Disability in Higher Education Project

1. Disability in Higher Education Project Author: Diane Bell Presenter: Marcia Lyner-Cleophas

2. FOTIM PROJECT • Funded by Ford Foundation • Reference Team: • Dr Anlia Pretorius (Wits) • Diane Bell (CPUT) • Tanya Healey (FOTIM) • Research Consultants: • Disability Management Services (DMS) 2

3. NOTE: • Although the full research project included demographics, the role of Disability Units, other institutional staff as well as students with disabilities; • This presentation will focus on THE ROLE OF DISABILITY UNITS 3

4. TOPICS • Research Aims • Areas of Investigation • Legislative & Policy Background • Design & Methodology • Findings & Recommendations • Way Forward 4

5. RESEARCH AIMS • Explore the role, responsibilities and current effectiveness of Disability Units (DUs) in HE; • Determine the challenges faced by these Units in the translation of inclusive policies and legislative demands into practice; • Establish baseline data for monitoring change over a period of time; • Start to develop broad guidelines on the characteristics required for the effective functioning of these Units. 5

6. AREAS OF INVESTIGATION • Staff at the Dus and their KPA’s; • Functions of the Dus, services offered and perceived shortfalls; • Placement of the units within the broader institutional structures; • Institutional policies (teaching, learning, assessment etc.) • Monitoring systems; Funding; • Reasonable accommodation measures utilized, including assistive technology; • Student experiences and perceptions. 6

7. LEGISLATIVE & POLICY BACKGROUND • South Africa: • Constitution, Employment Equity Act, Promotion of Equality, National Building Regulations, The Code of Good Practice & Integrated National Disability Strategy. • Context of Education: • Education White Paper 3: Transformation of HE • National Plan for HE • Education White Paper 6: Special Needs Education 7

8. DESIGN & METHODOLOGY • Exploratory study • Methodology: mixed method • standardised questionnaire; • semi-structured interviews and focus groups • Pilot study at one site – no significant changes made • Data collection instruments: • Institutional & DU questionnaire • Individual student with disabilities questionnaire & interview sheet • Focus group guidelines 8

9. FINDINGS: Disability unit staff

10. FINDINGS: Reporting structure, DU resources & location • Generally DUs under student counselling services or student affairs departments • None reported being autonomous • Influenced their effectiveness; not given sufficient independence to develop • Placement not ideal; rather within the department that manages diversity (thus mainstreaming disability as a diversity issue rather than a medical or problematic area) • Clear reporting structure at most universities. 10

11. FINDINGS: DU premises and location • Varied across all the HEIs: • 3 DUs reported location not ideal due to rapid growth, not being centrally located and not being fully accessible • 2 – adequately located & accessible • 5 – well located with accessible premises • Library accessibility remains an issue • Some HEIs have multiple campuses – not equal facilities across the different campuses. 11

12. RECOMMENDATIONS • Need for a dedicated Disability Unit; tertiary sector not ready for faculty integration • A dedicated and physically accessible unit should be established at all tertiary institutions and should ideally be independent. • HEIs should support a permanent structure of posts and security of tenure. 12

13. FINDINGS: Disability profile of the DU coordinators • Of the DU coordinators interviewed: • 10 not disabled • 4 were disabled (3 blind & 1 scoliosis) • 4 DUs did not comment • Most of the DU coordinators are non-disabled 13

14. FINDINGS: Staff turnover & Accountability of DU • Retention rate quite good as many of the participants reported having worked for quite a few years with their respective units (between 1 to 12 years). • Accountability of DU and its staff: • Responses very varied from those with little or no accountability structures to those who report to a whole range of committees e.g. accessibility, disability advisory, transformation etc. 14

15. FINDINGS: Qualifications of DU staff • The qualifications of the DU coordinators are predominantly in the field of social work; as well as: • Special education & educational psychology • Physiotherapy • Business administration • Public policy • BSc • Communication 15

16. FINDINGS: Number of staff in DU and competencies • Ranges from a part-time administrative person or a single DU coordinator to a highly developed DU with a number of permanent staff (including volunteers or student assistants). • Highest number of staff reported was 8 • A few of the DUs employ sign language interpreters on an ad hoc basis; one even has a driver • Range of staff includes the coordinator, psychologist, admin staff, editors, Braille support staff, staff with technical expertise, drivers and student assistants. 16

17. FINDINGS:Definitions of and policies on disability

18. FINDINGS: Definitions of disability • The model of disability adopted by the university will have a significant impact on the services provided (what) and (how) they are provided. • A more medical definition – individualised services; little improvement in the environment. • A more social definition – address environmental barriers in a more concerted manner, while still maintaining individual impairment needs of students. • 6 HEIs did not provide info; 3 use medical; 4 use Employment Equity Act and 1 looked at functional limitations & need for reasonable accommodation. • The medical/individual model remains predominant. • Most prevalent impairments are visual and mobility. • Few HEIs provide sign language interpreters. 18

