While there have been significant developments with increasing participation of students with disabilities in higher education, the session will seek to evaluate these developments and to explore ongoing and new challenges in light of new ways of facilitating learning. The session will in particular explore strategies for ensuring learner participation in the evaluation of services, and for developing a culture whereby learner participation and enablement become key criteria in assessment and quality assurance measures in higher education institutions.
A key enabling feature of higher education is the principle of non discrimination in admission policy which is now well established. The UNESCO Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty First century states that:
"In keeping with Article 26.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, admission to higher education should he based on the merit, capacity, efforts, perseverance and devotion showed by those seeking access to it and take place in a lifelong scheme at any time, with due recognition of previously acquired skills. As a consequence no discrimination can be accepted in granting access to higher education on grounds of race, gender, language or religion, or economic, cultural or social distinctions or physical disabilities.”[1]
In addition the Employment Equality Act 1999 and the Equal Status Act 2000 both provide a legislative prohibition on discrimination in access to courses in vocational training and higher education respectively.
While the UNESCO statement and the Equal Status Act are welcome, a mere prohibition on discrimination is not enough to enable access, and positive action needs to be an essential feature of admission policy for students with disabilities. In this respect the positive requirements enshrined in the Universities Act and the legislation governing the Institutes of Technology and the DIT are important. While third level institutions have a right enshrined in law to determine their own admission procedures, this is not an absolute right. The University Act 1997 clearly creates a responsibility to ensure that admission policy is linked to promotion of equality of opportunity. Section 14, while clearly establishing the freedom of the university in conducting its affairs, tempers this freedom with the requirement that in exercising these rights and responsibilities, a university “shall have regard to:
It is now recognised by most higher education institutions that the selective nature of the points system, coupled with the educational disadvantage experienced by many students with disabilities in primary and secondary schooling, means that many students with disabilities cannot compete within the points system. In recognition of this many higher education institutions have developed alternative entry procedures for students with disabilities. In this respect colleges use a range of mechanisms in assessing applicants including interviews, written applications, quotas, career guidance, links programmes, psychometric tests, essay writing, minimum requirements and references/school reports. While such alternative admission procedures are clearly linked to a policy of enabling the student, there is a need to ensure the fairness and transparency of such admissions processes.
If students with disabilities are to be enabled in accessing higher education, it is submitted that admission policy must include the following key features:
The central role of career guidance as part of the admission policy warrants specific comment. The traditional and ongoing failure of education to provide people with disabilities with the life skills necessary to pursue an active and fulfilling life can encourage a culture of dependence and subordination among people with disabilities. The ongoing misconceptions and lack of expectation amongst teachers, parents and students with disabilities themselves must be broken down through innovative strategies to increase awareness of higher education options. Some of the following strategies in place in selected third level institutions are illustrative:
These supports while effective must be addressed at a more strategic level and in particular through the development of training programmes for career guidance counsellors and the development of effective school-college linkages programmes. Such linkages must be actively pursued early in the secondary school cycle, and must actively work with and supply information on third level options to parents, students and teachers. While there are several examples of existing strategies in place there is also a need to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness and to disseminate widely the learning from such activities. Access to guidance must also address the issue of access to guidance by adult learners with disabilities.
The validity and role of alternative admission policies for students with disabilities is endorsed by the Commission on the Points, which stated in its final report:
“The Commission commends and supports such arrangements (referring to a range of alternative admission procedures and the role of The Disability Support Officer) and recommends that each third level institution should set aside a number of places for students with physical and learning disabilities. The Commission further suggests that the institutions should consult each other in relation to ensuring the consistent consideration by such students”.[2]
The recommendations raise a number of questions. What proportion of places should be set aside? Can consistency in consideration be achieved? How is disability defined within this process? Should such reserved places be allocated across all faculties? What factors will influence this process?
