1. towards a more inclusive higher education system in the uk student with or without disabilities

Peter D. Pumfrey

Journal of Applied Research in Higher EducationVolume 2 • Number 2 • 64

IN 1998, the Department for Education and Employment

(DfEE) set the following higher education (HE) inclusion pol-

icy objective:

Our priority is to reach out and include those who

have been under-represented in higher education,

including young people from semi-skilled or

unskilled family backgrounds and from

disadvantaged localities, and people with

disabilities.

DfEE, 1998

This paper focuses on changes over the ten year period

between 1998/9 and 2007/8 in the numbers included and

the relative academic standards of male and female students

with and without disabilities who successfully complete a first

degree in UK higher education institutions (HEIs).

A social-context model of disability underpins the DfEE HE

inclusion and its consequent legislative implementation

(Government Equalities Office, 2010). The exclusion experi-

enced by many individuals with disabilities can be construed

as stemming from modifiable attitudinal and environmental

TOWARDS A MORE INCLUSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE UK (1998/99 TO 2007/08): STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES

Peter D. PumfreyUniversity of Worcester

Abstract

Based on data drawn from ten cohorts of students successfully completing a first degree, this paper exam-ines Government* higher education (HE) policy and changes in its effects in practice over a period of tenyears until 2008. In 1998, Government policy on HE was set to make HE more inclusive of previouslyunder-represented groups. These groups included students from semi-skilled or unskilled family back-grounds and from socially deprived localities. By the year 2010, a target was set to have 50% of 18-30year-old individuals experiencing HE. Educational standards were to be maintained. Another identifiedunder-represented group was students with disabilities. This paper addresses the relationship between HEpolicy and its effects in practice in relation to both groups. Changes in the numbers and the first degreeresults of cohorts of successful male and female students with and without disabilities were analysedannually between the years 1998/99 (Cohort 1) and 2007/8 (Cohort 10). The numbers and the first degreeresults of successful disabled (nine categories of disability) and non-disabled male and female studentswere analysed. To date, results from an overall total of 2,588,792 successful students have been exam-ined. A Government announcement in the autumn of 2009 limited access to first degree courses. Has ametaphorical ‘end of the line’ towards greater inclusion in HE been reached?

Key words: Higher education policy, inclusion, disability, first degree standards.

Introduction

* This paper was accepted for publication prior to the General Election of May 2010, and the policies discussed relate to the Labour Government of that period.

barriers, rather than from the disability. “Achieving ‘equality

of opportunity’ is very hard when there are such wide differ-

ences between the resources which people and their families

have to help them fulfil their diverse potentials”(Government

Equalities Office, 2010). Controversy concerning the relative

effects of heredity versus environment on both inter- and

intra-individual variations in abilities and achievements con-

tinue (Palmer, 2010).

Discussion of disability is assisted when three complementary

levels and uses of the word are distinguished and accepted:

Disability A - the conceptual definitions of the word from the

perspective of a given discipline; Disability B - the observa-

tions of disability permeating everyday life from which the

conceptual level label of Disability A is inferred; and Disability

C - the varied means of assessing the nature, variety, inci-

dence, degree and modifiability of a disability.

No single discipline has a ‘freehold’ concerning theory,

research and practice in the field of Disability at any of the

above three levels. Disability C can be operationally defined

and assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively in differ-

ent, albeit complementary ways, by colleagues from various

academic disciplines. Measurement matters. Epidemiologists

characteristically have a major focus on patterns of popula-

tion-based empirical data (to inform institutional

decision-making). In contrast, clinicians focus on the unique

client (to inform individual decision-making). Both groups are

professionally and epistemologically involved in using and

improving institutional and individual assessment procedures.

These include conceptualising and making explicit the nature

and degree of a disability. Measurement of change over time

in certain effects of a disability on groups and individuals with

and without interventions provide evidence helping identify

effective practice.

When discussing the evidence adduced in support of the

efficacy of a given intervention in a specific situation, an

appreciation of four different but related levels of meas-

urement facilitates professional discourse; categorical,

ordinal, interval and ratio levels of measurement have dif-

fering strengths and limitations in the ways in which these

four categories of empirical data can be expressed and

used in analysing data (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996;

Pumfrey, 1997).

Disability and coursecompetence standards

THE KEY legal definition is given in the Disability

Discrimination Act (DDA), 1995. The Act states that an indi-

vidual is considered disabled provided that they have a

mental or physical impairment, the impairment has an

adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day

activities and the effect is substantial and long-term. The def-

inition can include individuals who have dyslexia, learning

difficulties or long-term medical conditions, or those who

experience mental health difficulties.

