Chapter 6 - Disabilities and post-secondary education
6.1
Students with disabilities are under represented
in post-secondary education. The committee acknowledges however, that
participation rates in higher education are improving. The introduction of the
Disability Discrimination Act and policy initiatives such as the 1990 Higher
Education Equity Plan have been influential in providing better access to
universities for people with disabilities. In 1996, 1.9 per cent of domestic
students enrolled in university identified as having a disability. By 2000,
this rate had increased to 2.7 per cent.[1]
6.2
Students with disabilities are under-represented
in the vocational education and training (VET) system: in 2000, 3.6 per cent of
total students in the VET system identified as having a disability. These
students are more likely to be enrolled in a general education course than a
course with a vocational focus.[2] The committee was not surprised
to learn that employment and income outcomes for VET students with a disability
are substantially lower than for other students[3] and agrees that such inequality
requires attention.
6.3
The focus of this chapter will be on
universities and this reflects the weight of evidence from the post-secondary
sector. The committee regrets that it was not able to give adequate attention
to problems that students with disabilities have to overcome when they move
from the education sector to the workforce. This issue may warrant an inquiry
of its own.
Outcomes for students in the vocational education and training sector
6.4
The committee considers the depressing figures
on the proportion of TAFE students with disabilities employed after training to
be a serious indictment of the capacity of the VET sector to respond to the
needs of its graduates with disabilities. The ANTA chief executive told the
committee that the proportion of graduates with disabilities who are not in the
workforce is increasing significantly. There is no known reason for this: only
speculation about disenchantment with job prospects.[4] The committee makes the point
that disability numbers as a percentage of the total VET population is lower
than that of the independent school sector, in which participation rates are
very low.
6.5
The committee believes that for people with
disabilities the range of options in the VET sector should offer a realistic
choice – and chance – for employment and career success. One of the great
strengths of the system is the flexibility of its enrolment processes, enabling
those with a chequered history of formal school education to make a fresh
start. The committee was therefore concerned about the under representation of
students with disabilities in this sector. The proportion of the people aged
between 15 and 64 with a disability is 16.7 per cent yet the proportion of the
VET population, aged between 15 and 64 with a disability is 3.6 per cent.[5]
The Australia National Training Authority (ANTA) estimates that the shortfall
in the participation rate of people with a disability in VET was nearly 178,500
people in 1998, and without changes to the system will reach more than 215,000
by the year 2005.[6]
Clearly there is a need to address the systemic barriers that face students
with disabilities in the VET system.
6.6
The committee is concerned that employment and
income outcomes for VET students with a disability are substantially less than
for other students. Only 43 per cent of graduates who reported having a
disability were employed in 2001 compared with 73 per cent of all graduates[7]. Research by the National
Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd (NCVER) reveals that new TAFE
graduates are significantly less likely to obtain employment compared to other
TAFE graduates. Further, students with a disability who are successful in
securing employment after graduation, are less likely to receive the same level
of income as Australians as a whole, after allowing for factors such as field
of study, occupation and level of qualification obtained.[8]
6.7
ANTA told the committee that the prospect for
employment for students with disabilities was reduced because they were more
likely to be enrolled in a general education course rather than a course with a
vocational focus. Other reasons included a changing age profile of students
with disabilities in VET and reasons for study:
...employment outcomes following training are declining for people
with a disability. People with disabilities are most likely to be undertaking
AQF levels 1 and 2 at 34 per cent in 2001 compared with 29 per cent of total
students. We also know that in 2001, one-third of students with a disability
undertook VET in multi-field courses compared with 14 per cent of all students,
which means they are not in the training package job specific competencies
area. The proportion of TAFE graduates with a disability employed after
training declined from 50 per cent in 1997 to 43 per cent in 2001. Over the
same period the proportion of total TAFE graduates employed after training
increased slightly from 71 per cent to 73 per cent.[9]
6.8
TAFE Directors told the committee:
...the reason why employment outcomes have declined for students
with a disability is the programs that we currently offer, that are funded, do
not focus strongly on employment outcomes. That is an area that needs as much
attention as any other part of dealing with students with a disability.[10]
6.9
The committee heard that training packages
developed under the Australian Qualifications Framework did not meet the needs
of students with disabilities. Course content was described as inadequate,
while the workplace delivery of these packages did not cater well for students
who were not employed. The committee was told that despite the New
Apprenticeship Scheme, only 1.8 per cent of new apprentices in 2001 had
disabilities:
With regard to traineeships,
they have not served students with a disability well for a number of reasons.
