Previously, the AoN involved a team (usually physio, OT, SLT, psychology) assessing a child to get insight into the nature of their difficulties (2/n)
A thread on the Assessment of Need: the statutory process by which children whose parents have concerns about potential disability can be assessed.
The process has recently been changed by the HSE in a manner that is frankly appalling.
Explanation: (1/n)
Working with colleagues to finalise report on psychologists experiences of AON PTA
— Mark Smyth (@psychpolis) January 17, 2021
Prelim findings are conclusive & stark but not unexpected
\u27a1\ufe0fDoes not meet children's needs
\u27a1\ufe0fIs not fit for purpose
\u27a1\ufe0fWill result in longer intervention W/L
\u27a1\ufe0fShould be suspended immediately pic.twitter.com/7nP59B4hLP
Previously, the AoN involved a team (usually physio, OT, SLT, psychology) assessing a child to get insight into the nature of their difficulties (2/n)
Function is more important than diagnosis, but in our system diagnoses get you support.
(4/n)
In many parts of the country, including Dublin, this almost never happens.
91% of children do not get their assessments on time. (5/n)
https://t.co/LQseHEWj3u
In Jan 2020, the HSE produced a new Standard Operating Procedure for AoN.
It reduces the previous assessment involving multiple professionals to a single assessment lasting a maximum of 90 minutes, regardless of the child's needs. (6/n)
This is left for community disability teams, whose assessments are not subject to legal time limits (so the HSE cannot be sued).
https://t.co/zp5pgO0AHV
Instead, the HSE have reduced the AoN to a meaningless box ticking exercise which children must go through before being moved to another waiting list with no legal time limit. (9/n)
It is apparently more important that statutory obligations are "met" on paper than that children's needs are actually met in real life.
This is a State apology in waiting.
More from For later read
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