Acceptance on a first degree course depends on the applicant

meeting the competence standards of the course. A “com-

petence standard” is defined in the Disability Discrimination

Act as “an academic, medical or other standard applied by or

on behalf of an educational provider for the purposes of

determining whether or not a person has a particular level of

competence or ability.” These standards vary with each qual-

ification (Skill, 2009). Higher education institutions (HEIs) are

required to make reasonable adjustments to enable students

with disabilities to meet the competency standards required by

a given course. If necessary, a disagreement concerning

whether or not an adjustment is ‘reasonable’ will be decided

before a judge in a court.

The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 established the

Disability Rights Commission (DRC). Its duties are: to work

towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled

people; to promote the equalisation of opportunities for dis-

abled people; to encourage good practice in the treatment of

disabled people; and to keep under review the workings of

the DDA (DRC, 2007).

The purpose of the present paper is to present analyses of

descriptive population data bearing on the following two key

UK Government HE objectives set by the Government in

1998 and intended to be reached by 2010: (1) Increasing the

Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) of students

with and without disabilities (50% of 18–30 year-olds expe-

rience HE by 2010); and (2) Maintaining HE academic

standards of students with and without disabilities. The cur-

rent paper is a continuation of a previous study based on data

from 1998/99 to 2004/05 which involved 1,502,658 students

who had successfully completed their first degrees (Pumfrey,

2008). By 2007/8, the cumulative database of ten cohorts of

students who successfully completed first degrees has risen to

2,588,792.

The national context

SKILLS and qualifications affect the life chances of the indi-

vidual and the prosperity of a nation. The Leitch Review of

Skills revealed that, over the ten years from 1994 to 2004,

the number of jobs requiring no qualifications fell from about

18% to 11%. The number of jobs requiring a degree

increased from 23% to 30%. Leitch (2006) predicts that by

2020, 42% of jobs will require a degree level qualification or

above. Turning to individuals with disabilities and without

Towards a more inclusive higher education system in the UK...


formal qualifications, over one-third were categorised as dis-

abled, according to the Labour Force Survey (Office for

National Statistics, 2005). In 2009, there were an estimated

one million young persons who are ‘not in education,

employment or training’ (NEET). The potential for social

unrest is not restricted to this group. The currently problem-

atic financial situation of the nation, and the rising

unemployment rate, underline challenging political tensions.

With reference to educational institutions, Part 4 of the DDA

is applicable. This was amended by the Special Educational

Needs and Disability Act, 2001 (DRC, 2007). It now places

specific duties on all educational institutions, at all stages of

education. Legal responsibilities aimed at eliminating dis-

crimination have been established. The making of reasonable

adjustments by all institutions and staff, underpins both pol-

icy and effective practice. The implications for teachers and

lecturers in their pedagogy, in relation to the teaching and

learning of their students, are challenging.

Guidance on the legally defined professional responsibilities

of colleges, universities and adult community learning

providers in Great Britain had earlier been provided by the

DRC. This source was replaced by a new helpline supported

by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR),

the Learning Skills Network, and also from Skill, the National

Bureau for Students with Disabilities (DRC, 2007). Copies can

also be downloaded from the DRC website.

In relation to HE, the question ‘Am I being discriminated

against?’ is one that may concern any individual. This ques-

tion has been constructively addressed in a five step test

designed to help individuals systematically consider whether

discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

may have taken place. Additionally, the issue of possible

harassment is included. The steps are as follows:

1. Do you meet the DDA definition of disability?

2. Are you covered by the DDA?

3. Is the organisation, service or person covered by the

DDA?

4. Have you been discriminated against?

5. Is there a justification for any discrimination that has

taken place?

6. Have you been subjected to harassment? (Skill, 2009).

Individuals with a disability who are considering applying for

entry into HE for a first degree are likely to have questions

concerning the access and support arrangements provided

at that institution. Links to university websites giving infor-

mation about their disability equality schemes and the

contact details of their disability coordinators are available.

These can be explored using the ‘Into Higher Education list-

ings database’ also provided by Skill (2007).

The current HE provision supports the claim that, during the

period 1998/9 to 2007/8, a great deal has been done to facil-

itate the inclusion of students with disabilities into HE.

Whether the academic standards of students successfully

completing a first degree have remained stable is more con-

troversial.

In late 2009, a White Paper Skills for Growth was published.

It included the revised HE aspiration that three quarters of

people should have participated in HE, or have completed an

advanced apprenticeship or technical course, by the time they

are thirty years old (Department for Business, Innovation and

Skills (DBIS)(2009). This appears to widen, but does not super-

sede the earlier 50% HE participation rate set for 2010.

