The Scottish Government

DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP

DIAGNOSIS & EVIDENCE

NOTE OF THE MEETING

26 February 2008, 10am - 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

Colin Flynn, University of Strathclyde.

Jill Hammond - Glasgow School of Art

Kathleen Robertson, Scottish Government

Pat Geddes, University of Edinburgh

Norman Ritchie, Jewel and Esk College & Skill Scotland

1. Welcome and Apologies and Minutes from Previous Meeting

1.1 The chair welcomed members and noted apologies from Victoria Beattie who was being substituted by Kathleen Robertson for this meeting.

2. Three points of clarification were raise with the previous minutes in sections 3.7 and 3.15. Those minutes will be altered to take account of the comments.

2. Update of Action Points

• Circulate information regarding Patoss and the recommendations made by the English Working Group. Done
• Circulate information regarding the SQA review and guidance to members. Done
• Circulate "A Contextual Framework for Needs Led Assessment document. Done

3. Purpose of Diagnosis (Paper 2)

3.1 It was noted in general discussion that the 3 main reasons for requiring students to have a diagnosis for DSA were not necessarily the same as the 3 main purposes for students to have a diagnosis for DSA. It was recognised that the exercise was to consider the main reasons that students were currently required to have a diagnosis to be eligible to apply for DSA

3.2 The main reasons were identified as:

• to validate the DSA application by establishing that the student has an impairment and therefore eligibility
• as an auditing mechanisms for SAAS to trigger the payment of DSA
• to ensure that the student meets SAAS' primary eligibility and administration criteria for DSA
• Students are eligible for DSA if they have an additional need as a result of a disability. Many students have an additional need but not as a result of disability - a diagnosis enables that distinction to be made.

3.3 The group discussed other additional benefits of having a diagnosis in the wider context of the DSA application and Needs assessment process,

• a good diagnostic assessment report is part of the wider assessment of needs process and can help to inform the needs assessor's recommendation for provision to be put in place from DSA.
• a good diagnostic assessment report can provide information on the way a student is disadvantaged
• in general most institutions also require to know that a diagnosis of disability is available for each student to justify institutional adjustments and for audit.
• a diagnosis alleviates the pressure on needs assessors to establish whether an additional need qualifies for DSA or not.
• currently there is a secondary check on eligibility of applications as SAAS can't accept a needs assessment report without a diagnosis

3.4 The Group discussed issues around having a requirement for a diagnosis

• a diagnosis does not necessarily mean that the student has an need for additional support through DSA
• managing student expectations of DSA is an important aspect of the assessment of needs process. A good diagnosis has been very effective for some disabled students in identifying what they can expect in terms of support. Equally in some cases the diagnosis of disability has become the trigger for DSA where the student would not have actually become disadvantaged without it.
• there have been a number of moves and initiatives which have encouraged and supported staff to become skilled at weighing up evidence rather than accepting a diagnosis as the trigger for a DSA application. These moves and initiatives include BRITE training, the Toolkit of Quality Indicators, the annual Monitoring and Enhancement Workshops
• currently as a diagnosis is the baseline evidence for eligibility to apply for the DSA there may be a risk that not enough value is being placed on the wider evidence base and the assessment of needs process.

3.5 The Group discussed the impact of moving away from the requirement to have a diagnosis

• it was noted that moving entirely away from having a diagnosis at all would be a significant change and potentially destabilise the current system
• It was agreed that the sector should continue to move towards evidence based assessments. The sector may, however, wish to retain the role of the diagnosis for the purpose of establishing eligibility DSA.
• diagnosis is currently central to the assessment of eligibility for DSA but the process also has to be evidence based and therefore the issue is not as simple as considering whether or not there is a diagnosis.
• if the requirement for a diagnosis is removed and different types of evidence are accepted as part of the DSA application, there is risk that additional pressure of responsibility will increasingly fall on the needs assessor to make a judgement about what constitutes a disability and therefore which students are eligible to apply for DSA.. There could be risks attached to that responsibility especially where staff are not resourced or skilled to make those decisions. Alternatively this could have a positive impact if it encouraged investment by institutions to up skill staff and therefore continue to enhance quality
• a diagnosis of disability determines the number of eligible students to a certain extent. If we move away from a requirement for a diagnosistic evidence of impairment then that group is less definable
• if the requirement for a diagnosis of disability is removed, would the allowance still be for Disabled students i.e. DSA or would it be an allowance for students with additional needs?. As there is a continuum of need across all disabilities and additional learning needs, the issue was raised of how individuals would be 'classed' as disabled and who would not.
• it was discussed that whatever process and thresholds are in place the criteria for eligibility for DSA would always need to be clear and transparent.

4. Discussion on 3 circulated documents

4.1 Paper on PATOSS qualification was introduced and discussed - it was recognised that a lot of work had been undertaken in England to establish a recognised and validated qualification that would be recognised by DIUS as qualifying an individual to under take a diagnosis of disability in relation to SpLD. The qualification was aimed at staff within student services within HE, to upskill from a relevant postgraduate qualification level or from a level of no relevant qualifications as such offering an alternative source for diagnosis to Education Psychologists who can be in short supply and may be detached from the learning context.

4.2 It was generally agreed that PATOSS was an example of a robust qualification with a rigorous assessment process and could encourage staff development and up skilling staff.

