1. Stepping stones towards inclusion in Higher Education, recent findings from Flanders, Belgium (2009). zaterdag 31 oktober 2015

2. Introduction Steunpunt Inclusief Hoger Onderwijs ‘SIHO’ Support Centre for Inclusive Higher Education 1.Consultancy 2.Creating networking 3.Research Warschau, 23.9.20092

3. bottom up perspective in dialogue with students and institutions insiders perspective Warschau, 23.9.20093

4. “Education that is good for students with disabilities is qualitative education for all students” Warschau, 23.9.20094

5. Inclusion occurs on two levels  Structural – Tools and procedure  Cultural – Attitude Warschau, 23.9.20095

6. Two surveys : –Institutions perspectives –Students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.20096

7. Institutions perspectives A survey among 14 different institutions of higher education Different perspectives on Inclusion in higher education Implementation of this perspective in the field Warschau, 23.9.20097

8. Interview guideline Policy Student arrangements Participation Staff working Private information Physical and digital accessibility Monitoring and evaluation Enrolment policy Needs of institutions Warschau, 23.9.20098

9. -Semi - structured qualitative questionnaires -14 respondents (the contact persons for students with special needs within the institutions) - audio taped, transcribed and interpreted Warschau, 23.9.20099

10. Students-perspectives Between January and July 2009 explorative research the experience of (former-)students with a disability in higher education getting an insight in their experiences find examples of good practice, possible barriers, need for support. Warschau, 23.9.200910

11. The topic list used for the interviews with the institutions was used as guideline interviews with 8 students audio taped, transcribed and interpreted Warschau, 23.9.200911

12. Results 1. policy ‘Is there a policy on inclusion?’ 1.1. institutions perspectives 1.2. students perspectives 2.need towards SIHO ‘What does SIHO need to do?’ 2.1. institutions perspectives 2.2. students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.200912

13. Policy to investigate what kind of facilities they gave how they communicate with students and staff kind of policy towards students with special needs Written policy Warschau, 23.9.200913

14. Results 1. policy 1.1. institutions perspectives 1.2. students perspectives 2.need towards SIHO 2.1. institutions perspectives 2.2. students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.200914

15. Results : institutions perspectives facilities are giving on personal demand a non-limited list of possible facilities to standardize facilities facilities can vary between departments students with disabilities need to apply their own needs responsibility of the student show some attestation to proof their disability Warschau, 23.9.200915

16. Citations ‘If students want to apply for a ‘disability - statute’, they have to report it to the student secretariat where they’ll be referred to the right person. Subsequently a conversation takes place and doctor’s certificates have to be delivered.’ ‘There is an agreement that there are no facilities if they do not drop in. Lecturers demand that they come.’ ‘They’re obliged to disclose their disability if they want to invoke to certain facilities. ‘ Warschau, 23.9.200916

17. sometimes more facilities are given to the student then what the student himself asks for students don’t know all the possible facilities Warschau, 23.9.200917

18. Citations ‘At the moment, this is not standardized, but considered individually. This academic year, we made an inventory, and possibly it will be standardized in the future. Shall we deal with it individually or standardize common disabilities?’ ‘After all these years, we could make a list, but this is not limited, it varies between students. Neither we say: ‘you have this problem, therefore are all this facilities’. Students must ask the question themselves. Of course, we can draw someone’s attention to it (e.g. wouldn’t that be interesting?)’ Warschau, 23.9.200918

19. Giving facilities student counselor talks about possible facilities with the authorization motivating why certain facilities are necessary sometimes lectures have power of decision sometimes only authorized agency takes decision a conversation is important differences about this matter between several departments within one institution Warschau, 23.9.200919

20. Citations ‘The student counselor recommends solutions and facilities. This is passed on to the departmental council that approves ‘disability statutes’ and facilities.‘ ‘With regard to the educational facilities, we establish contact with the lecturers. With regard to the examination facilities this goes to the ombudsperson. The care-coordinator monitors all.’ Warschau, 23.9.200920

