studies and engaging with students.
9.2 Anne Simpson extended and offer from Paul Brown of SDT to take part in the June meeting of the SDT's HE network.
- ACTION POINT: Victoria to make contact with SDT
9.3 Simin Abrahams asked how many HEI's Victoria had visited so far, Victoria responded that 3 had been visited to date, but more visits would be taking place in the future.
10) Update: Study of Infrastructure in Place in FE & HE for Student Support
10.1 Kathie reminded the group that this study had actually been spoken about around a year ago, and the aim of it was to support the staff within the institutions. The study was now underway and had been commissioned by the funding council. The first meeting took place last week and equality forward will be undertaking the study. More information would be fed by to the group at the next meeting, it was hoped that those on the group who were interested would offer their services, the contact at the funding council is Keith Corey.
11) Any Other Business
11.1 Victoria gave the group a short update on the progress of the complex needs consultation. The outcomes were presented to the minister, as there was no consensus it was suggested that the executive approached COSLA once again to discuss a fourth option of funding. Victoria and Kathie have had an initial meeting with COSLA, which was very positive, due to the recent election and changes in local government COSLA will be discussing this proposal with its members and will make contact with the executive once these discussions have taken place.
11.2 Pat Geddes asked if we will be able to monitor this process, Kathie outlined the hope to have a national assessment process highlighting the provisions in Scotland as well as cross border, and that it was not just about local authority funding but also about better promotion of FE provision.
11.3 A canvas of dates for the next meeting will take place shortly, this is expected to be held in early November.