Research objectives

THE AIMS of the current study are:

1. to describe changes over time in the numbers, percent-

ages and relative academic standards of non-disabled

and disabled male and female students successfully com-

pleting a first degree in the UK;

2. to consider the implications of the findings in light of the

previous government’s policy of making HE more inclu-

sive;

3. to identify professional challenges and to indicate prom-

ising practices likely to make HE more inclusive; and

4. to indicate promising avenues for further research into

the costs and benefits of a more inclusive HE system.

Method

THE EMPIRICAL basis of the present study is an examination of

changes across time in cohort data. Because there is no need

to generalise findings from specified samples to the given

population, inferential statistics are irrelevant. Descriptive

population statistics are used.

This study focuses on cohorts of successful male and female

first degree students with and without disabilities. Changes

between 1998/9 and 2007/8 in the relative numbers and aca-

demic achievements of the groups involved are examined and

Peter D. Pumfrey




1st Upper 2nd Lower 2nd 3rd Unclass’d N/A TOTAL

Dyslexia 153 1083 1166 268 139 2809

5.4% 38.6% 41.5% 9.5% 4.9% 100%

Blind 20 137 111 17 29 314

6.4% 43.6% 35.4% 5.4% 9.2% 100%

Deaf 28 200 215 48 34 525

5.3% 38.1% 41.0% 9.1% 6.5% 100%

Wheelchair 27 135 122 20 29 333

8.1% 40.5% 36.6% 6.0% 8.7% 100%

Per care 1 5 5 3 0 14

7.1% 35.7% 35.7% 21.4% 0.0% 100%

Mental 26 54 60 12 22 174

14.9% 31.0% 34.5% 6.9% 12.6% 100%

Unseen 361 2159 1899 382 317 5118

7.1% 42.2% 37.1% 7.5% 6.2% 100%

Multiple 49 196 210 64 118 637

7.7% 30.8% 33.0% 10.0% 18.5% 100%

Autistic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Not listed 83 454 436 86 69 1128

7.4% 40.2% 38.7% 7.6% 6.1% 100%

No disability 17298 97257 76994 16270 15976 223795

7.7% 43.5% 34.4% 7.3% 7.1% 100%

Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL 18046 101680 81218 17170 16733 234847

7.7% 43.3% 34.6% 7.3% 7.1% 100%

Total disabled 748 4423 4224 900 757 11052

4.1% 4.3% 5.2% 5.2% 4.5% 5%

17298 97257 76994 16270 15976 223795

95.9% 95.7% 94.8% 94.8% 95.5% 95%

Table 1: All UK-domiciled, successful, first-degree qualifiers; grouped by degree classification (1998–99)

Total no disability+ unknown

discussed. This is a continuation of ongoing research based

on data from 1998/99 to 2004/05 involving 1,502, 658 stu-

dents who had successfully completed their first degrees

(Pumfrey, 2008). By 2007/8, the cumulative database of ten

cohorts of students successfully completed first degrees has

risen to 2,588,792.

The analyses of the data and changes within it form a replic-

able empirical database. This both provides the basis for, and

facilitates, the generation of potentially promising and

testable hypotheses bearing on developing and establishing

a more inclusive HE system in which academic standards are

maintained. The key four classificatory variables used are:

Cohort; Gender, Disability and Degree classification. The two

cohorts are: Cohort 1 (1998/99) and Cohort 10 (2007/08),

plus the sum of Cohorts 1 to 10.

The UK first degree classifications are: First class honours;

Upper second class honours; Lower second class honours;

Third class/Pass; and Unclassified which refers to degree not

subject to a classification such as medical and general degree.

In terms of disabilities, the following classifications are used:

dyslexia; blind/partially sighted; deaf/hearing impaired; wheel-

chair user/mobility difficulties; personal care support; mental

health difficulties; an unseen disability, e.g. diabetes, epilepsy,

asthma; multiple disabilities; and finally any other disability

not listed. It should be noted that in 2003/04, ‘autism’ was

added to the list and in 2007/08, ‘dyslexia’ was replaced by

a more inclusive new category of: ‘specific learning difficul-

ties, e.g. dyslexia’.

For Objectives 1 – 2 of this paper, first degree results for suc-

cessful students were cross-classified by: cohort (2 cohorts:

1998/99 and 2007/08, plus sum of cohorts 1 to 10), gender

(male and female), disability (9 categories) and degree classi-

fication (5 categories).The total number of successful first

degree students in the two cohorts is 526,302 and in all ten

cohorts is 2,588,792.

Results

IN RELATION to the two cohorts of successful first degree stu-

dents with and without disabilities who graduated in

1998/99 and 2007/08 respectively, the descriptive statistics

demonstrate marked changes over the ten years both in

degree numbers and percentages in the academic standards

of first degrees awarded (Table 1). The overall numbers of

successful students rose by 56,608 or 24% (from 234,847 to

291,455). The combined numbers and percentages of “Good

honours” (First and Upper Second Class degree numbers

combined) rose by 49,032 (from 119,726 to 168,758). For

students with disabilities, the overall increase was 15,484

(from 11,052 to 26,536). The most marked percentage

increase across time in incidence was for students identified

as having a mental disorder. Numbers rose from 174 to

1,212, a 697% change.

In relation to the two cohorts of successful male first degree

students with and without disabilities who graduated in


demonstrate marked changes over the ten years both in num-

bers of male students successfully completing their first

degrees and also in the academic standards of the first degrees

awarded (Tables 3 and 4). The overall numbers of successful

male students rose by 16,020 or 15% (from 106,011 to


honours” (First and Upper Second Class degree awards com-

bined), rose by 49,032 (from 106,011 to 122,030).

For male students with disabilities, the overall increase was

6,424 (from 5,075 to 11,499). The most marked percentage

increase across time in disability incidence was for students

identified as having a mental disorder. Numbers rose from 86

to 404, a 470% change. The numbers and percentages of

“Good honours” (First and Upper Second Class honours

degrees combined) rose by 17,700 (from 49,922 to 67,778).

In relation to the two cohorts of successful female first degree

students with and without disabilities who graduated in


demonstrate marked changes over the ten years both in

degree numbers of female students successfully completing

their first degrees and also in the academic standards of the

first degrees awarded. The overall numbers of successful

female students rose by 40,589 or 32% (from 128,836 to


honours” (First and Upper Second Class degree awards com-

bined), rose by 31,186 (from 69,804 to 100,980).

For female students with disabilities, the overall increase was

9,060 (from 5,977 to 15,037). Again, the most marked per-

centage increase across time in disability incidence was for

students identified as having a mental disorder. Numbers rose

from 86 to 808, a 918% change. The numbers and percent-

ages of “Good honours” (First and Upper Second Class

honours degrees combined) rose by 31,176 (from 69,804 to

100,980).

Higher Education InitialParticipation Rate

HEIPR represents 17- to 30-year-old, English-domiciled, first-

time participants in HE since 1999–2000 (DfIUS, 2008). By

2006–07 the redefined HEIPR figures for 17- to 30-year-olds

had risen from 238,000 in 1999/2000 to 269,000 (provi-

sional) in 2006/07 (DfIUS, 2008). These figures represent

Peter D. Pumfrey





Dyslexia 1546 6612 4794 1194 706 2 14854

10.4% 44.5% 32.3% 8.0% 4.8% 0.0% 100%

Blind 65 235 163 31 28 0 522

12.5% 45.0% 31.2% 5.9% 5.4% 0.0% 100%

Deaf 88 399 246 47 53 1 834

10.6% 47.8% 29.5% 5.6% 6.4% 0.1% 100%

Wheelchair 89 293 227 58 75 0 742

12.0% 39.5% 30.6% 7.8% 10.1% 0.0% 100%

Per care 2 12 11 2 2 0 29

6.9% 41.4% 37.9% 6.9% 6.9% 0.0% 100%

Mental 183 536 298 90 105 0 1212

15.1% 44.2% 24.6% 7.4% 8.7% 0.0% 100%

Unseen 478 1845 1106 259 237 1 3926

12.2% 47.0% 28.2% 6.6% 6.0% 0.0% 100%

Multiple 155 549 442 129 218 1 1494

10.4% 36.7% 29.6% 8.6% 14.6% 0.1% 100%

Autistic 22 74 38 15 3 0 152

14.5% 48.7% 25.0% 9.9% 2.0% 0.0% 100%

Not listed 346 1197 777 205 246 0 2771

12.5% 43.2% 28.0% 7.4% 8.9% 0.0% 100%

No disability 31955 118086 70311 15431 17254 41 253078

12.6% 46.7% 27.8% 6.1% 6.8% 0.0% 100%

Unknown 1080 2911 2466 1394 3990 0 11841

9.1% 24.6% 20.8% 11.8% 33.7% 0.0% 100%

TOTAL 36009 132749 80879 18855 22917 46 291455

12.4% 45.5% 27.8% 6.5% 7.9% 0.0% 100%

Total disabled 2974 11752 8102 2030 1673 5 26536

8.3% 8.9% 10.0% 10.8% 7.3% 10.9% 9%

33035 120997 72777 16825 21244 41 264919

91.7% 91.1% 90.0% 89.2% 92.7% 89.1% 91%

Table 2: All UK-domiciled, successful, first-degree qualifiers known to be disabled; grouped by degree

classification (2007–08)


Peter D. Pumfrey



Dyslexia 86 532 681 176 86 1561

5.5% 34.1% 43.6% 11.3% 5.5% 100%

Blind 11 65 71 13 18 178

6.2% 36.5% 39.9% 7.3% 10.1% 100%

Deaf 14 73 85 30 16 218

6.4% 33.5% 39.0% 13.8% 7.3% 100%

Wheelchair 11 50 58 12 11 142

7.7% 35.2% 40.8% 8.5% 7.7% 100%

Per care 0 1 2 1 0 4

0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100%

Mental 16 21 28 8 13 86

18.6% 24.4% 32.6% 9.3% 15.1% 100%

Unseen 171 811 766 219 152 2119

8.1% 38.3% 36.1% 10.3% 7.2% 100%

Multiple 26 76 81 35 52 270

9.6% 28.1% 30.0% 13.0% 19.3% 100%


Not listed 39 185 201 44 28 497

7.8% 37.2% 40.4% 8.9% 5.6% 100%

No disability 8500 39234 35784 9670 7748 100936

8.4% 38.9% 35.5% 9.6% 7.7% 100%


Total 8874 41048 37757 10208 8124 106011

8.4% 38.7% 35.6% 9.6% 7.7% 100%

Total disabled 374 1814 1973 538 376 5075

7.4% 35.7% 38.9% 10.6% 7.4% 100%

8500 39234 35784 9670 7748 100936

8.4% 38.9% 35.5% 9.6% 7.7% 100%

Table 3: All UK-domiciled, successful, male, first-degree qualifiers; grouped by degree classification

and disability (1998–99)





Dyslexia 767 2904 2260 626 344 2 6903

11.1% 42.1% 32.7% 9.1% 5.0% 0.0% 100%

Blind 37 123 78 19 12 0 269

13.8% 45.7% 29.0% 7.1% 4.5% 0.0% 100%

Deaf 37 144 100 21 17 1 320

11.6% 45.0% 31.3% 6.6% 5.3% 0.3% 100%

Wheelchair 37 97 101 31 39 0 305

12.1% 31.8% 33.1% 10.2% 12.8% 0.0% 100%

Per care 0 4 5 2 2 0 13

0.0% 30.8% 38.5% 15.4% 15.4% 0.0% 100%

Mental 61 155 101 50 37 0 404

15.1% 38.4% 25.0% 12.4% 9.2% 0.0% 100%

Unseen 185 661 427 100 95 1 1469

12.6% 45.0% 29.1% 6.8% 6.5% 0.1% 100%

Multiple 65 196 175 50 71 0 557

11.7% 35.2% 31.4% 9.0% 12.7% 0.0% 100%

Autistic 18 52 32 14 2 0 118

15.3% 44.1% 27.1% 11.9% 1.7% 0.0% 100%

Not listed 144 446 351 95 105 0 1141

12.6% 39.1% 30.8% 8.3% 9.2% 0.0% 100%

No disability 14105 46186 31179 7913 6672 24 106079

13.3% 43.5% 29.4% 7.5% 6.3% 0.0% 100%

Unknown 397 957 849 626 1623 0 4452

8.9% 21.5% 19.1% 14.1% 36.5% 0.0% 100%

TOTAL 15853 51925 35658 9547 9019 28 122030

13.0% 42.6% 29.2% 7.8% 7.4% 0.0% 100%

Total disabled 1351 4782 3630 1008 724 4 11499

8.5% 9.2% 10.2% 10.6% 8.0% 14.3% 9%

14502 47143 32028 8539 8295 24 110531

91.5% 90.8% 89.8% 89.4% 92.0% 85.7% 91%

Table 4: All UK-domiciled, successful, male, first-degree qualifiers; grouped by degree classification



39.2% and 41.0% of the respective 17- to 30-year-old age

groups. Between 1999/00 and 2006/07 (provisional figures),

the HEIPR for females had risen from 125,000 (41.4%) to

148,000 (44.9%). For males the numbers rose from 113,000

(37.1%) to 121,000 (34.8%). Both the numbers and per-

centages of females rose markedly; in contrast, for males,

whilst the absolute numbers rose, the percentages of the

male population participating fell.

By the Autumn of 2009, the numbers of both male and

female students applying for first degree courses had risen

dramatically. The Government decided that entrance to first

degree courses in HE would be capped at the current level,

except in specified scientific/mathematical and language

fields where there was a recognised shortage of first degree

candidates applying for teacher training and, subsequently, of

appropriate subject specialist qualified teachers in schools.

Discussion

THE IDENTIFICATION and inclusion in HE of talented students

whose abilities may have been obscured by their disabilities, is

a growing national and international concern (Pumfrey, 2005;

Zaman et al, 2005; Government Equalities Office, 2010). The

data summarised and presented in this article demonstrate

that in this country we are on track to achieve the anticipated

increased participation in HE of the 18-30 age group, includ-

ing students with disabilities. To the best of my knowledge,

there has been no indication that policy and practice con-

cerning the inclusion of talented students with disabilities in

HE would to change under the [current] Government. Indeed,

both staff and students of HEIs have made great efforts locally,

regionally, nationally and internationally in developing policies

and practices that support students with disabilities in both

their academic activities and in their personal support. The

problems faced in interpreting the reported apparent upwards

changes in first degree academic standards of students with

and without disabilities over the ten years of the research,

remain objectively unanswerable.

Currently in the UK, according to data published on

November 2nd, 2009 by the Universities and Colleges

Admission Services, the rising numbers of students applying

for admission to university places have also raised concerns.

In October 2008, 64,500 had applied. By mid-October 2009,

71,900 applications had been made and in November 2009,

David Willetts (Shadow Universities Secretary) was quoted as

saying “Ministers are sleepwalking into another university

entrance crisis” (Paton, 2010). In the same month, the

National Union of Students called for an expansion of HE

places available for the coming academic year. Ministers had

already capped the number of additional HE places this year.

This meant that an extra 13,000 places were to be made

available. Despite this, according to Paton: “In total, 139,520

students missed out, although this included those who did

not get the right grades or applied late”. The Government

also placed a cap on the 2010/11 entry whereby only an addi-

tional 10,000 places were to be available. Interestingly, in the

Times Educational Supplement dated April 23rd, 2009, there

were 376 pages of job advertisements. Epidemiological data

confirm that the growing numbers of young children will

make increased demands of the state educational system at

all levels in terms of both running costs and capital expendi-

ture over the next several years.

The ‘live now, pay later’ approach has been the practice of

both the country and its citizens, and the recent recession has

exacerbated the still growing debt levels. The estimated

increase of debt is rising at around £6,000 per second. In

April 2010, there were some 1,000,000 individuals identified

as NEET. Coupled with unavoidable debt repayment pressures

and increasing levels of unemployment, the situation does

not augur well for social cohesion. Payback time has arrived.

The signs are that it is likely to be painful with HEIs having

been set high savings targets. Will the limitations in access

to HE differentially adversely affect applying students with

disabilities?

A social model of disability represents but one theoretical per-

spective. The medical model represents a contrasting one.

The former emphasises the relative importance of environ-

mental circumstances in which the individual is raised

(nurture). The latter emphasises the relative importance of

the attributes and propensities with which the individual is

endowed at birth (nature). Interactions between nature and

nurture in specific contexts are likely to be more valuable in

advancing our understanding of the nature of disability.

Arguably, a bio-psycho-social model represents a more inte-

grated perspective. It accepts that all three factors contribute

interactively to disability (American Psychiatric Association,

2000; Devechi, 2007). Advances in techniques for the non-

invasive exploration of brain structure and function add

significantly to the advancement of professional knowledge

concerning the nature, identification, incidence, and modifi-

ability of the many manifestations of disability.

Theoretical, legal and operational definitions of the overall

concept of disability, and of any sub-category of disability, are

both complex and controversial. The methods used in both

the identification and the assessment of the extent, incidence

and prognosis of any disability continue to present concep-

tual and practical challenges to researchers, lecturers and

students. (Pumfrey, 2008). Under current HE legislation, there

are significant legally based material advantages and proce-

dural concessions to support students deemed to have a

disability (Skill, 2007; 2009).

Peter D. Pumfrey





Dyslexia 67 551 485 92 53 1248

5.4% 44.2% 38.9% 7.4% 4.2% 100%

Blind 9 72 40 4 11 136

6.6% 52.9% 29.4% 2.9% 8.1% 100%

Deaf 14 127 130 18 18 307

4.6% 41.4% 42.3% 5.9% 5.9% 100%

Wheelchair 16 85 64 8 18 191

8.4% 44.5% 33.5% 4.2% 9.4% 100%

Per care 1 4 3 2 0 10

10.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100%

Mental 10 33 32 4 9 88

11.4% 37.5% 36.4% 4.5% 10.2% 100%

Unseen 190 1348 1133 163 165 2999

6.3% 44.9% 37.8% 5.4% 5.5% 100%

Multiple 23 120 129 29 66 367

6.3% 32.7% 35.1% 7.9% 18.0% 100%


Not listed 44 269 235 42 41 631

7.0% 42.6% 37.2% 6.7% 6.5% 100%

No disability 8798 58023 41210 6600 8228 122859

7.2% 47.2% 33.5% 5.4% 6.7% 100%


TOTAL 9172 60632 43461 6962 8609 128836

7.1% 47.1% 33.7% 5.4% 6.7% 100%

Total disabled 374 2609 2251 362 381 5977

6.3% 43.7% 37.7% 6.1% 6.4% 100%

8798 58023 41210 6600 8228 122859

7.2% 47.2% 33.5% 5.4% 6.7% 100%

Table 5: All UK-domiciled, successful, female, first-degree qualifiers; grouped by degree classification



Peter D. Pumfrey



Dyslexia 779 3708 2534 568 362 0 7951

9.8% 46.6% 31.9% 7.1% 4.6% 0.0% 100%

Blind 28 112 85 12 16 0 253

11.1% 44.3% 33.6% 4.7% 6.3% 0.0% 100%

Deaf 51 255 146 26 36 0 514

9.9% 49.6% 28.4% 5.1% 7.0% 0.0% 100%

Wheelchair 52 196 126 27 36 0 437

11.9% 44.9% 28.8% 6.2% 8.2% 0.0% 100%

Per care 2 8 6 0 0 0 16

12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Mental 122 381 197 40 68 0 808

15.1% 47.2% 24.4% 5.0% 8.4% 0.0% 100%

Unseen 293 1184 679 159 142 0 2457

11.9% 48.2% 27.6% 6.5% 5.8% 0.0% 100%

Multiple 90 353 267 79 147 1 937

9.6% 37.7% 28.5% 8.4% 15.7% 0.1% 100%

Autistic 4 22 6 1 1 0 34

11.8% 64.7% 17.6% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 100%

Not listed 202 751 426 110 141 0 1630

12.4% 46.1% 26.1% 6.7% 8.7% 0.0% 100%

No disability 17850 71900 39132 7518 10582 17 146999

12.1% 48.9% 26.6% 5.1% 7.2% 0.0% 100%

Unknown 683 1954 1617 768 2367 0 7389

9.2% 26.4% 21.9% 10.4% 32.0% 0.0% 100%

TOTAL 20156 80824 45221 9308 13898 18 169425

11.9% 47.7% 26.7% 5.5% 8.2% 0.0% 100%

Total disabled 1623 6970 4472 1022 949 1 15037

8.1% 8.6% 9.9% 11.0% 6.8% 5.6% 9%

18533 73854 40749 8286 12949 17 154388

91.9% 91.4% 90.1% 89.0% 93.2% 94.4% 91%

Table 6: All UK-domiciled, successful, female, first-degree qualifiers known to be disabled; grouped by degree

classification and disability (2007–08)


Inclusion challenges facing HE

IN THE space available, changes over ten years in the num-

bers, percentages and relative academic standards of

non-disabled and disabled male and female students suc-

cessfully completing a first degree in the UK have been

presented and discussed.

Over this period, have first degree academic standards risen

or have they been devalued? The interpretation of some of

the changes, made explicit in the data presented above,

remains problematic. For example, establishing whether or

not first degree academic standards have changed requires

that demonstrably valid assessments of first degree standards

are devised and used. Currently many measures of educa-

tional achievement are analogous to rulers made of elastic.

The various reliabilities of tests and assessment techniques

indicate a necessary but not sufficient condition ensuring the

validity of any assessment of educational standards at any

stage of education.

The Government’s policy of making HE more inclusive has

been a significant success. Modifications concerning provi-

sion made in the autumn of 2009 did NOT indicate ‘the end

of the line’ although State support for access to HE to study

for a first degree was to be restricted. Fortunately, there

remains a longstanding range of alternative ways of studying

for a first degree in this country.

Over the last ten years, HEIs and their collective organisations,

both nationally and internationally, have made significant

advances in developing inclusive policies, provision and prac-

tice and UK Higher Education has becomes more inclusive.

Institutions and their staff understand their professional and

legal responsibilities to all students and “Every student mat-

ters”. Thus, making reasonable adjustments to the learning

and teaching in HE are both legal and professional responsi-

bilities of all institutions and staff. Students, irrespective of

any disability, face personal as well as professional challenges

when considering where and when to register to study for a

first degree course. HEIs differ markedly in their provision and

support.

This paper makes explicit promising avenues for further HE

inclusion-related research. The costs and benefits of a more

inclusive HE system involve far more than financial concerns.

Epistemology is of the essence. The increasing importance of

Informational Communications Technology in individualising

instruction holds great promise.

The vast majority of the data presented in this paper is at

either the categorical or ordinal level of measurement. These

two levels have differing limitations in the mathematical and

statistical operations that can be applied to them. The oper-

ational definitions of the boundaries of categories are very

rarely unequivocal. Both first degree classification and cate-

gories of disability involve subjective interpretations of explicit

criteria. The reliability of such classifications is a necessary but

not sufficient condition of their validity.

