Meeting Notes:- by t83th0

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 4

									Meeting Notes:-

Support Co-ordinators Meeting – Access SUMMIT, St Peters House,
Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9GH – Wednesday 22nd July 2009

Attendees

Name                      Institution/Organisation

Simon Bloor               Access SUMMIT
Marrie Norris             Clear Links
Lucian O'Neill            Clear Links
Ashley Garner             Randstad HR Solutions
Elaine Shillcock          University of Manchester
Clare Omissi              University of Hull
Ellen Kirby               University of Hull
Sheenagh Hull             University of Leeds
Jenny Brady               University of Leeds
Pauline Middleton         University of Staffordshire
Christine Jackson         University of Staffordshire
Dylan Griffiths           Bangor University
Gill Shaw                 Access Summit
Liz Abbott                John Moores University
Anna Charles-Jones        Manchester Metropolitan University
Michelle Hume             Access SUMMIT
Alex Langstaff            Access SUMMIT
Dominic Ventre            University of Liverpool
Angie Bell                York St. John University
Donna Guest               Warwick University
Barbara Stewart           Stockport College
Sabera Patel              University of Bolton
Erin Jackson              University of Bolton
Nick Hobson               Sheffield Hallam
Jenny Stephens            University of Staffordshire
Ali Bottrill              University of Staffordshire
Suzanne Russell           Sheffield University
Rosemary Laidlaw          University of Hull
Gemma Green               University of Hull (Scarborough Campus)
Heather Blundell          University of Chester
Kay McCrea                University of Central Lancashire
Fiona Valentine           University of Central Lancashire
Shirley Green             University of Central Lancashire
Ian Webb                  University of Chester




                                                                    1
Cancellation Policies

General lack of clarity on this...providers seem to be interpreting this
differently and using different criteria. One provider reported a greater level of
success obtaining payment from LAs by rebranding a DNA as a "Failure to
Attend". Generally, the consensus was towards the following approach:-

2 consecutive FTAs defined as a failure to cancel 24 hours + preceding the
appointment triggering a referral to a DA for investigation and a re-
engagement by the student with the support before any further sessions
provided.

What does your ILP look like?

See documents attached + http://www.adshe.org.uk/resources.htm

At Access SUMMIT we are planning on sending a student's ILP to the SFE at
around Hour 7 / 8 with a revised estimate (if different to the original) of the
number of hours require for the remainder of the academic year.

Do you provide support prior to AoN based on acceptable evidence?

Conflict between reasonable adjustment vs SFE likelihood to reimburse. Most
providers seem to do this; a couple of providers contact LAs prior to setting up
Interim Support to alert them to this fact.

Post meeting note:-

From the Guidance - 2009/2010 STUDENT FINANCE IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT: DISABLED STUDENTS’ ALLOWANCES (DSAs)

Reimbursing HEIs for support provided before a DSA assessment was
carried out

165. Where a disabled student has a clear need for non-medical helper and/or
other support, HEIs will sometimes provide this support whilst the student’s
DSA application is still being processed and before a DSA needs assessment
has been carried out. This might occur when the application for DSAs is made
after the course has started and a DSA needs assessment is not immediately
available. In the Department’s view the HEI can be reimbursed from the
student’s DSA (where subsequently awarded) if the type of support provided
was later recommended in the DSA needs assessment report.

Do you record what is undertaken in individual mentoring / notetaking /
SpLD study skills / library support sessions, if so how?

Most providers have systems in place for recording the content of study skills
support / mentoring sessions. A small number of providers obtain records of
other sessions. One provider obtains records where the support work can be
seen as "developmental". Generally a commentary on the content of a


                                                                                     2
session was seen as good practice and useful in assisting planning. It was
also an opportunity to spot "role drift". However, there was some resistance to
the maintenance of records simply to meet the auditing requirements of
funding bodies.

How do you deal with students who want to access support on an
irregular basis?

Some providers take the view that in many cases the irregular drawdown of
support was counter-productive for students and did not encourage it.
However, there were occasions / situations where the student's attendance
and / or disability made it necessary for support to be accessed in an irregular
way - in which cases providers should do their best to facilitate this.

Issues of students who need support back into full study who are intermitting
but need to do some study and be resident locally to access support (as well
as treatment especially students with mental health difficulties):- the
possibilities here seem to hinge on the status given to the student during this
period by the HEI. Some investigation with DIUS / SFE might be useful in
getting a better picture of the possibilities.

NMH support quotes for notetaking or other support where single local
solution available

An external provider was finding itself used on an increasing number of
occasions for a second NMH quote and was worried that it would

   a. obtain the business at the expense of an existing local solution
   b. be obliged by SFE to provide support even though an in-house service
      was available
   c. be unable to fulfil the support need in a timely manner due to a lack of
      a pool of available workers and thereby have to hand back the
      assignment - there being a lack of clarity about the mechanism for this.

Post meeting note:-

However, there is now greater clarity on this issue from SFE - that where a
provider is in place as a consequence of a procurement/tendering process
and / or where there are robust reporting and QA measures in place then a
quote from a single supplier will be sufficient. A number of suppliers are now
providing a commentary to assessors/assessment centres to this effect.

Next Steps:-

There was an invitation from Paddy Turner (Sheffield Hallam) on behalf
of NADP to attend any future meetings with a view to feeding issues and
concerns into SFE. However, it was felt by some that there would be more
strength by consolidating the existing group through further meetings and
the formation of a more formal network.



                                                                                  3
The development of some suggested / minimum standards for NMH providers
was widely welcomed.

It was agreed that the next steps would be best determined following the
second of the Support Providers meetings in Oxford on 28 July 2009.




                                                                           4

								
To top