Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Equality and Inclusion: Overcoming barriers to Further and Higher education
for young people with sensory impairments in Northern Ireland.

Bronagh Byrne
b.byrne@qub.ac.uk

Introduction

The twin concepts of ‘equality’ and ‘social inclusion’ have assumed a principal political and cultural role in today’s society. Once perceived as utopian goals, they are now viewed as rights. Correspondingly, in most developed countries, a discourse of equality has become embedded within social policy and social legislation with inclusion assuming priority in the field of public provision. In Northern Ireland, the equality agenda has focused particularly on the religious divide. The beginning of the 21 st century saw the recognition of other forms of inequality within Northern Ireland; disability in particular (that is ‘the who’ of equality politics (Baker 2004) changed in the north of Ireland as it did in the south of Ireland).

Equality of opportunity, access and inclusion for young people with sensory impairments and other disabilities to and within third level, has lagged behind that for other disadvantaged social categories, and the situation in Great Britain.

In Northern Ireland, only 13% of hearing impaired young people progress to university compared to 43% of those without a disability (Byrne and Caul 2001).

The Northern Ireland educational system at secondary level has maintained a strong segregated element for longer than in Great Britain (McLaughlin and Monteith 2004; McLaughlin 2005). The challenge which inclusion represents to the institutional interests of the existing segregated secondary system, along with the absence of a self governing Northern Ireland Assembly are the key reasons why introduction   of the 2000 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in Great Britain (SENDA) was not paralleled in NI. This situation is expected to change with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Order (SENDO 2005). It is interesting to note that, although Northern Ireland had no SENDA in operation, and educational providers were therefore exempted from the provisions of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, the sector has had a positive statutory duty in relation to both disability and a number of other dimensions of inequality. This positive duty, known as ‘Section 75’ was introduced as part of the 1998 Northern Ireland Act and prefigured the subsequent positive duty in Great Britain in relation to race. Section 75 requires all public authorities to have due regard to promote equality of opportunity for nine different groups in society, of which disability is one. The Act can be seen as a move towards mainstreaming equality. Mainstreaming refers to the attempt to integrate equality into all aspects of policy development and practice, and is based on the philosophy that equality should inform all aspects of a public organisations’ work (Report on the Implementation of the Section 75 Statutory Duties, ECNI 2004). Rees (1998: 194) states that “the essence of mainstreaming is that equal opportunity thinking is integrated into the policy development process from the beginning”, and is thus seen as the way forward in the achievement of an ‘equality culture’. The use of mainstreaming via Section 75 represents another move forward in that it incorporates nine different groups rather than the traditional emphasis on gender.  Thus, between 1998 and 2005, the duty to promote equality of opportunity for people with disabilities in Northern Ireland has coexisted with an exemption of educational providers from the provisions of the UK wide Disability Discrimination Act since 1998, and ultimately a legal tolerance of discrimination against people with disabilities in the educational sector.

 It is this background which makes the development of the forthcoming Special Educational Needs and Disability Order in Northern Ireland of such significance.   This paper will explore the extent to which third level education and training providers: (universities, colleges and government departments); understand their new statutory duty to promote greater equality of opportunity and inclusion in Northern Ireland, and the steps that have been taken in order to prepare and ultimately fulfil this duty. The perception of voluntary organisations to responses by designated public authorities will also be reviewed.

Research Methodology

A series of semi-structured interviews have been completed with key respondents such as policymakers, directors of voluntary organisations and representatives of third level education providers. The research, which is still in progress, also involves in-depth interviews with young people with disabilities. The aim of my research is two-fold:

• To explore the range of barriers which currently exist in Northern Ireland, and which prevent young people with sensory disabilities from fulfilling their educational potential and ambitions.
• To evaluate the ways in which policymakers, and third level education and training providers have understood their statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity and inclusion arising from the relevant equality and disability legislation, and the steps they are taking to fulfil this duty.