The AHEAD survey of student experiences in third level indicated that almost one third of respondents had made use of alternative entry procedures in accessing higher education, 22% had made use of flexible admission schemes for students with disabilities, and 12.4% had entered under the mature student scheme, though a greater number were mature students.3 These findings suggest that while the majority of students with disabilities, as with the general student population, will enter higher education as school leavers, a significant minority of students with disabilities are mature students, and will thus seek to enter higher education via alternative entry routes for mature students. There is no concrete research available on the educational profile of people with disabilities generally but it is to be anticipated that given the very limited educational opportunities traditionally available to people with disabilities, there are many people with disabilities who have had limited access to formal education. In this respect one of the clear issues in enabling access to higher education by people with disabilities is an assessment of the accessibility of adult education and other targeted access programmes to students with disabilities.
In this respect it is notable that the Green Paper on Adult Education fails to address the issue of access to third level by students with disabilities in any respect and the overall superficial response to the issue of disability within the Green Paper is disturbing. It appears to consider people with disabilities as a specific target group for specific training and does not acknowledge that people with disabilities are likely to require access to all adult education by virtue of their diversity and membership of other target groups. Attention must be focused on ensuring access to the full range of adult education opportunities including access to initial and adult education, effective support services, access to guidance and counselling and ensuring the accessibility of alternative access routes to higher education for young and adult people with disabilities.4 This may mean for example that access programmes working in collaboration with specific schools need to apply flexible criteria in allowing access to that programme by students with disabilities where students meet the access criteria, but have attended schools other than those formally linked to the access programme.
While numbers of students with disabilities accessing higher education are undoubtedly increasing, one of the key challenges must be in ensuring the distribution and accessibility of all course options to students applying. The factors impacting on course choice may be varied but the key issues must be the quality of information and guidance, the entry requirement to programmes and the design of the curriculum. Specific attention must be focused on assessing the factors impacting on the accessibility of courses across a range of faculties and of addressing specific barriers that may be in place within subject areas. This will include addressing the availability of a range of programmes on a part–time basis, the potential for foundation programmes in specific areas, and link–in or tester modules.
One of the issues highlighted in the consideration of admission policy and students with disabilities is the linkage between the admission policy, access to the curriculum and the support needs of students with disabilities. While colleges have worked proactively in developing support services for students with disabilities, there are significant variances in how their availability, quality and relevance is managed. Students have little control over the development of services and certainly to date no legal entitlement to such. Recent research in the UK reveals similar issues with disabled students reporting universities to be reactive rather than pre–emptive, lacking in long term design and future planning.5
There appears to be a perception that students with disabilities should be aware of and take cognisance of limited resources in making requests for equal treatment. This variance in levels of service needs to be addressed through the establishment of base line provision requirements, student evaluation processes and through the development of quality assurance mechanisms for the development and delivery of services to students with disabilities. In particular there must be a proactive provision of supports with particular attention focused on ensuring that students with disabilities can fully access and participate in the emerging areas of study and within new means of delivery of course programmes. The increasing popularity of distance education is an example of a specific area where structures are necessary to support full accessibility of this medium of learning to candidates with disabilities. The observations outlined below are based on the experiences of a European funded “Second Chance” project examining access to Open Distance Learning for People with Disabilities:
"If distance education is to be an accessible and purposeful method of learning for everybody, this knowledge has to be connected to the needs of disabled students for coordination and practical adaptation of the home or community learning situation. How the needs should be fulfilled is a question of political choices in the field of educational policy.The subject of ODL pedagogy is still in an early phase of development. If the subject is to be developed to make distance education accessible to disabled people, two elements must be acknowledged. First, the teaching perspective, knowledge of practical access to media and communication equipment. Second the learning perspective knowledge about the need for holistic thinking and coordination of necessary services in the local learning environment.”[6]
In particular accessibility to and training in the use of technology and adaptive technology must be a central feature of Distance Education provision. As noted by the Report of the Information Society Commission IT Access for all “Interaction with technology is neither intuitive not instinctive ... It is clear that different groups will have different training needs. People with disabilities must be catered for in appropriate, accessible and non–threatening environments”.[7]
While the need to proactively develop strategies to ensure the development of enabling teaching methodologies and course design are central to enabling students, the findings of a study undertaken recently by the South West Regional Authority regarding access to lifelong learning are significant. The recently published report “Equality and Access to Lifelong Learning” reported the results of a questionnaire which sought responses on the changes needed in government policy on lifelong learning by asking respondents to indicate the importance they attached to seven issues using a seven point scale. When the average/mean importance attached to the different issues was examined, highest values arose for social welfare, transport, carer/personal assistant schemes and physical access respectively.[8] It is necessary to consider these responses in the context of current provision in higher education. On a positive note the introduction and recent extension of the Back to Education Allowance provides an effective and user friendly process by which students with disabilities, and other under–represented groups such as the long term unemployed and single parents, can be effectively facilitated in entering and returning to higher education.
