Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 21 November 2014, At: 22:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Research in Post-CompulsoryEducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20
The disability discrimination act1995, disability statements andthe effect on higher educationfor students with special needsin EnglandViv Parker aa University of East London , United KingdomPublished online: 12 Oct 2011.
To cite this article: Viv Parker (1997) The disability discrimination act 1995,disability statements and the effect on higher education for students with specialneeds in England, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2:1, 89-101, DOI:10.1080/13596749700200007
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596749700200007
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995,Disability Statements and the Effect on Higher Education for Students with Special Needs in England
VIV PARKERUniversity of East London, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT Disabled people are invisible in the Treaty of European Union and,until quite recently, have been invisible or very poorly represented inpost-compulsory education. Europe’s first anti-discrimination act for disabled peoplecame into force on 2nd December 1995 and it has had a very mixed response fromthose who had campaigned for it. The Act generally excludes education from itsterms of reference except that institutions of further and higher education arerequired to produce a disability statement on their provision for students withdisabilities and learning difficulties. This article reports the findings of a survey ofthe anticipated effects upon the higher education sector in England of therequirement to produce Disability Statements. It appears that the requirement mayhave some quite positive effects upon not only the nature and form of informationavailable, but also on the provision offered in the sector
The Invisibility of Disability
Initiatives within the European Union to promote equality of access to allaspects of social life for those who may experience discrimination based onrace or sex are now widely accepted, but only a minority of member statesaccept the need to make an explicit commitment to counter discriminationon grounds of disability (Sutton, 1996, p. 3). The present Treaty ofEuropean Union makes no mention of disability and it often appears that“disabled people are invisible in the treaties” (Waddington, 1995, p. 9) This‘invisibility’ is reflected in the data on participation in post-compulsoryeducation by students with disabilities. A report commissioned by theEuropean Community’s Bureau for Action in Favour of Disabled Peoplepublished in 1986 commented:
Disability and Higher Education
89
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1997
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
No country was able to supply figures on the number ofhandicapped students in higher education although mostprofessionals, voluntary organisations and handicapped youngpeople themselves strongly believed that they wereunder-represented. (Stowell & Cooper, 1986, p. 36)
Disability and Access to Higher Education
Where figures are available they indicate that the number of students withdisabilities in higher education is not representative of their presence in thepopulation in general. A Labour Party survey of opportunities for studentswith disabilities (Smith, 1990, p. 2) found that current provision for studentswith disabilities is:
Variable, incomplete and in need of substantial improvement ...there appears to be an alarming discrepancy between the extentof disability in the population at large and the representation ofstudents with disabilities in higher education.
The Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) report of the1993/94 special initiative indicates that “statistics for disability in highereducation are not readily available” (HEFCE, 1995, p. 17). The Departmentfor Education (DFE) has just undertaken a review of Further and HigherEducation. As part of this process the assessment of quality of teaching andlearning in higher education is discussed. The DFE identifies the fact that,although 97% of institutions have a written equal opportunities policy andprogramme documentation often includes references to access andparticipation, “specific references to students with learning difficulties anddisabilities is extremely rare” (Department for Education, 1995, p. 7, para3.13).
The Meaning of ‘Disability’ in Higher Education
There is great scope for individual interpretation on the nature of disabilityand what it means to an individual. Individuals may ‘tick a box’ to indicate adisability because they think others would see their condition as a disabilityalthough they do not themselves. Students with epilepsy, asthma, diabetesand arthritis are among those who may express this view. Others may use adifferent definition of disability such that they do not consider, for example,‘dyslexia’ or a hearing impairment, to be a disability. A student who uses awheelchair for mobility and would appear to an observer to be disabled maydescribe himself as not disabled because he lives in accessible housing andstudies at a fully accessible campus. The terminology used is perhaps worthcomment here. Students who have been subject to a statement in the schoolsector may recognise the term ‘special needs’ as describing services forthem although many mature students now entering the universities may notbe familiar with this term and may prefer the term ‘disability’ and students
Viv Parker
90
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
with ‘dyslexia’ may not always be aware that ‘specific learning difficulties’is used to describe them.
The meaning given to the term ‘disability’ varies considerablydepending upon who is defining the term, to whom and for what purpose.The Department for Education circular on the disabled student allowances(1993, ACL10/93, p. 1) defines eligibility in terms of “all cases where astudent may face extra costs because of physical or mental impairment,including dyslexia”.
Some forms used to make an application to universities offerapplicants the opportunity to tick one of nine impairment-based categories toindicate a disability, these are: none; dyslexia; partially sighted; hearingimpaired; chair/mobility; personal care support; mental health; unseen, e.g.epilepsy, diabetes, asthma; multiple; other. These categories and theDepartment of Education definition above are those typically used byinstitutions of HE in describing and developing policy and provision forstudents with disabilities.
The Disability Discrimination Act and Higher Education
The Disability Discrimination Act received Royal Assent on 8th November,1995. The Act’s coverage of education is more limited than manyorganisations campaigning for civil rights for disabled people have pressedfor and education provision is excluded from the main provisions of the Actwhich outlaw discrimination. The Act does, however, place a new statutoryduty on the Higher Education Funding Councils in exercising their functionsto “have regard to the requirements of disabled persons” and to require thegoverning bodies of institutions of higher education funded by them “topublish disability statements” (Disability Discrimination Act, 1995, p. 26).This will enable the Funding Councils to take a strategic role in influencingwhat institutions do for students with disabilities. The HEFCE has set up aDisability subgroup to explore ways of building better provision, but this isstill at an early stage. For the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland the date for the publication of statements wass 10th January 1997,other funding councils have slightly different timescales.
The requirement of the Act that higher education institutions (HEIs)must publish disability statements seemed initially to be a very modestrequirement and unlikely to have any significant impact on improving accessto HE for applicants with disabilities. The main purpose of the statements isthat they should “describe the facilities for education and research that anHEI offers people with disabilities.” A secondary purpose is to inform theFunding Council of such provision and “highlight good practice which theCouncil may draw upon in the future” (HEFCE, 1996a). The fact that therequirement concerns the supply only of information and there is norequirement on any HEI that it should make any provision as such suggeststhat the legislation could leave the level and quality of provision in thesector largely untouched.
Disability and Higher Education
91
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Between February and June 1996 the University of East London andSkill (The National Bureau for Students with Disabilities) worked togetheron a research project about disability statements. The aim was to explore thepossible effects upon the sector of this requirement.
The main focus of the study was to identify:(1) the processes and personnel likely to be involved in generating thedisability statements;(2) any anticipated positive and negative effects on the information andservice made available to students of the requirement to produce thestatement. Colleagues across the sector were asked how much work would be investedin writing the statement in their institution, which members of staff wouldbe involved in its production, what effects the statement would have oninformation available to students and prospective students with disabilitiesand the effects on provision for them.
The outcome of the study suggests that, although some fears aboutnegative impacts on provision have been raised there may be some verypositive effects upon the sector of the requirement that Disability Statementsbe produced on a regular basis.
The Survey
A questionnaire survey of HEIs was undertaken between February and June1996. This was just after the HEFCE consultative exercise when HEIs wereasked (circular letter no. 3/96) to comment, by April 5th, on the format andcontent of statements. The questions were therefore directed at eliciting theanticipated effects on the sector of the requirement to produce thestatements. It is intended to follow this study with a similar survey, afterstatements have been produced and published, to identify what the actualeffects of the requirement have been.
A total of 90 institutions were asked to complete the questionnaire.Thirty-seven questionnaires were returned and the return rate is 41.1%.
A copy of the questionnaire is included as an appendix.The questionnaire was distributed and feedback collected in the
following ways:x Feedback from the Skill annual conference – 42 higher education
institutions were represented at the conference, all of whom received aquestionnaire. Fifteen questionnaires were returned.
x Feedback from faxes – a questionnaire was faxed to every fourthinstitution listed in Higher Education and Disability 1996 (HEAD, 1995)that was not represented at Skill’s annual conference. Institutions that didnot provide information in HEAD, or only a contact name were sentquestionnaires as well. Forty-three institutions were contacted throughthis method and 21 questionnaires were returned.
x Feedback from meetings – three Skill higher education networks(Northwest, Midlands and Northeast) handed the questionnaire out at
Viv Parker
92
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
their meetings. This reached five institutions who had not yet beencontacted. One questionnaire was returned.
The Findings
The great majority of the institutions responding do have a member of staffresponsible for students with disabilities, only three did not. Most (32) ofthe questionnaires were completed by this person. All but one of theseexpected to be involved in responding to the HEFCE consultative exerciseon the form and content of the statements.
Of the two purposes specified by HEFCE for the disability statements(the provision of information for potential applicants and information to thefunding council) the provision of information for students/applicants wasrated as more important than that for the funding councils; 24 as opposed toeight. Only three responses rated the two purposes as equally important.Twenty-one responses elaborated on the importance of “informing studentsof provision” and nine commented in more detail on the value of informingthe funding council of “the nature and extent of provision”.
The results of the survey indicate outcomes operating at two levels;those at student or applicant level, and those at institutional or sector level.These are examined in more detail below.
Student Level Outcomes
The question on the ways in which disability statements might enhanceinformation offered to students elicited thirty-two responses indicating awide range of positive improvements, two who were “not sure” and twowere left blank. One indicated that there would be “not much” effect as itwas an agricultural college – this suggests assumptions about the nature ofdisability that might exclude any hidden or invisible impairments such ashearing impairment or dyslexia (approximately 14% of undergraduates withdisabilities in HE are dyslexic and 6% have a hearing impairment, Fender,1995).
Positive factors identified include the provision of information wherethere had previously been none and increasing the amount and detail ofinformation where some had previously been provided. Comments madeincluded:
this institution will have to provide much more extensive andspecific information than it does at present
and
it could lead to a more succinct summary and overview,
it will bring out the information relevant to candidates withdisabilities.
Disability and Higher Education
93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Nine responses mentioned that in various ways institutions will review andrevise documentation to make it more comprehensive, consistent, coherentand easily accessible to students. Some referred to this effect as within theirinstitution “it may lead us to take a more holistic approach”, and where adiversity of documents currently exists these would be “concentrated into acoherent form”. Others emphasised the effect across the sector in that, forexample, it may “make all institutions more uniform in their information sostudents can make informed choices sooner”.
Another major outcome mentioned is that applicants will be enabled tomake informed choices about their preferred place of study and not belimited to only those institutions which currently do provide information ontheir services and access for students with disabilities. This is mentioned innine responses as one of the main reasons for the importance of improvedand standardised information to students. It is “to enable student choice andadvise what is available to support them”. It will also reduce the amount ofwasted time/money and also wasted applications that some applicants havefound unavoidable because of poor quality information and avoid the direconsequences of a wrong choice: “a wrong choice could be disastrous“.
Given the value that some institutions place on equal opportunities intheir missions it is interesting to note that six responses made somereference to the disability statements as enhancing equality of access. Threecomments emphasised a change in the status of the disabled student’s claimto entry to HE linked to the statements. One suggested that “it will turnhopeful student expectations into a student right” another that it wouldspecify “choice, what is/not available, entitlement, rights, what is/notaccessible i.e. buildings/curriculum”, and a third that “if co-ordinatedcorrectly it would give disabled students an equality of access to allinstitutions”.
It would be a significant advance in provision if the statements didprovide a more firmly grounded right of access to study in HEIs rather thanaccess which currently, in some cases, depends largely on the goodwill ofstaff. It is also a very positive indicator that five responses suggested that thestatement may result in some improvements to the current level of provision.
Of 11 detailed responses to the question about any negative aspects ofthe statements, three refer to relatively minor points such as the possibilitiesthat institutions may “descend into bland generalisation” or “make verygeneral statements which give the impression of positive attitudes whilebeing short on specifics” or that “glossy leaflets can give a false impressionthat an institution is trying when they are not”. Five express more significantconcerns about ways in which the statements may limit or reduce the overalloffer to applicants. One response indicated that “institutions may draftstatements in such a way that they would hope not to attract any applicationsfrom students with disabilities” and another that “any inadequacy pointedout by the statement may discourage applicants”.
A more serious effect mentioned is the possibility that as institutionsare aware that the statement offers a ‘rights-based’ commitment to
Viv Parker
94
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
applicants they may reduce the basic specification of the service offered inthe statement to the bare minimum that the institution can offer to allstudents. One respondent said:
Students are encouraged to apply and discuss possibilities andproblems individually with departments. This can lead tonegotiations with support organisations and LEAs, and to theextension of support for individual students. When we arerequired to make a public statement of facilities, it will containdetails of the minimum support we provide across the institution,together with the same invitation to apply and discuss. However,disabled students may interpret the statement as the maximumsupport we can offer – which may paradoxically lead to fewerstudents feeling able to apply.
There may be institutions which generally offer much more support than theminimum that they feel is safe to specify in a statement and , if the statementis to have the status of a legal contract, prefer to understate their offer, i.e.
it might make institutions more cautious in how they wordstatements in case they can’t deliver anything like what would beimplied from information given.
This is not necessarily a negative effect as it may be argued that it is betterfor applicants to be informed of exactly what is the entitlement baseline ofprovision for students with disabilities rather than what they may beprovided with at a given point in time because of the goodwill of a particulardepartment, course team or member of staff. The former is what, in theevent of any staff or departmental failure to provide, the institution iswilling to guarantee and this should provide a more secure basis for astudent’s choice than what happens to obtain at the time of application but isnot underwritten by the university for the period of study.
Institution/Sector Level Outcomes
In recognition of the need to improve access to higher education for studentswith disabilities the HEFCE has, since 1993, funded three special initiativesto widen access for students with disabilities and disseminate best practiceacross the sector.
During the periods 1993/94 and 1994/95 the HEFCE offered threemillion pounds to the sector for special projects aimed at improving accessto students with special needs.
The aim of this initiative was to
encourage higher education institutions to become moreaccessible to students with special needs. This could be inrelation to: physical access; access to teaching and curriculumsupport; leisure and advisory services. It was intended to directfunding towards institutions where there was existing experience,
Disability and Higher Education
95
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
thus developing exemplars of good practice ... dissemination(was) to be an important feature of the initiative. (HEFCEcircular 8/94, 1994, p. 1.)
All projects had to be action/outcome directed so solely research-directedprojects were not supported. Thirty-eight projects were funded for1993/1994 and 49 for 1994/1995 and, of these, 27 institutions were fundedfor both years. Twenty institutions were unsuccessful in both years and 51did not apply in either year. The total number of projects funded over the 2years was 87 across 57 institutions.
The HEFCE has, in the projects funded currently, moved the emphasisfrom widening access to encouraging high quality provision for studentswith learning difficulties and disabilities by funding initiatives at 31institutions over the period 1996 to 1998-1999 (HEFCE, 1996c, p. 4). Ofthese 12 are at institutions which were funded in the two previous rounds ofbidding and seven at institutions which have never been funded before. Over100 higher education institutions and a significant number of furthereducational colleges offering HE applied during the latest round. The 57institutions funded in 1993/1994 and 1994/1995 plus the current sevenfunded for the first time suggests that little over one half of the institutionsfunded by HEFCE have some awareness and provision for students withdisabilities although the level of awareness and provision will varyconsiderably as some projects were much more specialised than others.
Prior to the Disability Discrimination legislation there were quite a fewinstitutions with no staff with any form of designated responsibility forstudents with disabilities. The Hobsons guide to higher education for peoplewith disabilities (Hobsons, 1994) contains a listing of 174 entries byinstitutions of higher education only 47 mention a named person or contactwith some responsibility for special needs/disability; 88 identify aninstitutional role as the main contact and 47 entries consist solely of theinstitution name and address.
The HEFCE report on the 1993/1994 and 1994/1995 special initiativesto widen participation for students with disabilities (HEFCE, 1996b, p. 8)referred to the problem that “many non-participating institutions do not havea named member of staff with whom participating institutions can sharetheir expertise”.
The need to produce a disability statement should ensure that everyinstitution will identify a person or persons to co-ordinate the production, oractually produce, the information required for it. One comment reflectingthis was “it means the college and the management will consider the issue”and another that “it will concentrate the mind wonderfully”.
Virtually all responses to the survey indicated that they expected thesenior management to be involved in responding to the HEFCE consultation.The involvement of senior management was identified as most important indeveloping and sustaining good provision for students with disabilities inthe report of the special initiatives to widen participation (HEFCE, 1996b, p.10). “An important factor in determining the success of the projects was thecommitment and active support of senior management”. The requirement to
Viv Parker
96
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
produce a disability statement seems likely to be the first step in drawingmatters of disability access to the attention of the senior managers of someinstitutions which, hitherto, may have never considered the matter.
The requirement to produce the statement must also result in someform of audit of current policy and provision in each institution and this islikely to raise the awareness of staff responsible for various key services ineach institution as they identify and review current and anticipatedprovision. A majority of responses (25) indicated that the production of thedisability statements would be used to “review, audit or appraise currentprovision for disabled students”. Twenty agreed that their institution woulduse the resulting information to identify the need for, or undertake, staffdevelopment and 26 that they would use the production of statements toidentify strategies or policy plans for future development.
This must enhance the general level of knowledge and awareness aboutprovision for students with disabilities and will in itself be valuable for staff,applicants and students. It also offers a starting point for developing andextending such provision.
It is quite possible in principle that an institution may identify acomplete absence of policy and provision for students with disabilities, andbe prepared to make this the core of their statement. It seems much morelikely however that, once disability statements for every institution becomereadily available as public documents, institutions will aspire to match atleast the basic level that characterises most of these statements.
For institutions which do have some policy and provision therequirement may help the review and development of services for studentswith disabilities. One response indicated “it will act as a key influence forchange and improvement by clarifying strengths and weaknesses”, andanother that “a student handbook must be produced, this will forceuniversity to clarify/develop policy”.
Eight responses indicated sector level benefits of the greateruniformity in the nature and form of the information that would be elicitedby the statements. One indicated that “institutions will be more uniform intheir information” . Another that “standards for procedure will be moreconsistent and information publicly available”, and a third that “ifcategories/questions are standardised across institutions it can serve as abenchmark for ourselves”. One of the most positive responses indicatedspecified as outcomes:(i) to ‘mainstream’ the issue, to make it a responsibility for everybody(ii) to create a more inclusive educational environment.One immediate improvement at sector level seems likely to be a raising ofthe threshold, or minimum level, of policy and provision across the sector.The existence of standardised information at sector level seems likely tooffer applicants a far wider and better grounded choice of where to study.The choice will be based upon a whole sector offer rather than limited onlyto those institutions that have given disability access a high priority andchosen to make this known. There is a cost to these institutions which hasbeen, in part, accentuated by the success of the HEFCE widening access
Disability and Higher Education
97
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
initiatives. Those institutions which have been committed to wideningaccess to students with disabilities have found the number of applicants hasrisen steeply over recent years. This places quite a strain on their resourcesand has even threatened to undermine or limit the provision that theseinstitutions have aimed to offer to students with disabilities. If the provisionfor students with disabilities were more evenly spread across the sector thismight give applicants a wider choice and enable the whole sector to sharethe costs of this provision more evenly – ultimately to the greater benefit ofmore students.
Conclusions
The survey suggests that the requirement that every institution of HE mustproduce a disability statement is likely to have some small, but significanteffects upon the quality and extent of provision for students with disabilitiesacross the whole sector. Institutions which have hitherto had no provision oreven awareness will begin to move towards at least some awareness of theneeds of students with disabilities and those with some existing provisionare likely to seek to clarify the basis on which this is offered to students andapplicants. The sector-wide collection and publication of this informationshould enable institutions to share policies and practices more widely and tobuild on best practice.
This study was undertaken before the publication of the Tomlinsonreport (Tomlinson, 1996). Although Tomlinson was commissioned by theFurther Education Funding Council (FEFCE) and focuses on furthereducation it clearly has implications for higher education. The reportidentifies the need to develop “a system that is inclusive” and acknowledgesthat this “will require a degree of sector-wide and regional planning andcollaboration” to build a system that is sufficient and adequate for all whocome forward (Tomlinson, 1996, p. 5). This kind of regional collaboration isfar less characteristic of the higher education sector than of furthereducation, but it may be that the requirement to produce the disabilitystatements may result in some sector-wide developments initially at the levelof information content and format but indirectly, through the resultingreview and audit, also of the services offered.
Correspondence
Ms Viv Parker, Department of Education and Community Studies,University of East London, Longbridge Road, Dagenham, Essex RM8 2AS,United Kingdom (v.m.parker @ uel.ac.uk).
References
Department for Education (1993) Disabled Student’s Allowances, ACL 10/93, 23September 1993, para.2, p1. Available from Department for Education,
Viv Parker
98
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith St, London, SW1P 3BT, United Kingdom.Tel 0171 925 5205.
Department for Education (1995) Further and Higher Education ReviewProgramme. London: DfEE.
Department for Education (1995) Further and Higher Education Review Programme:Disability Discrimination Bill. Available from Mrs L Slater, Department forEducation, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith St, London SW1P 3BT, UnitedKingdom. Tel 0171 925 5205.
Disability Discrimination Act (1995) Chapter 50, Part IV, p. 29. London: HMSO.Fender, B (1995) Good Practice in Higher Education, The Skill Journal, Issue 53, p.
3.Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), (1994) Special Iniatives to
Widen Participation. Circular 8/94. London: HEFCE.Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), (1995) Access to Higher
Education: students with special needs. An HEFCE Report on the 1993–94Special Initiative to Encourage Widening Participation for Students with SpecialNeeds, p. 17. London: HEFCE.
Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) (1996a) ProposedSpecification for Disability Statements to be Required from Institutions.Circular 3/96 p. 7. Bristol: HEFCE.
Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) (1996b) Access to HigherEducation: students with learning difficulties and disabilities. A report on the1993/4 and 1994/95 HEFCE special initiatives to encourage wideningparticipation for students with disabilities, p. 8. Bristol: HEFCE.
Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) (1996c) Special Initiativeto Encourage High Quality Provision for Students with Learning Difficultiesand Disabilities, Circular 23/96 p. 7. Bristol: HEFCE.
HEAD (1994) Higher Education and Disability. The Guide to Higher Education forPeople with Disabilities. Cambridge: Hobsons.
HEAD (1995) Higher Education and Disability. The Guide to Higher Education forPeople with Disabilities, 1996. Cambridge: Hobsons.
Smith, A. (1990) Opportunities for Students with Disabilities; A Labour PartySurvey. From Andrew Smith, MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA,United Kingdom.
Stowell, R. & Cooper, D. (1986) European Students with Disabilities. The access ofdisabled students to and within establishments and programmes ofpost-compulsory education; a survey of the situation in the Member States of theEuropean Community, p. 36. London: National Bureau for HandicappedStudents.
Sutton, D. (1996) News from the member States, in Invisible Citizens; DisabledPerson’s Status in the European Treaties, IGC update, Issue No 3, p. 3.
Tomlinson, J. (1996) Inclusive Learning. Report of the Learning Difficulties and/orDisabilities Subcommittee, p. 5. London: FEFC.
Waddington, L. (1995) Disabled People are Invisible in the Treaties – Why theEuropean Treaties should contain a non-discrimination provision, in EuropeanDay of Disabled Persons 1995; Disabled Persons Status in the EuropeanTreaties, Invisible Citizens. Secretariat of European Day of Disabled Persons1995, 7, Boulevard Clovis, Brussels B – 1040, Belgium.
Disability and Higher Education
99
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
APPENDIXHigher Education Questionnaire on Disability Statements
If you work or are involved in higher education in the United Kingdom andare aware of the current consultation on disability statements, please fill outthis questionnaire and return it to the registration table/Skill.
Skill and the University of East London are working on a project aboutdisability statements. We want to know how much work will be involved inwriting the statements and the effects they will have on information forstudents, provision for students, your workload, and on institutions ingeneral.
Please circle your answers where appropriate.
General Information
1 Does your institution have a member of staff responsible for students withdisabilities?2 Is this you? 3 Are you involved or do you expect to you expect to be involved inresponding to the consultation?4 Will senior management be involved?5 Of the two stated purposes of disability statements, which do you think ismost important and why?
(a) to inform students of provision.(b) to inform your council of the nature and extent of your
provision.
Existing Information and Provision
6 Does your institution inform disabled students about the nature and extentof policy and provision?
Is this information given in:(a) Pre-enrolment material sent to all students?(b) The Prospectus?(c) A separate book for students with disabilities?(d) On request?(e) Other ways?(f) What other ways?
7 Does your institution offer information in alternative formats (e.g. Brailleor disk)?8 In what ways do you think that disability statements will improve theinformation you offer to students and prospective students with disabilities?
Viv Parker
100
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
9 Do you think disability statements will produce any negative effects on theinformation available to students and prospective students?10 Has the knowledge that you will have to produce disability statementsprompted your institution to make any of the following changes to currentpractice or provision?
(a) Review of senior management responsible for disabled students?(b) Identify a member of staff responsible for disabled students?(c) Review of policy for students with disabilities?(d) Review of provision for students with disabilities?(e) Production of new written documentation on provision?(f) Provision disability awareness training for staff?
Your Workload
11 Does your institution already have all or most of the information that theconsultation document suggests disability statements contain?
(a) If no, how will your institution identify and produce the necessaryinformation?12 Do you think that your institution will have any difficulties in producingdisability statements?
If yes, what?13 Do you think your institution will use the production of disabilitystatements to encourage any of the following?
(a) Review, audit or appraise current provision offered to disabledstudents?
(b)Use the resulting information to identify or undertake staffdevelopment needs?
(c) Identify strategies or policy plans for future developments?(d) Other.
14 Do you think your institution will seek outside help to write disabilitystatements from any of the following?
(a) Publications.(b) Skill.(c) Skill networks.(d) Other.
15 Skill can offer a consultancy service to assist institutions in developingtheir disability statements. Might your institution be interested in this?
Disability and Higher Education
101
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Penn
sylv
ania
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