One reason is that they tend to favour people who are employed in the
workplace. Another reason is that there has been little funding available for
TAFE institutes to develop programs which can strengthen people’s opportunities
of gaining employment through traineeships and apprenticeships. Most of the
educational programs that are conducted in vocational education in secondary
schools tend not to have clear vocational outcomes and are focused at the
Certificate I level rather than the Certificate II level.[11]
6.10
TAFE Directors suggested that there is a need
for state and Commonwealth governments to agree on some key programs to improve
vocational outcomes for students with disabilities. The committee supports this
view and will closely monitor the implementation of the Australian National
Training Authority’s policy strategy, Bridging Pathways. This strategy
aims to increase opportunities for people with a disability in vocational
education and training.
Assessing the needs of students in universities with disabilities
6.11
The committee received submissions and heard
from a number of universities, student associations, advisory councils,
academics and university students. The evidence indicates that universities
have generally developed consistent frameworks for supporting the needs of
students with disabilities. Universities operate under the inclusive definition
of disability under the Disability Discrimination Act while the Students
with Disabilities: Code of Practice for Australian Institutions establishes
principles and guidelines for planning and delivery of services to students
with disabilities across the sector.[12] It recommends national minimum
standards of service and support, and identifies and documents examples of good
practice in institutional responses to students with disabilities.[13]
The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee has also produced guidelines
relating to students with disabilities. These guidelines act as advice on good
practice, with the aim of assisting institutions to fulfil their responsibility
to students with disabilities through strategies and arrangements which are
appropriate to local circumstances.[14]
6.12
More than half of Australia’s universities
developed action plans under the Disability Discrimination Act. These voluntary
plans provide institutions with the opportunity to indicate how they intend to
overcome perceived discriminatory practices in the longer term. The Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission consider them when making determinations
in relation to unjustifiable hardship.[15] The Disability Advisory
Council of Victoria argued that action plans had become a powerful tool for
change:
We are seeing some really
positive changes. Things like the action plan are a good example. That was a
fairly minor part of the DDA, but the action plan itself has become a very
powerful tool of change for many institutions in many places, at least in
giving a time line where change can be introduced.[16]
6.13
Typically, universities have a specialised unit
to administer and deliver support to students with disabilities. The Disability
Discrimination Act requires that reasonable accommodation is made for students
with disabilities to enable full access to learning opportunities. Examples of
strategies used by universities include: note taking, interpreting, practical
assistants, readers, transcription of material into alternate formats,
individual examination provisions, mentor programs, tutoring program,
prospective student interview programs, disability integration rooms, support
groups, alternative methods of assessment and the provision of specialised
computer facilities.