Background to SENDO in Northern Ireland

SENDO, like the preceding SENDA in Great Britain, seeks to extend the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act to education. The original DDA requirements relating to education were extremely limited and only required institutions to provide information about provision for disabled students. The development of SENDO in Northern Ireland, and SENDA in Great Britain, is recognised as important since it “represents the first substantive legislative reform of the law of special educational needs (SEN) since the Education Act 1993” (Hay 2001: 72). SENDO, and SENDA, make it unlawful for an educational provider to discriminate against its students, or treat them less favourably, for reasons relating to disability. Providers also have an obligation to make reasonable adjustments. While the benefits of the anticipatory nature of the Act is recognised (Davis 2003), there are problems, particularly in relation to definition of relevant terms such as ‘reasonable adjustment’ and ‘less favourable treatment’ which are not clearly specified in the legislation. Because implementation of SENDA is still in its relatively early stages in Great Britain, there is also a lack of case law. Moreover, the definition of disability draws on the DDA 1995 and is defined as “a “physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day to day activities” (DDA 1995). This essentially remains based on a medical model of disability, rather than one which recognises its social construction (Davis 2003: 24). Nonetheless, its potential must not be underestimated. The provisions of the Act appear to be wide ranging and relate to a whole range of procedures and processes within the education system such as admissions, student services, course activities, field trips, classes and so on. Davis (2003) argues that this will have significant implications for further and higher education providers, and as such represents a significant development. He also recognises that it may be something of a ‘culture shock’ to some colleges and universities, particularly in relation to high costs, and SENDA ultimately has “implications for traditional notions of academic freedom and for the trust placed in staff by Higher Education Institutions to carry out their duties without direct monitoring” (Davis 2003: 40).

The Higher Education Funding Council’s Quality Assurance Agency followed the introduction of SENDA with the issue of a Code of Practice to all UK higher education providers (the QAA’s Section 3 Code of Practice). The QAA’s Code of Practice is an attempt to guide the traditional discretion and autonomy of individual higher education professional staff towards compliance with the new law.

The Response of Educational Providers to SENDO in Northern Ireland

The response of policymakers, education providers and the voluntary sector to the forthcoming introduction of SENDO in Northern Ireland is essentially one of hope. Along with this optimism however, comes a degree of pessimism. Cynicism is particularly apparent among those voluntary sector organisations representing the interests of people with sensory impairments in further and higher education.

Post 16 education providers view the forthcoming SENDO legislation as an example of significant progress in the battle to overcome the barriers to educational participation and fulfilment. SENDO should, in theory, widen access; increase motivation; increase attainment and achievement levels; and generally assist in creating a more positive student experience at both pre and post 16.

One post 16 policymaker suggests:

“I would say it’s going to make a huge difference to what’s actually available to people.   We are going to go to this situation where people are going to access things that they couldn’t previously, because colleges, are going to have to make adjustments to make sure they can.   The overall outcome of it should be that people with disabilities do have far better access to further and higher education.” (Post 16 Policymaker )

There is growing recognition by policymakers and education providers in Northern Ireland that people with disabilities face a whole range of barriers. Disability has moved up the agenda along with other marginalised groups, and the objectives of ‘widening access and participation’ has gained increasing momentum. While implementation of SENDO in Northern Ireland is 3 years behind the rest of the UK, its long awaited arrival has not been underestimated. As one post 16 policymaker has argued:

“There are a lot of barriers definitely but a lot of them can be taken away by this SEND (Order) just by a wee bit of awareness.   I would imagine it is going to have a huge impact on the number of people who are actually enrolling.”

