DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP
DIAGNOSIS & EVIDENCE
NOTE OF THE MEETING
23rd JANUARY 2008 , 10:00am - 11.00am
The Scottish Government, Meridian Court, Glasgow
Attendees
Alan Scott - SAAS
Cyril Hellier, Scottish Government
Shirley Hill, University of Dundee
Alison Cox, BRITE
Colin Flynn, University of Strathclyde.
Jill Hammond - Glasgow School of Art
Victoria Beattie, Scottish Government
Pat Geddes, University of Edinburgh
Norman Ritchie, Jewel and Esk College & Skill Scotland
1. Welcome and Apologies
1.1 Victoria began the meeting by welcoming members and asking them to introduce themselves.
2. Appointing a Chair
2.1 Victoria informed the subgroup that some members had already informally suggested a possible Chair for the subgroup however before formally proposing this person, members were asked if anyone else would like to be considered. There were no other nominations and the subgroup were pleased to invite Pat Geddes to become Chair, which Pat duly accepted.
3. Paper 1 - Remit, Timescale and Membership of the Subgroup.
3.1 Pat introduced Paper 1 and asked members for their comments on the proposed remit.
3.2 There was some discussion regarding the last bull point (what on going support arrangements would be reasonable for the institution to put in place for students prior to applying for DSA eg learning support arrangements). It was acknowledged that this point was indeed an issue but that it was so big it might take over the discussions. It was suggested that the issue might be covered in more detail as part of the Review's examination into reasonable adjustments. On balance it was agreed that the bull point should remain within the remit but that it should only be considered briefly and not to the determent of the other bull points.
3.3 Members were asked for their views about the timescale. It was suggested that not all meetings needed to be face to face. Victoria explained that the reasoning behind the deadline it was hoped that any recommendations regarding the DSA will be going up to Ministers in early Autumn 2008 and if accepted then SAAS could make any amendments to their guidelines in time for academic year 2009/10.
3.4 It was felt that there needed to be further discussion about the issues posed by the remit before agreeing on how often the subgroup should meet. It was noted that it would be important to consider what the subgroup wanted to achieve and how the success of any recommendations could be measured.
3.5 Pat thought it would be useful to first ascertain from members views about the requirement of having a diagnosis for the purpose of the DSA.
3.6 Alan explained the historic reason behind the requirement for example the auditing requirements but recognised that there could be a more efficient way of satisfying any audit requirements.
3.7 Members thought that it was useful to remember that diagnosis and evidence were two separate things and the issue was how to use both to attain the evidence of need.
3.8 There was discussion surrounding the issue of discrimination - for example it was noted that it is relatively easy to obtain a GP letter, which provides very little information, to confirm a disability but that a diagnostic assessment for students with dyslexia takes longer and is expensive. It was felt that the student has to jump through more hoops for this type of assessment which cannot be fair. It was agreed that whatever recommendation is developed it should not cause undue stress to the student.
3.9 It was noted that students often come to college and say "I am dyslexic because the school told me so". Unfortunately the schools do not always pass on any evidence to back up this statement.
3.10 Members noted that many institutions have become more inclusive and more geared up for supporting disabled students however it is unclear why then the number of students applying and receiving DSA is increasing every year.
3.11 There was a feeling that some academics are suspicious about specific learning difficulties and challenge the types of reasonable adjustments they were being asked to make. Members recognised that there is a need to change views on this issue and to make curriculum more accessible so that there is less of a need for reasonable adjustments. Members also acknowledged that changing long held views and curriculum would require buy in from senior managers.
3.12 Members were informed about the SQA review which examined the movement away from a diagnosis model to an evidence based model. They thought it would be useful to find out more about this review to see if it could be considered as part of the subgroup's discussions.
- ACTION: Circulate information regarding the SQA review and guidance to members.
3.13 There was some discussion regarding the issue of diagnosis and evidence in England, for example the PATOSS qualification. The subgroup thought it would be useful to consider the position in England and discuss at the next meeting.
- ACTION: Circulate information regarding Patoss and the recommendations made by the English Working Group.
3.14 It was pointed out to members that sometimes students welcome a diagnosis as it can provide them with some reassurance. Other members thought that there was less of stigma associated with having a label however it was acknowledged that having a label does not signify necessarily a need for claiming DSA.
3.15 Members were concerned about the standard and inconsistency of some educational psychologists reports. It was acknowledge that reports provided by other sources such as GPs were not always helpful.
3.16 It was suggested that maybe the needs assessment alone would be sufficient to provide the evidence that a student has a disability. There were a number of views raised about this proposal, these included:
- Whether or not it would increase the length of time to undertake a needs assessment.
- Who would quality check the assessments to make sure that eligibility is genuine?
- Who would be qualified to carry out the assessments? There could be development opportunities provided to staff to become qualified to provide a diagnosis as part of the needs assessment.
- Would institutions feel comfortable about undertaking assessments without student's providing a diagnosis It was pointed out that institutions get to know their students and that they should be trusted to carry out these types of assessments.
- Handling the expectations of students.
3.17 Another suggestion was that the subgroup could propose a minimum criteria level regarding what types of diagnosis would be accepted by SAAS. Such a criteria could be integrated into BRITE training and the validation toolkit. Cycril suggested that it might be useful for members to read the document called "A Contextual Framework for Needs Led Assessment" which has been prepared as part of the BRITE unit 4 training programme.
- ACTION: Circulate "A Contextual Framework for Needs Led Assessment document.
4. General Discussion about the DSA
4.1 Members wondered how many students these days either have or have regular access to a computer as it was felt that there are a number of linked issues between computers and the DSA.
4.2 One view was that if it is expected that all students should have a computer either paid out of their loan/grant/hardship fund etc, this would remove any suspicion as to why a student might be applying for DSA. It was felt that maybe the DSA should pay for the assistive software and relevant training as this would be a more suitable use of DSA.
4.3 There was a note of caution voiced that any decision regarding computers would have to ensure that no students are discriminated against. There was some concern about computers being compatible with institution's computer systems. . It was recognised that there would need to be computer training for all students so that they could get the most out of their computers.
4.4 Members discussed the benefits and disadvantages of institutional funding versus student funding. Some members felt that if institutions received more institutional funding for example via the DSP then they could provide a better quality of service, it would reduce the number of DSA claims particularly for NMPH, and that it could made institutions become more inclusive. Other members thought that the Government should be more directive about the use of institutional funding. There was some discussion about the merits of ring fencing funds. It was noted that different institutions seem to have different policies regarding what they claim for via DSA.
4.5 There was unanimous agreement that members would not like to see a system whereby institutions operated the DSA nor would they like it for institutions to become responsible for the purchasing of equipment.
4.6 It was agreed that the next meeting will take place on 26th February at 10am at the SAAS building in Edinburgh and that future meetings should be scheduled for 2 hours. It was also agreed that members should consider the issues discussed and provide relevant case studies which could form the basis of the next meeting.
Summary of Action Points
- Circulate information regarding Patoss and the recommendations made by the English Working Group.
- Circulate information regarding the SQA review and guidance to members.
- Circulate "A Contextual Framework for Needs Led Assessment document.
January 2008