In contrast the efforts of the third level sector have been frustrated by the recommendations of the “Report of Review Group on Health and Personal Social Services for People with Physical and Sensory Disability Towards an Independent Future”. The report makes an unnecessary and unhelpful distinction between third level education and other education, training and employment.
It is recommended in respect to the provision of personal assistance that:
"In the short term the funding and administration of personal assistance services should rest with the Department of Health through the health boards. An exception is made in the case personal assistance for people in third leveleducation, which should be met by the Department of Education.”[9]
This exception is a major flaw in the development of proper services for people who require a personal assistant.
Collectively, the provision of enabling services such as personal assistants, accessible transport etc., must be supported by the establishment of an effective entitlement–based funding structure to support students with disabilities in higher education. Notably the existing Fund for Students with Disabilities in Third Level Education is not necessarily inadequate in terms of the level of funding allocated to it but the difficulties lie in the absence of transparent policy and procedures supporting its implementation. In order to ensure equality of access to the fund it is necessary that students are fully informed as to the type of supports which are eligible for funding and the criteria on which funding is based.
One of the key features in the provision of equitable opportunities for people with disabilities as highlighted by the HEA report on Access and Equity in Higher Education10 is the transition to the workplace. In this respect the active development of careers support services to students with disabilities in higher education is to be welcomed. The potential of higher education institutions as employers to provide a direct leadership in supporting access to employment by people with disabilities should also be pursued. It seems ironic that most higher education institutions are actively supporting the development of work placement options as an essential feature of higher education courses yet many higher education institutions offer limited opportunity for individuals to access work placement within higher education. In this respect it is submitted that a key feature of higher education HR policy should be the achievement of accreditation as a Positive to Disability employer.
There is no doubt that the profile of higher education is changing and will continue to change at an accelerated rate. As higher education institutions struggle with limited resources to achieve and retain recognition and standing in the international higher education sector, the issues of equity are at risk of being marginalised. This is notable in terms of the absence of equity indicators in the central criteria assessing institutional performance. If students with disabilities are to be enabled learners then there must be a relevance to achieving this for higher education institutions. It is submitted that requirements regarding quality assurance contained in the Universities Act11, which require the institution to establish procedures for quality assurance aimed at improving the quality of education and related services provided by the university, should provide the framework for the inclusion of key criteria to evaluate the experiences of students with disabilities within higher education. While students with disabilities will have an opportunity to contribute to the evaluation, as part of the general student population, it is submitted that any student evaluation should include specific mechanisms to capture and record the evaluation by specific under–represented student groups including students with disabilities.
The changes in access to higher education over the past ten years for students with disabilities appear to highlight the development of an inclusive and enabling environment. While very real progress has been made a closer look at existing policy however reveals that the policy and practice is still based on a reactive and often piece–meal response, funded largely through pilot funding structures and with limited linkages to the core institutional policy and structures. In seeking to move the situation forward it is submitted that mechanisms must be developed at institutional level for including students with disabilities, and other marginalised groups in the evaluation of departments and programmes. In particular there is a need to promote and develop a culture of promotion of equal opportunity and of partnership between second level, third level and adult education, and between different target groups. In so doing particular attention must be focused on ensuring that developments are not restricted to certain institutions or certain faculties, but that the focus on enabling the student is centred on ensuring free choice and equality of access and provision in all higher education institutions and all areas of study.