(Post 16 Policymaker)

SENDO thus has the potential to remove a lot of barriers to access. One such barrier is the inconsistency between third level institutions in different areas. Some colleges, particularly those with management who are generally supportive and disability aware, find themselves ahead of the game. This could mean that some students experience a better quality of service than others.   Work has been ongoing in some colleges to secure funding for physical access and other adjustments leaving some colleges better placed than others. Policymakers view SENDO as playing a major role in bridging the gap between these disparities:

“I know in (College), …(the Director) is very much into this inclusive approach.    So what you find is with him being so high up, then that influence cascades down.   If you don’t have someone in that position then the importance attached to the Learning Support Co-ordinator may not be as great.    This is where SEND is going to make the big difference.   Those colleges who have not attached the same importance to that inclusive approach, will find that they are going have to irrespective of whether they want to or not - they are going to have to.” (Post 16 Policymaker)   

Another theme emerging from my interviews with policymakers and education providers, is the need to ensure that colleges and universities go beyond minimum requirements. Policymakers are very keen to promote the forthcoming legislation as about encouraging change and positive action rather than punishment.

Thus, the response of educational providers and policymakers to the forthcoming SENDO is generally one of optimism.

The Response of the Voluntary Sector to SENDO in Northern Ireland

Overall opinions on SENDO within the voluntary sector are mixed. Some are optimistic and view the legislation as an important first step so long as it is embraced by practitioners. There is, however, a degree of suspicion in the voluntary sector concerning the rationale behind recent moves to enhance accessibility, and a fear that it is being enforced rather than embraced. One interviewee argued:

“I’m sure there are some who genuinely want to change it and that, but I think generally the interest that has been coming to us recently from colleges and stuff is because of SENDA.   It’s not because they have an ethic that they want to include blind people.”(Voluntary Body interviewee 1)

This view is also shared by another voluntary body interviewee who argues that:

”It doesn’t read very friendly.   Its ideas are good, its principles are good but there are a lot of people very concerned about it.   They just think ‘oh this is a piece of legislation and it’s determined to bleed me dry and it’s going to cost me a fortune.’   Which isn’t the case, it’s about reasonable adjustments” (Voluntary Body interviewee 2)

There is concern that any progress will be borne by resentment and fear over diminishing resources or potential court action. While SENDO embraces change and proclaims to be ‘resource neutral’, there is also concern within the voluntary sector that the long term implications of SENDO have not been sufficiently thought through. It is not just about physical access, but about training staff at all levels, raising awareness, and funding adaptations. Training will need to be ongoing as it will not only be the young person who needs support, but colleges, universities and teaching staff on how best to implement the legislation and how to move forward. If it is to be truly anticipatory, training will be required before the young person arrives. For many in the voluntary sector, the key to its success is the way in which it is delivered:

“I think if it’s being delivered properly it’s probably as good a move as we are going to get at the moment.   And I do feel it is quite positive.   I think if everybody sort of buys into it and you know, the spirit of it as well, it should be a positive move.”

(Voluntary body interviewee 3)

Not all interviewees were so receptive. For one, there was a perception that:

“it’s very little, very late and inadequate and unresourced,… and still not here.   We have been waiting for a long time, putting (in) an awful lot of work and I doubt very much it will be listened to in terms of consultation.” (Voluntary body interviewee 4)

Part of the reasoning behind views like this is down to the more immediate repercussions of the impending duty. Currently, some young people who are blind or profoundly deaf and require specialist support or resources, have to attend specialist colleges in England due to the lack of equivalent provision in Northern Ireland. However, funding for this has been declining in recent years, and in some areas, it has been stopped altogether. The rationale behind this is that such designated funding could be better used in improving current services for students with disabilities in mainstream colleges in Northern Ireland. While this may be a positive move in the long term, there is a fear that it will be those students in the immediate future who will suffer and fall by the wayside. Rather than increasing local choice, there is a feeling among those in the voluntary sector that SENDO may only replace one choice with another rather than increasing the range of options available:

“Young people used to be able to go to England - to college in England but the Education and Library Board just stopped the funding so they have to go here in Northern Ireland.   The colleges here are not set up for blind people.   Especially if you have a learning difficulty and are blind and you want to go further education to do a vocational course it’s not really set up for that.”(Voluntary body interviewee 4)

While SENDO seeks to overcome many of the barriers that currently exist in further and higher education, it also raises new issues. It fails to address other ‘external’ barriers which may be crucial to its effective implementation. An example of such a barrier is the interface between the voluntary and education sectors.

