17. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO HIGHER EDUCATION
17.1. ASSESSMENT: DISABLED STUDENTS' ALLOWANCE ( DSA)
The DSA is the main means by which linguistic access is funded for deaf HE students throughout the UK.
During the writing of this report, the maximum amount of the Non-Medical Personnel Helpers part of the DSA increased by 60% to £20,000 pa. This is very good news for deaf HE students and for HEIs, as it should take the pressure off problems in having to find top-up funding to meet shortfalls, as noted in 11.5., above.
The 'Deaf Students in Higher Education' study showed that, in 2003, assessment for DSA in Scotland was patchy and variable in quality. Particular concerns were raised about: the shortage of assessors; the variable skills and knowledge relating to deafness; the need for a specialist set of quality indicators to supplement those in the ' QI Toolkit' and the need to extend the categories of students eligible for DSA (Brennan et al, 2005:91).
The Disabled Students Stakeholder Group assisted by BRITE Centre developed the QI Toolkit. Previously, most assessments had been done by Access Centres, in addition to a list of individuals and organisations which was held by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland ( SAAS). The Toolkit aimed to make it possible for all institutions offering HE courses (both colleges and HEIs) to undertake their own assessments, with minimum standards of quality guaranteed.
17.1.1. VALIDATION OF DSA ASSESSMENT CENTRES
Access Centres are still deemed to have the most expertise in assessing deaf students, particularly in Motherwell and Edinburgh, where assessors with specific knowledge and experience in deafness are employed. However, there are now only 3 Access Centres in Scotland; previously there were 4, but Aberdeen recently closed.
The validation process
Currently, 30 universities and colleges are validated to do their own DSA assessments. A sub-group of the Disabled Students Stakeholder Group is responsible for the validating. The group is chaired by a member of the Scottish Government's Higher Education Learning Support ( HELS) team. HEIs apply for approval by completing a form and sending examples of assessments, using the QI Toolkit format.
When an institution is validated, it is the place that is validated, rather than the individual person who made the application. Thus, an experienced person may move to a different university or college, but have to apply again on behalf of the new institution, if it is not already validated.
Currently validated HEIs
Staff at HELs provided details on the 30 validated institutions for this scoping study, in order to investigate indications of expertise in assessing deaf students. We are grateful to them for this help. The findings are as follows:
- 6 were assessed for specific groups other than deaf students (eg dyslexic students);
- the others were approved for all but, within these:
- one indicated specific expertise in assessing deaf students;
- one specified that they did not have the expertise to assess deaf students;
- the others were approved for all groups, but some stated that they would send 'more complex cases' to an Access Centre or to an external organisation. Examples of external organisations included: Tayside Association for the Deaf and North East Deaf Society.
In terms of staff training reported, the vast majority said they had BRITE training, and many others reported ' SEN' training - both of which are generic in nature and unlikely to provide insight into the complexities of linguistic access for deaf students.
References to expertise in deafness represented a wide range of types and levels of evidence of knowledge: many stated they had received deaf awareness training as part of CPD and some assessors reported that they had worked in Social Work Departments where they had 'responsibility for young people with hearing impairments'. The other individual instances were as follows:
- one member of staff was undertaking BSL training (unspecified level) and running deaf awareness;
- one technology advisor had 'considerable knowledge of sensory impairments';
- one person possessed a 'diploma in education of deaf and partially hearing children' and involvement in web resources for deaf students.
Implications
Although much has been done to clarify and standardise the criteria and process for assessing student requirements funded by DSA, the situation for assessors of deaf students remains unclear and apparently variable. For example, with reference to the information on currently-validated HEIs:
- there is no guarantee that a technology advisor has any knowledge or understanding about Language Support Professionals;
- there is no guarantee that a person learning BSL has any knowledge or expertise in services for deaf students who primary access through English (amplification, lipreading, notetaking etc);
- there is no standard curricula for deaf awareness courses, and some CPD courses are necessarily very short to fit the small amount of time available. Therefore there is no indication of the level and amount of skills and knowledge which have been gleaned from attendance on deaf awareness courses;
- there is no recognised criteria against which external organisations, or freelance individuals, can demonstrate their expertise.
It may be that the generic nature of the validation application form means that there is understatement of capacity to assess deaf students; there are no headings under which experience relevant to assessing deaf students is requested. However, it does seem that an HEI can be validated for all students without having to demonstrate particular expertise in linguistic access arrangements for deaf students: it appears to be left up to the HEI to decide what constitutes relevant experience, and to decide whether or not they need to bring in external expertise. One experienced HEI-based service co-ordinator reported concerns about students who have arrived to their institution complaining of poor experiences of linguistic access assessment and services in other HEIs.
Therefore it appears that there is little quality assurance in relation to the complexities of deaf student situations and a need for clearer criteria, against which HEIs can be validated on their capacity to assess deaf students.