4.3 A general concern was raised around the processes that would need to be in place or are in place already to centrally monitor whether an individuals PATOSS qualification was current. Action: Kathie to contact DIUS colleagues and establish processes they currently have in place for monitoring PATOSS qualifications are current. In addition there was a question about how the fee element for needs assessment and diagnosis would be separated if PATOSS qualified individuals were also the individuals that were carrying out the assessment of needs in what would be a very integrated process. There was an issue raised that if PATOSS was to be accepted in Scotland and staff encouraged to undertake it as CPD there would be a number of supporting infrastructure issues that would have to overcome.

4.4 It was noted that BRITE were undertaking a mapping exercise to establish what would be required to develop its CPD module to be PATOSS validated.

4.5 The papers on Non Diagnosis Assessment was introduced and discussed by the group. There was a general comment that theory and approach put forward in the paper was very familiar to the members of the group and that the majority of institutions are taking that approach to assessment of needs already. There was a comment that with in the context of assessment for DSA the final step in the model , that of diagnosis, was often a necessary one and an integral part of the process ( not just because it was a requirement for eligibility) rather than a last resort to answer unanswered questions.

4.6 The paper on the SQA model of assessments which emphasised the need for evidence was noted by the group.

5.0 Paper 3

5.1 The group then considered the exercise set out in paper 3 and carried out a SWOT analysis for the first two models put forward (attached separately) there was general agreement that members would consider the other models in some detail in the intervening time and carry out the same SWOT analysis on those at the next meeting in April. Action ALL.

5.2 There were some general comments made in the context of the discussion:

• The position now could be considered to be that DSA is unwittingly inhibiting institutions from developing inclusive practice and more accessible curricula.
• Need to change students', parents' and institutions' expectations regarding the DSA. It was noted that while helping and supporting the continuing change of culture within institutions this would need to be done without putting the student at risk of being unsupported to access their course. The intended result would be a more consistent adoption of best practice in relation to inclusive practice and accessible curricula in institutions across Scotland for all students.
• A culture of improved practice in relation to DSA and inclusion should be seen as a quality issue rather than a disability issue by institutions and senior management. Staff at all levels in Institutions, need to be asked how improvement in course and curriculum development, delivery and assessment can demonstrate accessibility for all students.

6.0 AOB and Next Meeting

6.1 Next Meeting of the Group was arranged for 14 April at BRITE Centre on Stephenson Campus in Edinburgh at 10.00 am - 12.30 am.

Summary of Action Points

• Action: Kathie to contact DIUS colleagues and establish processes they currently have in place for monitoring PATOSS qualifications are current.
• Action: ALL To consider the other models from paper 3 in some detail in the intervening time and carry out the same SWOT analysis on those at the next meeting in April.
• Action - All to consider what types of supporting infrastructure issues will need to be overcome if PATOSS was to be accepted in Scotland.

February 08

A] Status Quo

If a student does not have an update to date and relevant existing evidence of a disability then any diagnosis is the responsibility of the student and the DSA does not cover this cost. Some institutions will contribute or cover this cost - varied practices across Scotland.

STRENGTHS

• system in operation: controlled: responsive (have been incremental growth of funds)
• familiar : audit - clear paper trail
• responsibility on student - students needs to have an up to date diagnosis
• in general institutions fund fee out of discretionary funds or other source of funding.

WEAKNESSES

• some students might have to pay themselves - delays in getting diagnosis from appropriate professional
• thought of having to pay for fee stops some students coming forward
• thought of having to disclose and get written official confirmation of disability stops some students coming forward.
• inconsistency of quality of diagnosis - 2 ed psychs can give completely different diagnosis.

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

• Diagnosis of disability and assessment of need is often confused - some diagnostic reports are also commenting on the support needs of an individual through DSA without understanding of institutional / course context specifically in relation to inclusive practice and dyslexia
• wastage: shortfall in potential equipment - as not enough value on aftercare
• diagnosis intensity / complexity varies depending on disability and source of diagnosis
• relies on assessor to supplement diagnosis with strong evidence that need is there. Puts assessor in difficult position where diagnostic report also indicates support needs.
• risk of over valuing diagnosis and undervaluing assessment of needs

Suggestions for mitigating weaknesses or threats.

• Diagnostic assessment for DSA is not an assessment of need
• requirement of diagnosis discriminates against those disabled students, who for what ever reason don't have a diagnosis.

Needs assessors' role is critical in challenging a decision that diagnosis supports, but wider evidence of need challenges and it is essential that needs assessors are skilled.

B] Sole Needs Assessment

Students are no longer required to provide any evidence of a diagnosis and receive a needs assessment either by a validated institution or an access centre. (ie the validated institution or access centre has the sole responsibility for determining whether or not the student requires assistance via DSA)

STRENGTHS

• contextualised for the learner rather than where diagnosis of disability has extended to needs assessment and carried out by removed professional
• focus on social model of disability - away from labelling;
• focus on barriers supports inclusive model

WEAKNESSES

• devalues diagnosis
• could put assessors at risk of challenge where DSA is refused and student has diagnosis sourced independently.
• reliance on single entity for decision of eligibility for DSA application

OPPORTUNITIES

• encourage more effective training/skills development of staff but needs quality assurance and monitoring processes in place.
• challenges institutions to develop more inclusive practice through adoption of social model
• challenges disabilities services in institutions to change culture to social model

THREATS

• where an institution is not validated - what would they use to support an application for DSA to SAAS that triggers a referral to an access centre
• institutions provide 'disability' services and need evidence of disability - may not be adequately resourced/skilled to extend to additional learning needs approach
• relies on disability services to change culture.

Suggestions for mitigating weaknesses or threats.

• upskill staff
• new model for initial application stage for DSA can be devised