“Now within higher education…I have at times lobbied (University) about working with us and so on and still they don’t come near us.   They don’t come to use our services.   … they know about our service but they still don’t come near us for any form of support.    Not even for the briefest of wanting an update or anything.   Nothing.” (Voluntary body interviewee 5)

The interviewee gave an example of this lack of communication:

“I know for a fact there have been times in the past where I have been part of a seminar group or a conference group and I’ve delivered information about our service and what we do.   And people have come up to me afterwards and said ‘that’s wonderful… and that service sounds really good and we must get you down to the school’ but nobody ever comes back.   So it’s like they work away in isolation.” (Voluntary body interviewee 5)

Thus, effective implementation of SENDO is not merely about making resources available and enhancing physical access, but about developing communication between different sectors with a view to moving forward together in a bid to overcome a whole range of barriers; direct and indirect; visible and invisible.

Conclusion

In conclusion then, while progress is being made, potential solutions are far from straightforward and can bring with them a whole new set of issues and barriers which require attention and careful thinking. Indeed, a piece of legislation alone will not effect long term meaningful change. The complexity of impending change is recognised by some in the voluntary sector:

“I think you can have all the legislation you want but that isn’t going to make something work.   What is going to help it to work is people’s attitudes and I don’t necessarily mean those who are providing education, I mean the attitude of the parent and the attitude of the young person or child. And if that is fostered along and nurtured effectively and is met with effective education then the legislation will be there and hopefully in place to assist, then, the positives of …SENDO and so on. “

(Voluntary body interviewee 5)

The success of SENDO will require a holistic and whole-hearted approach to change. The spirit of the legislation needs to be embraced. SENDO has great potential to continue the progress that is already being made in third level education in Northern Ireland, particularly alongside existing positive duties. Responses to the Northern Ireland specific positive duty, suggests that it has had more of an impact in employment than education, and any impact that it has had in third level education is procedural rather than practical.

How soon further change is realised will essentially depend on the extent of goodwill within the further and higher education sector; the resources that are made available; and both the quality and extent of training. It is also important that barriers to communication and effective working between the education, voluntary and health sectors are broken down. By working in solidarity, equality of opportunity and inclusion for young people with sensory impairment, and other disabilities, in further and higher education, can become a reality. These young people are the future of our society. Allowing young people with sensory impairments to have the same opportunity to fulfil their educational ambitions as their peers, can not only reflect a more equal and inclusive society, but will enable them to develop their confidence, explore their talents and enhance their well being in ways the rest of our society can often take for granted.

References

Baker, J (2004) Equality: from theory to action, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Byrne, B and Caul, B (2001) The Right to Learn: the locations, transitions and attainments of deaf and partially hearing children and young people in Northern Ireland, Belfast: RNID Northern Ireland

Davis. M (2003) SENDA 2001 – The implications for higher education, Education and the Law, Vol. 15, No. 1: Carfax Publishing, pp19-45

Faris, N and McLaughlin, E (2004)A review of the operation of the statutory equality duty in Northern Ireland,  Belfast: The Northern Ireland Office

Hay. D (2001) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, London: Education Law Journal

Monteith, M & McLaughlin, E. (2004) Is Anyone Listening? Disability and Public Services for children and Young People in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Barnardos

McLaughlin, E. (2005) Governance & social policy in Northern Ireland: The devolution years in Powell, M., Clarke K.& Bauld, L. (eds) Social Policy Review Number 17, Bristol: SPA& The Policy Press.

Rees, T (1998) Mainstreaming equality in the European Union : education, training and labour market policies, London: Routledge

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact