Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act: the Implications for PRS
Author: Gary Bunt
Journal Title: PRS-LTSN Journal
ISSN:
ISSN-L:
Volume: 1
Number: 1
Start page: 31
End page: 38
Return to vol. 1 no. 1 index page
Amidst the extensive media coverage of the start of the 2001 election in Britain, it was easy to miss the announcement that the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability Bill received Royal Assent on May 11, 2001, becoming an Act1. Whereas the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1995) previously granted exemptions to educational providers, the new Act now places anti-discrimination at the top of the agenda for further and higher education. Issues surrounding the Act have been an underlying theme of recent work by organisations such as the National Disability Team, the JISC(Joint Information Systems Committee) funded service TechDis (Technology for Disabilities Information Service), and SKILL (the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities). Within the wider LTSN, a workshop at the LTSN National Conference (March 2001) indicated that this Act would be a key concern for subject centres. At the TechDis launch in London on May 11, 2001, the Act was a central topic of conversation. Generic themes and materials contained within this paper have been drawn from materials disseminated by these organisations at conferences and seminars, and are discussed with particular reference to the needs of the PRS constituency.
The Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability Act (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’) raises particular issues for the PRS community, and questions of how much responsibility for implementation rests with institutions, departments and individual lecturers. Some of the issues are generic, and some are subject specific. Notions of liability have to be addressed, in relation to resource provision, pedagogy, inclusiveness, technology, and adjustments/integration into current practice. The Act suggests that, in some higher educational contexts, there may need to be a cultural shift towards proactive provision of facilities and training to incorporate the diverse needs of students, thus widening participation and the range of abilities within the class setting. There are specific PRS concerns as well, relating to traditional delivery methods, access to texts, participation in seminars, and the moral and ethical agendas associated with special educational needs.
Key areas of the Act—which covers all publicly funded higher and further educational institutions in England, Scotland and Wales (not Northern Ireland) together with other ‘designated’ institutions—make it unlawful to discriminate in admissions, the provision of student services, and exclusions2. There are, however, some interesting areas in which the Act will not be enforceable because its definition of ‘disability’ is based around the DDA:
The new Act is an amendment to the existing Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), and therefore only protects people who are defined as disabled according to that legislation. This is not ideal, because the definition of disability in the DDA is based on an individual’s ability to carry out ‘normal day-to-day’ activities. So, for example, ‘inability to concentrate on a task requiring application over several hours’ is not considered disabling, because concentration over a long period, however common for students taking exams, is not considered to be a ‘normal’ day-to-day activity. It seems likely, therefore, that there will be a number of people who will not be able to use the new legislation. However, many of these students will continue to be provided for by the support systems within their institutions, and will continue to be eligible for Disabled Students’ Allowances and other assistance3.
This means that ‘less severe’ forms of dyslexia and abilities are not covered by the Act, if a person can undertake day-to-day activities, and that it is up to the discretion of the institution to provide appropriate support. In PRS, this may have implications for assessing and providing support for ‘dyslexic’ students in examinations, and through the facilitation of improved text access. The DDA also raises some interesting concerns relating to institutional and departmental definitions of ‘disability’, and the qualifications of those defining the term. During the recent JISC conference attended by the author, a delegate noted that the definition had been written by ‘normal’ people, and that the Disability Rights Commission needed to be lobbied in order that the definition was more responsive to ‘disabled’ communities’ and individuals’ understandings of the term.
PRS practitioners may be concerned that the Act will be an imposition, rather than a useful tool to facilitate wider access and improved inclusive educational standards for all. There are, however, some ‘justifications’ for discrimination, and the Act is not a manifesto for so-called political correctness. The maintenance of academic standards is one area of particular concern within PRS, and the Act seems to take account of this:
Less favourable treatment of a person is justified if it is necessary in order to maintain (a) academic standards; or (b) standards of another prescribed kind4.
Some educational areas require specific skills or standards, and when an individual has substantial barriers that mean that these skills or standards cannot be met, there can be confusion as to whether preventing that individual participating in a course is tantamount to discrimination. The Act may assist students, departments and institutions in clarifying this situation.
The Act demands that educational providers take reasonable steps to ensure that all of their students are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. If a course is inaccessible to all, then the disadvantage to the so-called ‘disabled’ student is negated. A balance has to be made between facilitating individuals facing specific barriers to learning, and ensuring that standards are not lowered for other students. In PRS, there may be concern that accessible printed transcript notes on a tract or text, designed for ‘disabled’ students, represent a ‘dumbing down’, whereas they may in fact improve clarity of a text for all students. Adjustments made to facilitate disabled individuals frequently may benefit the wider student constituency, especially if the PRS practitioner has to reconsider how lecture material (which may have a track record of several years without adjustment) can be redesigned to accommodate a broader student base. Such considerations also influence assessment exercises, such as the QAA.
The Act demands that reasonable adjustments are made to incorporate students. For PRS practitioners, key areas include ensuring that course content is accessible and available in alternative formats, and that materials are available not just as a responsive measure, but in anticipation of future students with special educational needs. However, this raises particular difficulties for PRS practitioners, because it is not always possible to predict the needs of all students with special educational requirements. People with dyslexia and visual impairment have diverse requirements, which it would be impossible to predict5. It will be interesting to determine the types of measures that PRS departments are going to have to put in place, to make their courses fully accessible. This may involve some expense, for example in providing special versions of core textual resources. Additional teaching of students with specific requirements may be necessary, but also can cause resentment in the way that it erodes into time that might be spent on other academic activities that can also be integral to departmental development (such as research). Co-ordination and dialogue with institutional Disability Officers (or similar) is likely to intensify as the implementation dates for the Act draw closer.