For statistically valid reasons based on the characteristics of

the data not meeting the statistical assumptions of poten-

tially promising analytical models, the chosen method was to

present descriptive statistical data based on populations. The

use of inferential statistics to generalise from samples to a

population was not required. The interpretation of the data

reported here presents problems. Both the theoretical defini-

tions of the nine categories of disability used in this paper

and their respective operational definitions, whereby a given

disability is identified, are represented by categorical data.

Acknowledgements

FOR THEIR encouragement and support of this study, I am

indebted to Professor C. Robertson (Head of University of

Worcester Institute of Education) and Dr H. Somervell and Dr

S. Bigger (colleagues at the Centre for Education and

Inclusion Studies).

Equally, the value of the constructive suggestions and pro-

fessional expertise provided by Dr K. Reich of the Higher

Education Statistics Agency, Mr J. Mckie, Mrs J. Lewis and

Mrs A. Ball of the University of Worcester, are unreservedly

acknowledged.

The analyses in the tables presented have been obtained

using cohort data obtained for each of the academic years

during the period 1998/9 to 2007/08. Specially designed

analyses were commissioned from the Higher Education

Statistics Agency (HESA). HESA cannot accept responsibility

for any inferences or conclusions derived from the data by

third parties.



Peter D. Pumfrey


References

American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). Fourth Edition.

Text revision (DSM-1V-TR).APA: Arlington, Va.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DfBIS) (2009) Skills for Growth. London: DfBIS.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF) (2006) Widening access given further push in higher education

proposals – Rammell. (November 29, 2006. Press Notice 2006/1278.

Department for Employment and Education (DfEE) (1998) The Learning Age. Higher Education for the 21st. Century.

Response to the Dearing Report. London, DfEE.

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DfIUS) (2007) Higher education policy: Higher education. London, DfIUS.

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DfIUS) (2008) Participation rates in higher education: Academic years

1999/2000 – 2006/2007 (provisional). DfIUS. National Statistics First Release. DfIUS SFR 02/2008. London, DfIUS

Devechi C (2007) Glossary. In: The Sage Handbook of Special Education. London: Sage.

Disability Rights Commission (2007) Understanding the disability discrimination act. A guide for colleges, universities and

adult learning providers in Great Britain. DRC in collaboration with Skill (The National Bureau for Students with Disabilities)

and The Learning Skills Network.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2009) Human rights strategy and programme for action 2009 - 2012.

London, EHRC.

Florian L (2007) The Sage handbook of special education. London, Sage.

Government Equalities Office (2010) Report of the National Equality Panel: Executive summary. London, Government

Equalities Office.

Leitch S (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills. London, HMSO.

Office for National Statistics (2005) The labour force survey. Social and Vital Statistics Division, ONS.

Palmer A (2010) Most inequality isn’t down to class, but brains. The Daily Telegraph Comment and Analysis, 31 January,

2010, 26.

Paton G (2009) Universities ‘face second places crisis’. The Daily Telegraph, 3 November,2009, 12.

Pumfrey PD (1997) Assessing and improving children’s reading: critique and commentary. Unpublished PhD thesis, Vol.3,

Section D. John Rylands University Library, University of Manchester: Manchester, 507-633.

Pumfrey PD (2005) Towards an inclusive higher education system in the United Kingdom: Challenges and responses. In:

Zaman SS, Banu S, Khan NZ, Munir SZ and Ferdous S (2005) Creating Barrier Free Inclusive Community and Rights Based

Society for Children with Disability. Proceedings of the Second Regional Seminar on Childhood Disability. Bangladesh

Protibondhi Foundation (Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled) and Shishu Bikash Network (Child Development

Network). Dhakar, Bangladesh, 47-69.

Pumfrey PD (2008) Moving towards inclusion? The first degree results of students with and without disabilities in higher

education in the UK: 1998 – 2005. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23(1), 31-46.

Skill (2007) A briefing on competency standards and admissions to higher education.

Skill (2009) Am I being discriminated against? Available online at: http//skillcms.ds2620.dedicated.turbodns.co.uk (accessed 5

May 2010).

Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics. New York, Harper Collins.

Zaman SS, Banu S, Khan NZ, Munir SZ and Ferdous S(2005) Creating Barrier Free Inclusive Community and Rights Based

Society for Children with Disability. Proceedings of the Second Regional Seminar on Childhood Disability. Bangladesh

Protibondhi Foundation (Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled) and Shishu Bikash Network (Child Development

Network). Dhakar, Bangladesh.