DISABLED STUDENTS STAKEHOLDER GROUP
DIAGNOSIS & EVIDENCE
NOTE OF THE MEETING
23rd May 2008, 10am - 12.30pm
Europa Building, Glasgow
Attendees
Cyril Hellier, Scottish Government
Alison Cox, BRITE
Jill Hammond, Glasgow School of Art
Victoria Beattie, Scottish Government (Secretariat)
Pat Geddes, University of Edinburgh (Chair)
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; Colin Flynn, University of Strathclyde and Shirley Hill, University of Dundee, Alan Scott, SAAS
1.2. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.
2. Update of Action Points
- All to consider the strengths and suggestions for mitigating weaknesses or threats to develop a hybrid model.
Victoria prepared and circulated Paper 4 to help members consider the main points from the SWOT analysis. Group noted that Shirley had submitted comments on the models via e-mail
- Secretariat to re-circulate the amended minutes from the previous meeting. Once signed off minutes to be placed on the DSSG website.
Victoria updated that the minutes had been circulated and signed off and that they were about to be put on the website.
3. General Discussion
3.1 There was some general discussion about disability legislation and the need for the sub group's recommendations to be guided by that legislation.
3.2 In advance of the meeting one member informed the group that they had reviewed previous needs assessments, excluding those related to dyslexia, which had been undertaken at their institution. This exercise had been done in order to determine whether or not there would be sufficient evidence to support a claim for DSA if there was no paper work specifically relating to a diagnosis. It was felt that if there was no paper work to support a diagnosis it could be difficult for needs assessors to fully understand the diagnosis and that the evidence provided by medical practioners especially in relation to mental health can provide the assessor with more confidence about the needs of the student and in turn help with the DSA application.
3.3 It was also noted that currently if a student has no robust evidence of a diagnosis the responsibility for the provision of educational support falls on to the institution.
3.4 One member felt that the previous sub group's discussions had been too focussed on the issue of dyslexia and that it should be noted that often institutions can also struggle to obtain robust evidence to confirm a diagnosis for those with mobility or mental health impairments.
3.5 There was recognition that the school sector is moving away from labelling disabilities and that the discussions of this sub group should take this into account. In particular it was commented that the Additional Support for Learning Legislation clearly indicates a shift from the use labelling a disability and instead focuses on identifying a support need. It was also noted that within the school sector the SQA now accept functional evidence.
3.6 Members were informed that Fife Council have an agreed protocol between themselves, Educational Psychologist and SAAS about the types of evidence that will be accepted as evidence of a support need. The school leavers have a 'passport' of evidence which the student can pass on to the college or university. This is one example that shows that one local authority is moving towards using a model which is similar to the transitional model discussed at the last sub group meeting.
3.7 While it was recognised that the transitional model can be used when a student is transferring from school to college or university directly, it was also noted that not all students enter an institution straight from school. It was also acknowledged that in some instances a student may not have had a need of support while at school and that this need could have developed because of the increased demands of the course while they were at college or university.
3.8 Members considered two anonymised needs assessment reports provided by SAAS. These reports were provided to highlight the types of scenarios faced by SAAS when considering cases where they felt that there was insufficient evidence to justify the need for DSA. SAAS would like the recommendations to ensure that robust evidence is provided so that they can provide an account to auditors about the use of public funds.
4. Possible Recommendations
4.1 Members had a general discussion about the possible content and shape of their draft recommendations.
4.2 It was suggested that the final recommendations should be presented in the context of institutions' legislative responsibilities to promote disability equality and be underpinned by a vision that institutions should aspire to deliver learning to students in an inclusive manner. Furthermore the capacity of institutions to provide such inclusive learning should be increasing so that there is less need for students to need to claim DSA as their institution will be able to support their needs. This would mean that institutions through their core funding and their DSP or increased equivalent funding would be able to support the widened mainstream rather than having to rely on other sources of funding. In order to achieve this vision the sub group thought that they would need to discuss recommendations which could ultimately lead to this vision.
4.3 Overall members present seemed to prefer the needs led model approach whereby students would not require evidence of a diagnosis in order to access support. Instead the support a student would receive would be predicated upon their needs in order to study on a level playing field as their fellow students. However it was acknowledged that there would need to be a cultural shift within institutions if this model were to be adopted, to ensure that there were sufficient measures in place to establish the validity of the needs of the student.
4.4 It was suggested that the adoption of a needs led model could mean that there would be a need to review institutional funding, i.e. a significant change to the current Disabled Students Premium and to Extended Learning Support. This would mean that institutions would be able to provide a more inclusive learning environment to a widened body of students and then if a student still required additional support, the institution could consider what reasonable adjustments it could make to support the student; and if the student reached a specific threshold of required support an application would then be made to SAAS for the revised DSA.
4.5 There was some debate about the term 'threshold' and whether it should be related to the nature of the impairment or the amount of additional support required by the student.
4.6 It was felt that there would be a need to flag up in the draft recommendations the importance of pre entry guidance to highlight to students the needs and demands of the course.
4.7 It was the opinion of some members that they should provide guidance on what is considered as robust evidence of need which could be supported either in the first instance by institutional support and then if required by the DSA. There was a suggestion that the recommendations should contain templates which institutions could use to compile the evidence.
4.8 There was some brief discussion regarding the attributes of any guidance. For example it would need to be clear about what types of evidence would be considered as robust.
4.9 There was agreement that the guidance will need to make clear to the student that a diagnosis of a disability does not mean that there is automatic eligibility to the DSA instead the needs assessment is about identifying ways in which the institution and then the DSA can meet the needs of the student so that they are on a level playing field with that of other students.
4.10 There was some discussion regarding the opportunity provided by the proposed loan to grant consultation which might be an opportunity to suggest that as part of a student's grant there is an element which could be for the purposes of providing IT to support a student throughout their studies.
4.11 As part of the quality assurance procedures for a needs led model there was a suggestion that institutions should collate statistics on the outcomes of their inclusive practices and on their retention rates. There was some concern noted that that institutions already have to collect lots of statistics but possibly if there was to be money for this proposal it would be reasonable that they would have to be accountable for how that money was spent.
4.12 Another suggestion relating to quality assurance was that there could be local and national outcome agreements with institutions - these could outline the strategic priority of widening the mainstream and creating an inclusive learning environment but allow institutions to decide for themselves how best they can meet the needs of their students.
4.13 With regard to interim measures and the payment of obtaining a diagnosis it was suggested that institutions should continue to use their discretionary funds to pay for a diagnosis but that once institutions move towards the needs led model and the DSA will only be required in exceptional cases then the Basic Allowance element of the DSA could pay for any diagnosis.
4.14 One member also raised the issue of whether or not staff who undertake needs assessments have the skills or training to deal with moves to change the current model.
4.15 Cyril offered to create a diagram of the model to help members visualise the proposed model and to capture the discussion.
4.16 It was noted that there was insufficient time to discuss Paper 4.
5.0 AOB and Next Meeting
5.1 Next Meeting of the Group was arranged for Wednesday 25th June from 10.30 to 13.00 at SAAS's office in Edinburgh.
Summary of Action Points
- Cyril to create a diagram to help members visualise the proposed model.
- Secretariat to confirm the date and venue of the next meeting.
May 08