6.14
While the evidence suggests that universities
have policies and procedures designed to support students with disabilities,
the committee was told that many continue to be disadvantaged. There are
substantial costs associated with a disability, for example, the cost of
attendant care, transport and assistive technologies. Meeting these costs are
especially onerous for those students who are unable to work part time. Students with
disabilities also have to invest considerable time and energy to overcome
numerous difficulties relating to their condition. The Monash Students
Association told the committee:
These kinds of difficulties are manifest in the extra investment
of time, energy and financial resources by students. They are also manifest in
the time lags between identifying a need for a service or a support and the
actual achievement of that service or support, in the significant capital infrastructure
investment that students with disabilities are required to make in order to
succeed at a tertiary level and, of course, in the ongoing additional costs
that students with disabilities suffer.[17]
6.15
Blind Citizens Australia, on the same issue,
told the committee:
Students are still expected to personally negotiate with each
and every teacher about their needs, badgering lecturers for advance copies of
reading lists, chasing up teachers who repeatedly forget to put handouts on
disks, searching for textbooks in alternate formats. This is happening in each
subject year after year.[18]
The role of disability liaison
officers
6.16
Disability liaison officers are employed by
universities to provide assessment, advice, advocacy and services to students
who have a disability; and to ensure that those students have equal access to
programs and facilities. They are also required to support, educate and advise
institutional staff and the wider community regarding disability. Disability
liaison officers are also responsible for assessing students’ disability
related needs. Although there are documents to assist this process, it is
generally left to the judgement of the disability liaison officer to make
appropriate recommendations for meeting student needs. The evidence suggests
that the quality and appropriateness of support varies across the sector.
6.17
Access rates published by Department of Education
Science and Training suggest that certain institutions are far more attractive
to students with disabilities than others. Access rates[19]varied from 0.0 per cent for
Marcus Oldhan College in Victoria to 8.1 per cent in the National Institute of
Dramatic Art in New South Wales. Universities with high access rates included
the University of Wollongong (7.5 per cent), Flinders University of South
Australia (5.6 per cent) and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary
Education in the Northern Territory (5.5 per cent). Universities with
particularly low access rates included the Australian Defence Force Academy
(1.0 per cent), Swinburne University of Technology (1.3 per cent) and Curtin
University of Technology (1.3 per cent).[20] On the other hand, success and
retention rates do not vary as widely across institutions. Once students with
disabilities commence their courses, they continue with their studies and
succeed at rates that are, on average, only marginally lower than for other
students.[21]
6.18
The committee was told that although some
disability liaison officers have a professional background or extensive years
of experience, many do not. There are no formal training requirements for
disability liaison officers. While Griffith University has prepared the
curriculum for a Graduate Certificate/Master of Disability Service
Managements in the Tertiary Setting, the committee notes that it has been
unable to secure funding to offer the program. There is no standardised
training course or qualification available in Australia. Consequently no
uniform assessment tools and processes are being used across sectors or states
resulting in inconsistent support practices.[22]
6.19
Griffith University argued the need for
consistent assessment procedures. In its submission the university wrote that
in some universities the role of the disability liaison officers was being
marginalised, or downgraded. This was effecting on the quality of support
provided to individual students with disabilities:
In some places (universities) the role (of the disability
liaison officer) is marginalized and performed in conjunction with other
equity-related tasks. In others, the position may have been downgraded during
restructuring to be at a basic administrative level. There is also a trend for
these positions to be casualised and in some instance there can be a high
turn-over in staff. These trends are of concern because of the potential
negative impact that they may have on the participation, retention and success
of students with disabilities in the tertiary sector.
[23]
6.20
The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
suggested a process of professional registration and minimal competency
standards as one means of achieving consistent
approaches across the sector:
For several years professional groups (state and national)
representing Disability Liaison Officers have been discussing developing a
process of professional registration and minimal standards for DLO’s in order
that some national consistency can be expected. It is important that government
recognises the contribution made by DLO’s in the overall learning support for
students with a disability.[24]
6.21
The committee believes that the development of
minimum competency standards is a matter for national coordination: an
appropriate role for the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee.
Assessing learning disabilities
6.22
Under the Disability Discrimination Act an
educational institution must make reasonable adjustments to give a student with
a specific learning disability access to the curriculum. Across the education
sectors however, there appears to be a lack of willingness to formally assess a
learning disability. Most school authorities do not differentiate between a
student with a learning difficulty and a specific learning disability. The
committee believes it important to reach national agreement on the definition
of learning disabilities.