In England, assessors wishing to use the aforementioned NATED assessment pack need to demonstrate a range of knowledge, skills and understanding across the full spectrum of linguistic access before they are approved to use it. A similar system could be considered.
17.1.2. ISSUES RAISED ABOUT ASSESSMENTS CURRENTLY BEING UNDERTAKEN
Quality control of deaf student assessments
All the assessors use the same, generic Toolkit format, which is designed to be open and to cover all aspects of assessments. However, without a supplementary set of indicators, the extent to which the format addresses the complexities of deaf student requirements will depend very much on the specific knowledge and skills of the individual assessor. Assessors interviewed for this study emphasised the degree of subjectivity this allows and the lack of quality control.
A related issue is the lack of standardised review process: there is a need to consider assessment as an ongoing process. Access and support requirements of deaf students are likely to change during the course; there is a need to be responsive to this and to ascertain how far the arrangements provided through DSA are valued. Assessors report that disability advisors often do not have the capacity to provide such detailed review. The NATED assessment builds ongoing monitoring and evaluation into the assessment process.
Institutions will all have systems in place to monitor quality of provision generally, but they are unlikely to have the capacity to monitor the complexities of deaf students' situations without specific guidance.
English language issues
One experienced assessor particularly expressed concerns about the danger of overlooking or not understanding the nature of English language challenges often faced by deaf students. She reported that, in her experience, there is a tendency for HEIs to use dyslexia support tutors for tutorials, who are not likely to have insight into the very different language situations of deaf students.
The fact that there are few tutors of deaf students in Scotland (unlike England) compounds this problem.
Support networks for DSA assessors
A network of DSA assessors ( DSANET) plan meetings once a term and staff report that there is email contact in between. A web-based network, 'Sharepoint', also exists.
In addition, the Scottish Government's Higher Education and Learner Support department ( HELS) have considered setting up forums for network and discussion about validation.
It may be that these networks could be tapped if specialist linguistic access resources are planned.
17.1.3. EXTENSION OF DSA CATEGORIES
In addition to recent increase in maximum level of DSA, eligibility of DSA has been extended to some of the categories of students previously excluded.However, students on access courses still don't qualify. This is likely to be raised in a forthcoming review process.
17.2. OTHER ISSUES
17.2.1. DISABLED STUDENTS' PREMIUM
Disabled Students' Premium is paid to institutions to cover additional costs of including disabled students which are not met by individual student DSA funding. Previously the fund was calculated on the basis of number of students in that institution with DSA funding.
It is now based on the overall number of students in the institution.
While this is an improvement in some ways, it can still disproportionately disadvantage some institutions. This can particularly apply to smaller places, some of which - for examples colleges of art - can typically have a relatively high proportion of deaf students.
However, the rise in DSA amount may counteract this disadvantage.
17.2.2. ' CHESS'
' CHESS' stands for, 'The Consortium of Higher Education Support Services with deaf and hearing impaired students'. It is an English-based organisation which exists to 'increase choice and quality of provision for deaf and hearing impaired students entering and undergoing higher education' ( http://www.shu.ac.uk/sas/disability/specific/deaf/chess.html )
CHESS report little activity in Scotland; although it is not a member-based organisation, meetings on key issues are invariably held in England. It may be worth considering a generation of interest by hosting a meeting in Scotland on an issue of particular interest.
17.2.3. ISOLATION
Although it was not specifically within the remit of this study, observations about isolation were sometimes proffered. A self-consciousness about being deaf - eg requesting a notetaker not to sit nearby; wearing in-ear hearing aids if at all possible - and lack of social contact with peers, was noted on a number of occasions. A central resource would be well - placed to be a focal point for deaf student networks, which would help to address this issue
17.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
- There is a need for the HEIDSA validation process to take more account of the specific situations of deaf students. Clearer criteria are needed against which it can be judged whether or not institutions need to use external expertise.
- Clearer criteria are also needed for assessing whether an external agency or individual has the necessary expertise to undertake assessments, taking account of the full spectrum of linguistic access options. The system of approval for use of the NATED assessment pack could be used as a model.
- A supplementary ' QI Toolkit', along the lines of the NATED pack, would be useful in addressing the complexities of assessing deaf students' linguistic access requirements. A centralised resource for advice and information would help to ensure consistency across colleges.
- There is a need for specialist support tutors for deaf students, to address English language issues specific to the situations of deaf learners.
- The proposed Centre for Linguistic Access would provide a centralised resource for information, advice and expertise on the above issues. It could also provide a focal point for student networks and organisations such as CHESS.
- Students on Access courses are still not eligible to apply for DSA; this decision should be reconsidered.
- There is a need for robust quality control of support and access services supplied throughout the lifetime of the course, with inbuilt review, so that provision can be adapted to suit changes in circumstances and student preference.
- The impact of the increase in DSA funding on imbalances inherent in the Disabled Students' Premium should be monitored.