19. FINDINGS: Policies on disability • Policies in most HEIs, generally part of EE policy • Focused more on disabled staff than students in smaller HEIs; reverse in larger HEIs • Poor awareness of policy • More effort is required to increase awareness 19

20. FINDINGS: DU vision and mission • Similar in all HEIs; main aim of DU is to create opportunities for disabled students in both academic and broader student life; done through meeting impairment needs. • Long term vision is to increase awareness & be part of broader structure: disability support, teaching and research arm. • Need for permanent contracts and posts • “Cinderella” role of DU – lack of recognition, therefore perpetuating the marginalization of disability. 20

21. FINDINGS:Budget & functioning of DUs

22. FINDINGS: Disability Unit budget • Problems getting dedicated and adequate budgets. • Need to develop own external funding sources – reinforces a welfare view of disability. • Concerns expressed re lack of recognition and being “swallowed” up in other unit’s budgets (e.g. careers and counselling). • Growing recognition of the role of the DU leads to an increase in and stability of their budget. 22

23. FINDINGS: Student funding sources • 10 DUs reported students with disabilities get bursaries (adequate) • 2 Reported funding to be inadequate • Lack of funding for bridging courses & lack of guarantees for continuity of funding • Application process for bursaries quite complicated • HEDSA plays important role in facilitating better funding sources 23

24. FINDINGS: DU equipment and facilities • 4 DUs reported adequate to excellent equipment and facilities • 2 reported inadequate equipment, with 1 of these having to borrow from student affairs • Students with bursaries can obtain their equipment through that route • 3 DUs reported fairly adequate equipment and facilities with gaps in services e.g. sign language interpreting 24

25. FINDINGS: Support: departments & teaching staff • Two DUs reported that the support they received from various departments varied from no support through to “fairly” good support, to good support but limited to a few departments e.g. health centre and student affairs, rather than academic departments. • Support from teaching staff is usually good, but has to be requested. • Some DUs working on a module for training teaching staff on disability to increase awareness. • This awareness was reported by 5 DUs as being critical in ensuring that teaching staff are made aware of what is possible and required. 25

26. FINDINGS: Utilization of services & co-operation from non-disabled students • Five DUs reported good to excellent use but not all disabled students are registered or use the services. • The services are generally used when they require them which is a positive and constructive use pattern. • Seven DUs reported that cooperation between disabled and non-disabled students to be adequate or good, with 2 DUs saying it was low. • Active collaboration is encouraged by the DU, and they work with volunteers and in one case with the SRC. 26

27. FINDINGS: Role of students with disabilities • Minimal involvement of students with disabilities in the overall functioning of DUs • They seem to assist in determining service provision and be service consumers. • Some DUs have a representative committee of students. • Older disabled students also assist as advisors to younger students entering the system. • Student volunteers are generally non-disabled. 27

28. RECOMMENDATIONS • A common service delivery model for DUs in SA should be formulated. • DUs should move beyond a reactive to a pro-active approach of dealing with disability matters. • DUs and students should move away from a “technology fix all” mentality to interrogation of learning and teaching methodologies. • DUs need to act as change agents and achieve buy-in on a high level. 28

29. FINDINGS:Services provided by DUs and its effectiveness

30. FINDINGS: Services rendered to students with disabilities • Similar services are offered across the different DUs; the variation is in the number of services offered. • DU’s indicated the following services: • Disability management services (information access, academic support, education & awareness) • Facilitation of student funding and housing • Braille production, sign language interpretation, FM and loop systems, reading programmes (dyslexia), teach study techniques, buildings accessible, manage volunteers etc. 30

31. FINDINGS: Services rendered to students with disabilities • Accessible residence accommodation • Inter campus transport • Recommending/facilitating computer use for tests/exams, extra writing time, oral exams, spelling concessions • Reasonable accommodation – specialised supervision, training & support, computer hardware and software • Accessible transport • Induction • Access to study materials in accessible formats etc. 31

32. FINDINGS: Services rendered to non-disabled students and administrative staff • Some efforts are made to provide information to and generate interest among non-disabled students to be more aware of disability issues and the needs of disabled students • Awareness raising campaigns and lectures • DU provides information to students doing research in the areas of disability • A perception from non-disabled students that disabled students get favoured. • Some DUs provide sign language classes for hearing students • Offer a well-stocked resource centre 32

33. FINDINGS: Services rendered to other departments and structures • Central application office (share info on disabilities) • Traffic issues (signage) • Housing (prepare students for accommodation) • Student funding (applying for bursaries) • Sports Union (giving advice) • HR (staff member with a disability; provide advice and assistive devices & sensitization) • Special parking disk (campus protection services) • Collaboration & awareness • Education on how to deal with disabled students etc. 33

34. FINDINGS: Services provided to new applicants with disabilities • DU provides support from before registration • Contact schools for medical records; provide access to funding support; arrange and advise housing & advise departments on academic needs of new applicants. • For students who do not meet entrance requirements, access steps are provided through a bridging course or motivating for discretionary acceptance followed by additional support. • Application forms have an extra section for disabled students to disclose and document their individual impairment needs. 34

35. FINDINGS: Services provided: bursaries & potential employers • NSFAS provides financial support to students with disabilities, DU encourages them to apply, assistance and support is provided. • Some DUs work with potential sources of funding and bursary providers • However, some DUs only refer students and do not assist with this aspect. • DUs described efforts to educate both potential employers and the community in general on disability issues (skills training, knowledge and information on how to support and assist) • DUs have links with DPOs and other bodies. 35

36. RECOMMENDATIONS • HEIs should implement some balance score card methodology to measure delivery of services of the DU staff and other staff on the disability mandate as per accepted local and international human resource practices. • Performance should be measured against agreed objectives and deliverables. • Proper funding, budgeting processes and commitment from senior management in the allocation of funding needs to be secured. 36

37. FINDINGS: Success of meeting needs & gaps identified • Many DUs felt they are meeting the needs of disabled students, but not sure how successfully. • Many students complain that materials (to be made accessible) are provided to them too late; but the DU staff reject this saying that the students hand in the materials too late. • Text conversion seems to be one of the more successful services at most DUs. • Good amount of success in terms of: physical, social and emotional support of students as well as accessibility of university campus. 37

38. FINDINGS: Success of meeting needs & gaps identified • DUs are generally successful in providing services for which they are well equipped and less for emerging needs. • Main needs not met include services for hearing impaired and deaf students, as well as learning disabled students. • There is a lack of sign language interpreters • The geographic layout of campuses remains a challenge for students with visual and mobility impairments. • Management focuses on frequency of utilisation rather than universal accessibility. (medical model) 38

39. FINDINGS: Success of meeting needs & gaps identified • Trend of increasing numbers of students with learning disabilities – services insufficient. • Provision of assistive devices is not optimal as there is a long turn-around time. • A need to bridge the gap between secondary and tertiary education to allow more disabled students to meet the entrance requirements for HE. • There are many services which DUs would like to offer, but are not able to e.g. orientation & mobility, physio-, speech and occupational therapy, structured assessment of disability etc. 39

40. FINDINGS: Key service challenges of DU staff • The main challenges reported facing the DU staff are: • Lack of adequate budget • Accessible office space • Permanent staff posts • Lack of commitment from management and academic staff to prioritise disability issues and needs of disabled students • Issue of special school education. 40

41. FINDINGS: Complaints received about the DU • Academic staff require more rapid assistance • Issue of students not taking enough responsibility to get requirements and needs known more timeously • DU seems to be interface between staff and students – this is sometimes problematic. • Recommendation: needs to be more direct communication between lecturers and students rather than via the DU 41

42. RECOMMENDATIONS • Proper physical access audits of campuses are advisable; put short, medium and long-term objectives in place to address the many environmental barriers. Dedicated funding must be allocated by HEIs. • Interrogation of teaching and learning methodologies as per internationally progressive models. • Incorporate concepts of universal design into faculty instruction and curricula that ultimately benefits ALL students. 42

43. RECOMMENDATIONS • Cognitive and psychosocial type of disabilities should be addressed e.g. provision of psychologist and counselling services. • Organizations such as HEDSA to play a major role in doing research and bringing applicable material from overseas on the many issues raised to inform development locally. 43

44. WAY FORWARD • Role of HEDSA: • As FOTIM now disbanded, HEDSA should continue with research in this field. • Supported by all HEIs. • Legitimised by the DoHET to become an authoritative body in the sector. • Role of DU coordinators & other support functions need to be profiled, professionalized and appropriate training programmes put in place. • The sector needs buy-in from DoHET & CHE. 44

45. WAY FORWARD • The DoHET must explore appropriate funding mechanism to assist HEIs in accommodating & integrating students with disabilities. • There is a need for a specific anti-discriminatory act to raise the profile of disability issues as a compliance imperative. • Need for appropriate data collection processes. • Future service offerings to include all types of disabilities. • DUs should further investigate and promote the business case for disability inclusion & diversity impact value. 45