6.23
The identification of a learning disability and an
assessment of what is an appropriate compensatory level of assistance has been
particularly difficult because of the prohibitive cost of assessments. For
disability support at university, students are responsible for providing
documents outlining the nature of their disability and its effect on their
studies. In most instances documents are provided by a medical professional,
the costs of which may be claimed through Medicare. In the case of learning
disabilities, an assessment by an educational psychologist is appropriate. For
many students, the cost of this assessment is prohibitive:
A useful assessment from professionals such as educational
psychologists, that clearly identifies appropriate strategies to overcome the
impact of a learning disability may cost up to $1000...Currently, in most states,
the student and/or their family carry the cost of a professional assessment and
its accompanying report.[25]
6.24
The committee believes that it is regrettable
that many students with learning disabilities are not appropriately assessed
because of the prohibitive costs of assessments, and considers that options for
financial assistance should be investigated.
Meeting technological needs
6.25
Advancing technology is easing the burden for
students with disabilities in accessing higher education. The past decade has
seen unprecedented technological change affecting disability assistance. The
advantages of technology for students with disabilities include improved
mobility and communication and access to information. New technologies can
greatly enhance a student’s level of independence, and allow a student to
achieve academic success with little or no disadvantage. For instance, for a
person with a mobility impairment, computers, CD ROMS, and the Internet make
possible the task of undertaking research and independent study in a
wheelchair. The development of screen reading software allows students who are
blind or vision impaired, or those that have learning disabilities, to benefit
from developments such as the Internet, on-line library catalogues, and
searchable electronic databases. The application of computerised methods to the
production of braille, large print and E-text formats has led to radical
changes in the way materials can be produced.[26] The committee is aware that
accompanying these developments are a number of challenges. Assistive
technologies, for all the advantages they provide, are expensive for
universities to support and require changes to administrative processes and
teaching routines.
The provision of transcription services
6.26
Universities lack strategic direction in the use
of assistive technologies.[27]
The evidence suggests that they are struggling in their attempts to provide
efficient and effective transcription services. Services are ad hoc,
often duplicated and there is a lack of coordination across the sector.
6.27
The committee was told of long delays, usually
of three months, to provide reading materials in Braille:
At present there is a 3-month lead-time required to arrange for
brailing of textbooks. In order for a student who requires study materials to
be brailled to access study materials at the start of each term, text books at
least must be available 3 months ahead of time. Currently it is often the case
that titles of textbooks are not known 3 months ahead of time, or alternatively
the textbooks are not available for purchase in time.[28]
6.28
Some universities have an in-house production
capacity,[29]
but most universities use the transcription services provided by the National
Information and Library Services (NILS). This year, the organisation moved to
full cost recovery. Because the cost of providing transcription services had
previously been subsidised, the move to full cost recovery is expected to have
significant financial implications for universities. Table 6.1 gives an
indication of the magnitude of expected cost increases for universities. These
figures are based on the transcription services provided to Griffith University
in 1999 and 2000.
6.29
In response, the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission (HREOC) held a forum in May 2002 to develop strategies
for addressing the availability of accessible tertiary materials for students
with print disabilities. The forum agreed that the Australian Vice-Chancellors
Committee and the commission should establish a working party to investigate
the feasibility of a national approach to the acquisition and production of
accessible materials for students. The committee supports this initiative.
Lack of training
6.30
American literature as reported by Leung et
al concludes that a lack of commitment to training for new technologies is
a major barrier in its use.[30]
Increased awareness about new technologies has placed large demands on
expertise in the evaluation and selection of appropriate assistive
technologies.[31]
Table 6.1: Subsidised charges and actual costs for
BRAILLE transcription services[32]
Semester and Year
|
Number of students requiring BRAILLE
|
Total fees charged
|
Total actual costs
|
1/99
|
3
|
1 875
|
51 024
|
2/99
|
1
|
625
|
18 100
|
1/00
|
3
|
1 875
|
34 783
|
2/00
|
1
|
625
|
91 319
|
6.2
An Australian study reported that lack of
training and a difficulty in keeping abreast of assistive technology
developments is a matter of concern for both disability liaison officers and
students.[33]
The study concluded that access by students to assistive technology depended
mainly on knowledge acquired haphazardly by disability liaison officers. The
role of academic staff who had knowledge of the student requirements was also
important.[34]
The study found that some disability liaison officers had minimal training or
less in the use of adaptive technologies.[35]
6.3
Both the University of Sydney and Griffith
University raised concerns about the limited exposure that students in schools
appear to have in the use of assistive technology. Sydney University argued
that the intensive staff support provided to students with disabilities in
schools fails to encourage independent management of a disability. The National
Library and Information Service agreed with their assessment:
Although universities provide adaptive equipment for students
with disabilities, it is often useless to the students because they have not
been trained in how to use it during secondary schooling years.[36]
6.4
While this evidence suggests a need to expand
the use of assistive technologies in schools, the committee agrees that
universities have a responsibility to train their disability liaison officers
and academic staff in the use of assistive technology. The committee believes
that regional disability liaison officers should be proactive in assessing the
assistive technology needs of students with disabilities before enrolment to
ensure a smooth transition from school to university.
