Securing Equality and Inclusion for Disabled Students in Higher Education Karen Beauchamp-Pryor Postdoctoral Research Fellow School of Health Science Funded by The Economic Social Research Council

‘I hope that things will change now, not for me, but for future students’ Paul (Interview: 03/06/03) The meaning of ‘inclusion’ Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice Challenging marginalisation

The meaning of ‘inclusion’ - ‘belonging’ ‘We receive so many messages from the non-disabled world that we are not wanted, that we are considered less than human. For those with restricted mobility or sensory disabilities, the very physical environment tells us we don’t belong. It tells us that we aren’t wanted in the places that non-disabled people spend their lives – their homes, their schools and colleges, their workplaces, their leisure venues. ‘ (Morris 1996, p. 26)

The meaning of ‘inclusion’ - underpinning ideology ‘ It is one thing for institutions to provide improved access for people from non-traditional groups such as those with disabilities, but if there is no change in the ideology of the institution, its staff and its curriculum then the problems will remain. This is the difference between rhetoric and reality, between the policies as set out in institutional plans etc., and the practices as experienced by applicants and students on courses. ‘ (Hurst 1993, pp )

The meaning of ‘inclusion’ - inequality and oppression ‘The discourse used was of care and concern rather than of discrimination and rights. In other words, there was a lack of a general recognition of disability as a form of oppression, with structural and curricular implications for each department’s practice in its provision for all students. Rather, disability tends to be seen only in terms of meeting ‘special needs’.’ (Leister and Lovell 1994, p. 47)

The meaning of ‘inclusion’ - involvement/participation ‘ [Institutions] will remain ignorant of the difficulties and barriers faced by disabled students as they go about their daily business. They will not know which areas need particular attention or development and members of staff remain unaccountable for their practice.’ (Tinklin, Riddell and Wilson 2004, p. 655)

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) ‘I did kind of expect more, I thought there would be a big bang really, a big bang approach before SENDA came into force, and so I’ve been surprised that doesn’t appear to have happened.’ (Department co-ordinator interview: 28/10/03)

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus Examples: Widening participation policy Admissions policy Assumptions about disability in practice

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus Widening participation policy: No specific plans to recruit disabled students. Low expectations and lack of encouragement of disabled students (Disability Rights Commission Survey 2003) remained unrecognised. Students chosen to represent the university were visibly ‘fit’ and ‘able’: a divide which reflects the ‘biases, self- interests and moral evaluations of those in a position to influence policy’. (Albrecht and Levy 1981, p. 14).

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus Admissions: candidates’ suitability for admission ‘I am able to turn around and reject somebody on grounds of disability. I have done it a handful of times. …there is no benefit to the student, to the institution or to us personally, by having a student who is going to have a lousy time.’ (Disability Servicesinterview: 18/11/03)

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus Admissions: candidates’ suitability for admission ‘Institutions all maintained that admission was based on academic grounds alone. However, senior managers acknowledged that institutions could operate a ‘cooling out’ effect, stressing the difficulties which the student would encounter at the university and urging them to consider taking up a place elsewhere.’ (Riddell, Tinklin and Wilson 2005, p. 75)

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice - a welfare focus Admissions: candidates’ suitability for admission ‘When you apply to be a student, the information is then used against you. You are torn between wanting to say and not wanting to say – because of the course and support. You play it down because you want to get on the course.’ (Simon interview: 25/03/03)

Dominant discourses in institutional policy and practice Assumptions about disability in practice: ‘ I feel when you are a disabled student you have to prove to them that you are actually able, more if you understand. It’s horrible. The relationship with the lecturers was more on an equal standing [before], whereas as soon as you raise with them that you have a disability, well I then feel I am put in a position where I have to kind of say “look, you know, but I’m kind of, I’m safe”. It’s kind of that power discrepancy, it’s the way in which you are viewed and of course the way you view yourself, but more as to how you handle the disability, and your ability is now determined by your disability. You’re not on an equal footing with other students. It’s kind of “oh well we’ll give you notes, but it’s a big favour and we are going out of our way, and you should be able to, you shouldn’t be here if you can’t”. It’s that kind of thing, that kind of attitude.’ (Carol first Interview: 25/03/03).

Securing Inclusion Challenging Dominant Perceptions Disability Discrimination Act (2005) Language – a powerful influence Mainstreaming disability equality Involvement/Participation

Securing Inclusion Challenging Dominant Perceptions Involvement/Participation ‘Student input into the initial plan arose from one to one discussion with students, Disability Forum priorities and direct comments and requests from students. The ongoing structural direct inclusion of disabled students in the continual development of the plan is seen as a primary importance.’ (Disability Equality Statement 2006)

Securing Inclusion - challenging dominant perceptions Involvement/participation Dominant discourses Defined power relationships Validity of involvement

Securing Inclusion - challenging dominant perceptions Involvement/participation - defined power relationships ‘Traditionally, professional workers have defined, planned and delivered the services, whilst disabled people have been passive recipients with little if any opportunity to exercise control.’ (French 1994, p. 103).

Securing Inclusion - challenging dominant perceptions Involvement/participation - validity of involvement ‘ They [disabled students] don’t think they are listened to. You know it’s going to take a couple of years for students to feel they are being listened to, and the only way to do that is to listen to them and show that they are listened to, that’s the only way to do it.’ ‘Oh definitely, if they took on board what students are saying. If they don’t listen to people then things will never change. If they only go by their views how things should be, then things will never change.’ (Christine interview: 09/06/03)

‘I hope that things will change now, not for me, but for future students’ Paul (Interview: 03/06/03) To conclude: An equality issue Challenging dominant discourses Participation