21. Citations ‘The facilities are decided in consultation with the student and the student counselor (and are approved by the training coordinator). Lecturers are kept informed, but only informed. ‘ ‘Sometimes the decision is made by the lecturers, sometimes by the faculty, sometimes 3 or 4 people of the faculty sit together with the students and his/her parents to consider what is (not) possible. (E.g. when a student with dyslexia wants to study the Italian language, it is not possible not to take writing errors into account. Actually the faculty has the last word).’ Warschau, 23.9.200921

22. Citations ‘Student counselors will stand up for the proposed facilities in the council of training/training Board, that has to approve it. If they disagree, a counterproposal is made. If one person disagrees, they seek further untill everyone can agree. Otherwise it doesn’t work. Of course, there are several facilities that are not open for discussion.’ Warschau, 23.9.200922

23. Allotment of the facilities students cannot demand facilities educational principle - departmental council - educational coordinator - admittance committee The voice lecturers have, differs between institutions. Warschau, 23.9.200923

24. an annual application for facilities –advantage : students can be monitored more easily facilities can be evaluated and adjusted annually. a more personal guidance of the student is possible the admittance committee determines whether facilities are continuous or require an annual application. Warschau, 23.9.200924

25. Citations ‘In any case, when students re-applicate for facilities, the facilities approved the year before, are continued, unless evaluation has shown that it can be done differently. Evaluation then is a conversation between student and student counselor.’ ‘Each year, students have to appy for facilities all over again. The advantage of this all is that student counselors can monitor the student more easily than when you would see hem only once in their study career. ‘ ‘Students have to apply annually for a disability statute. Since we’re evolving to a personal guidance, that student is monitored and knows where to go for the application.’ Warschau, 23.9.200925

26. Not every training provides the same facilities To find a balance between applying for a ‘disability-statute’ and not being stigmatized To apply for a ‘disability-statute’ every year : is this good? To find a balance between providing enough facilities to students with a ‘disability-statute’, without disadvantaging other students Warschau, 23.9.200926

27. Citations ‘Not every training provides the same facilities, but is this necessary? It also depends upon the vision of the person who makes the decisions. We have to make everyone aware of the consequences of their decision. We have to communicate with the teachers.’ ‘A point of interest is the balance between laying the responsibility with the student to do something with the ‘disability-statute’ and the students who find that de ‘disability-statute’ is an empty box. ‘Is it necessary that every student with a disability comes by, every year to renew their facilities? This is a point of discussion in our institution’. Warschau, 23.9.200927

28. The policy different in each institutions new elements are added to the policy working actively on ‘diversity’ a diversity plan working with target groups - change that into a more inclusive practice not specific policy for students with a disability but inclusive policy. Working with ‘obstacles’. new things –new cell ‘diversity and gender’, a support point for students Warschau, 23.9.200928

29. Citations ‘We don’t have a specific policy for students with a disability, but rather an inclusive policy where everybody is welcome. We want to help everybody with his talents and disabilities. Although we found some problem areas like language, study skills and social skills. The policy concerning disability is part of the wider policy concerning talent development. So we are working from a rather inclusive point of view on studying with a disability. Since 2006 we have a policy plan for diversity. We want to make a policy around diversity, but individual teachers have already been working on it. Warschau, 23.9.200929

30. Citations ‘In our policy we made the choice to work with a ‘professional certificate’ instead of a ‘medical certificate’. From our inclusive point of view this is better. It includes everything. A woman who’s pregnant can give a medical certificate, but a certificate from a midwife/obstetrician with the implications for the studies is better. F.e. someone who is a very active dancer in a dancing association can give a contract with the association as a certificate. This is very broad.’ ‘We have a diversity policy where we don’t work with target groups, but with obstacles. ‘Disability’ is one of our seven obstacles. We want to make education as accessible as possible. There’s also a diversity policy for staff.’ Warschau, 23.9.200930

31. Results 1.policy 1.1. institutions perspectives 1.2. students perspectives 2.need of SIHO/institutions? 2.1. institutions perspectives 2.2. students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.200931

32. Facilities not always known by new students. Learn by coincidence students are informed before enrolment Warschau, 23.9.200932

33. Often have to ask for facilities themselves with individual lecturer Lecturers not always aware of the facilities. Warschau, 23.9.200933

34. Advise: –transparent but confidential information channel, –communicate about granting facilities –check if lecturers,… receive the information well and put it into practice. Warschau, 23.9.200934

35. Students with a disability, just as their colleagues without a disability, can go to class or write exams or … without extra worries. Warschau, 23.9.200935

36. Results 1.policy 1.1. institutions perspectives 1.2. students perspectives 2.needs towards SIHO 2.1. institutions perspectives 2.2. students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.200936

37. Needs of institutions An intermediate role Getting information Networking with other institutions Warschau, 23.9.200937

38. Mediating role between institutions and the governement: citations ‘We expect the SIHO to fulfill a mediating role to the government to arrange financing.’ ‘To be in contact with the government, to lobby about financial means, to realize inclusive higher education.’ Warschau, 23.9.200938

39. Negotiation with publishers: citation ‘We have a question for SIHO concerning publishers. Do we have to contact them to receive a digital version of a book? There already exists a digital library for books for primary and secondary education. It would be more efficient if a larger platform can contact publishers to receive a digital version than every institution going on its own. ‘ Warschau, 23.9.200939

40. Need to information the answers to ad hoc questions information about the procedures to financial support getting in touch with international examples of good practice receive training around general topics during internal and external study days … Warschau, 23.9.200940

41. Citations ‘There’s a great need for training for all the people involved, also the educational principles. In some courses there’s more resistance against facilities.’ ‘Help with requesting aids, pedagogical help, specific aids. Exchange of experiences. Information days and training.’ ‘Ad hoc training is given in our working group. Maybe for that we can work together with SIHO in the future. ‘ Warschau, 23.9.200941

42. Support with networking in contact with other institutions good practices put together exchange experiences. Warschau, 23.9.200942

43. Networking : citations ‘It would be nice if SIHO could refer to institutions that already have experience with a certain disability, because this institution already brought that student successfully to the end of his study career. In that way you don’t have to invent everything yourself because you can call the contact person of that institution. Some examples of good practices for every disability would be very helpful.’ Warschau, 23.9.200943

44. Networking : citations ‘My colleague had to search for a long time for a good speaker around a certain theme. This search could be shorter if we worked together. If we have a good experience with a certain speaker, we can give his name to SIHO. In that way this information is also available for other institutions. We don’t have to work in one direction.’ Warschau, 23.9.200944

45. Results 1.policy 1.1. institutions perspectives 1.2. students perspectives 2.need towards SIHO 2.1. institutions perspectives 2.2. students perspectives Warschau, 23.9.200945

46. Towards students, no service we get questions those questions are inspiring to find the gaps and the lacks in the system Warschau, 23.9.200946

47. a big lack of insiders perspective few people with a disability work in higher education important to work participative, bottom- up and bring in students perspective. Warschau, 23.9.200947

48. Conclusion two research questions part of a bigger research ‘which kind of policy exists in the institutions’ ‘which are the needs towards SIHO’ answered by institutions and reflected on by students Warschau, 23.9.200948

49. All have a policy Differences between the institutions Evaluating their policy For students : not always clear and transparant Warschau, 23.9.200949

50. needs were extracted a will to change Institutions and students meet each other on the way to inclusion, but the end is not yet reached. Warschau, 23.9.200950

51. Many obstacles Attitudes of people, …. Supported by institutions –Structural measures –Culture of inclusion Warschau, 23.9.200951

52. Inclusion is possible! Warschau, 23.9.200952

53. THANK YOU ! Warschau, 23.9.200953

54. Contact : SIHO Sint Jorisstraat 71 8000 Brugge info@siho.be nathalie.heurckmans@vub.ac.be Warschau, 23.9.200954