The cost of new technologies
6.5
Whilst the growth in adaptive technologies has
improved the educational opportunities for many people with disabilities, the
committee was told that it has also increased the costs of studying for
students with disabilities. For instance, it had cost one witness over $5,000
to purchase a laptop computer and screen reading software:
The program for the speech that you hear—depending on exchange
rates—costs about $1,700. This laptop was about $3,500 a couple of years ago.[37]
6.6
Students from low socio-economic backgrounds
find it hard to afford the purchase of computers and assistive technologies for
home use. While most universities provide students with disabilities with
access to computers on campus, use of these computers is not an option for all
students. Central Queensland University submitted that:
A common need reported by students is for a home-based study station,
which offers appropriate ergonomic and adaptive technologies. Often the cost
of setting up a computer work station at home is prohibitive for students
requiring specialised equipment. At the same time, it is difficult for
students with impairments and chronic medical conditions to physically access
the computer labs provided on campus by CQU.[38]
6.7
A number of submissions recommended that the
Commonwealth should make one-off grants at the time of enrolment to allow
students to purchase their own equipment for home use. This equipment could
then be used in the workplace at the completion of training:
The use of such equipment can greatly enhance the educational
outcomes for students with disabilities and can result in the development of
broader skills that are readily transferable to the workplace. Federal funding
is available for people with disabilities who require assistance and equipment
in the transition to the workplace. There would be significant benefits to
providing equipment to University students where appropriate such that a
familiarity with equipment use can be developed, minimising barriers to
employment for people with disabilities who have to apply separately for
funding for equipment in the workplace.[39]
6.8
The committee concludes that the establishment
of a scheme to assist students with disabilities to purchase assistive
equipment will further enhance their independence and improve their ability to
complete their courses.
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science
and Training explore options for the establishment of a scheme designed to
assist students with disabilities to purchase assistive equipment.
Professional development and teaching
6.9
The committee was provided with a number of
instances of a lack of awareness about disability issues by some academic
staff. Blind Citizens Australia provided the following example.
Decisions that may seem small to educators can have an amplified
impact on a student’s capacity to learn and their access to a quality
education. For example, a decision to provide a handout containing complex
information in electronic format rather than in braille can mean that a student
spends hours brailling it by hand. This is not time spent studying; it is time
spent preparing to study. Blind students’ valuable remaining vision is being
put at risk by educators who provide reading materials in inappropriate
formats, sometimes out of ignorance but often because it is the cheapest
option.[40]
6.10
While many universities adopt the principle of
inclusive teaching practices, the practical implementation of these strategies
appears to be a problem. Teaching qualifications are not required for
university teaching. As a consequence, lecturers and teachers are reliant on
professional development programs to raise their awareness about disability
matters.
6.11
A number of submissions from the higher
education sector explained that even when programs were made available, the
increasing workload of academic staff meant that it was not always easy to
attract lecturers to these workshops. Of the 962 permanent staff at the
University of Western Sydney, only 150 had attended workshops designed to
address disability related issues.[41]
6.12
The Students Union of Monash University – Gippsland
campus, reported that the university’s professional development unit did not
deliver training sessions in inclusive practices. They also reported
that staff were not encouraged to seek training and development in providing
academic support to students with disabilities.
6.13
Although the role of disability liaison officers
includes the provision of professional development to staff on inclusive
practices, the evidence suggests that professional development and training is
managed reactively rather than proactively. A regional disability liaison
officer wrote that neither regional disability liaison officers nor disability
liaison officers had sufficient time to devote to professional development. A
number of other universities wrote that academics usually only sought help when
they were confronted with a specific disability issue. The University of
Western Sydney submitted that:
There are workshops that staff can be involved in. I would have
to say that most staff do not really think about it until they are actually
facing an issue, and then the disabilities advisers are there to work with
staff and to help them make various arrangements or accommodations.[42]
Funding students needs
6.14
The committee agrees that universities are
responsible for the provision of an environment and pedagogy suitable to all
students. However, the cost of recovering from a history of institutionalised
discrimination is considerable. The cost of meeting the needs of individual
students is also increasing as the number of students enrolling in university
with high support needs grows. The University of Melbourne commented on this
issue:
Over the last four years, they (the number of students with
disabilities) have increased by nearly 60 per cent. Over the same period of
time, the amount of expenditure on support for students with disabilities that
has been provided by the University of Melbourne has increased by 140 per cent.[43]
6.15
With the exception of the Australian National
University, Australian universities are established under state or territory
legislation and have a high degree of financial and academic autonomy.
Commonwealth funds are paid under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988.
Further support for students with disabilities is provided through the Higher
Education Equity Program (HEEP). Funds under this program are linked to
universities’ equity performance and are allocated as part of their operating
grant. The program aims to encourage universities to develop strategies to
increase the participation of a number of equity groups, including students
with disabilities. In 2002, $5.8 million has been provided to universities
under this program.
6.16
In the 2001/2002 budget, the government
introduced new Commonwealth funding to provide support for high needs students
with disabilities. Funding is provided under the Additional Support for
Students with Disabilities Program. The program will allocate $8 million
over three years. Funding applies retrospectively and will contribute to the
cost of providing educational support services or equipment to students with
disabilities.
6.17
While the majority of universities welcomed the
new funding initiative, the committee was told that significant increases in
the cost of purchasing transcription services would offset the financial gain
of the new funding arrangement. Several submissions were also critical of the
new funding arrangements, arguing that by, contributing to the cost or
providing disability support to individual students the Commonwealth was
encouraging reactive rather than proactive management of students with
disabilities:
The recent Federal Government initiative for additional funding
for students with disabilities could act as a disincentive for providing
ongoing quality service. Rather than setting up ongoing systems, policies and
resources for students with high support costs, the universities could claim
retrospective payment for services for individual students and not look for
cost effective ways to manage the needs of students with high support costs.[44]
6.18
Having heard the evidence and read the
submission, the committee formed an impression that universities were generally
adopting reactive approaches to the management of students with disabilities.
The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act has meant that
universities are being held accountable for failures to meet the needs of
students with disabilities. Avoiding litigation plays a significant part in the
management of disability support.
6.19
The evidence suggests that budgetary constraints
are restricting the ability of universities to develop long-term strategies to
address systematic discrimination, despite the preparation of action plans. The
committee agrees that without appropriate funding for long term applied
research and implementation of systemic changes, universities will continue to
function reactively, crisis managing individual cases rather than making
systematic changes.
6.20
The committee agrees that the Commonwealth has
an obligation to assist universities undertake systematic reform to enable them
to be more responsive to the needs of students with disabilities. To this end
it recommends that the Commonwealth
provide base funding to allow universities to develop
long-term strategies to improve both the physical environment and pedagogy of
universities to ensure equality of access for students with disabilities. This
funding should be in addition to HEEP funding.
Recommendation 16
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth fund universities
to develop long-term strategies to improve the physical environment and
pedagogy of universities to ensure equality of access for students with
disabilities.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page