The Act places emphasis on the institution in many areas, rather than the individual department, as being the legal entity that must resource, monitor, guide and be ultimately responsible for the activities within its departments. Institutions may judge what is ‘reasonable’ within the Act, in terms of academic standards, financial resources, practicality, health and safety, and the requirements of other students. Institutions are also being given capital funding by their respective government bodies in order that the adjustments required in the implementation of the Act can be made. The institution has a responsibility for the disabled student constituency at large, and the institution must be ‘accessible’ before a student with special educational requirements necessarily applies to undertake study. In this way, the Act seeks anticipatory strategies by institutions (and departments) to accommodate the broad needs of students. It has been noted that such strategies can be economically more efficient in the long-term, than rapid reactive facilitation of students. For example, the cost of converting a classroom in the short term to accommodate a student with special educational requirements can be very expensive; the short-term availability of technicians, builders and support staff can be prohibitively costly, and special resources themselves can be difficult to obtain. In terms of expense, perhaps the greatest would be the ‘worst possible scenario’ cost of providing compensation (and legal fees) to a student who was not appropriately facilitated within an institution! The Act offers the means of some conciliation, but also of redress within the County or Sheriff Courts. However, there is a duty for students to disclose their particular needs to an institution in good time, in order that any minor adjustments can be made.
Some PRS practitioner awareness of the implications of this Act is important, especially for departments devising medium- and long-term strategies relating to course development, and methods of assessment. Awareness of funding opportunities for developing appropriate facilities for special educational needs could also be useful to those studying within the department as a whole, as improved facilities can often benefit the wider student constituency (i.e. improved working conditions in class rooms, clearer study materials, accessible computer resources, etc.) The Act itself demonstrates that simply waiting for disabled students to appear, and then facilitating their needs, is not deemed to be an appropriate departmental or institutional strategy. The legislation will come into force on 1st September 2002. There are two exceptions to this implementation:
The exceptions are reasonable adjustments involving the provision of auxiliary aids and services (such as interpreters etc) which comes into force on 1 September 2003 and the requirement to make physical adjustments which is to be implemented on 1 September 20056.
The Act may seem to some beleaguered and overworked PRS practitioners as yet another piece of legislation that has been sent to try their energy and patience. There can be tangible benefits, however, especially in terms of the quality of the learning and teaching experience that is provided within PRS departments. An early awareness of the Act’s needs and requirements is clearly important for departments. There is already a substantial amount of material available on the Internet and elsewhere, which can act as a reliable guide. This can be obtained through the following sources.
The National Disability Team
The National Disability Team (NDT), seeks to provide advice, support and
guidance based on effective practice in higher education, and “the integration
of disability issues into the core business of every higher education institution.”
The NDT’s special focus is improving provision for disabled students
in England and Northern Ireland. Based at Coventry University, the NDT provides
co-ordination services for forty-nine projects in institutions which have
“identified themselves as having little or no existing provision for
or experience of supporting disabled students and have designed programmes
to rectify this.7
National Disability Team
Maurice Foss Building
Coventry University
Priory Street
Coventry CV1 5FB
Telephone: 024 7688 7818
Fax: 024 7688 7812
Web: http://www.natdisteam.ac.uk
Email: natdisteam@coventry.ac.uk
Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities
Skill works closely with government, the higher education funding councils and the higher education institutions in the UK to promote wider opportunities for disabled people. Skill have been particularly active in the drafting of the QAA Higher Education Code of Practice on Students with Disabilities, and on discussing the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities
Chapter House
18-20 Crucifix Lane
London, SE1 3JW
Voice/text: 020 7450 0620
Fax: 020 7450 0650
Web: http://www.skill.ac.uk
Email: admin@skill.org.uk
Information Service voice: 0800 328 5050 (freephone)
Voice: 020 7657 2337 text: 0800 068 2422 (freetext)
Email: Info@skill.org.uk
TechDis
TechDis is a new JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) service set up to provide information and advice to the Further and Higher Education Sectors on the use of new and existing Communication and Information Technologies (CIT), to enhance access to learning and teaching, research and administration activities for students and staff with disabilities.
TechDis aims include the promotion of good practice for students and staff with disabilities, and provision on practical information on accessibility of technologies used in learning, teaching, research and administration. It seeks to co-ordinate a “coherent UK-wide approach to enhancing the use of technology to support students and staff with disabilities.”
TechDis
Genesis 3
York Science Park
York YO10 5DQ
Tel: 01904 434792
Web: http://www.techdis.ac.uk
E-mail: Lawrie.Phipps@ltsn.ac.uk
For general technological information and advice, contact:
JISC Technologies Centre
The Technologies Centre is funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and will work closely with the LTSN. It will investigate, develop and prove the applicability of new technologies in support of the whole education process in higher and further education. These will include technologies relevant to learning and teaching and their integration into wider student support and administrative systems.
Technologies Centre
Learning and Teaching Support Network
Genesis 3
York Science Park
York YO10 5DQ
Tel: 01904 434239
Fax. 01904 434247
Email (Administrator): mike.clarke@ltsn.ac.uk
Joint Information Systems Committee
The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) promotes the innovative application and use of information systems and information technology in Higher and Further education across the UK.
The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) promotes the innovative application and use of information systems and information technology in Higher and Further education across the UK.
Tel. 0117 954 6850
Web: http://www.jisc.ac.uk (see Contacts page for several JISC postal addresses)
E-mail assist@jisc.ac.uk
Further discussions on the implications of this Act will be featured on the PRS-LTSN web pages. It is intended to organise a Colloquium on the subject for 2002, and it is planned to facilitate an electronic discussion on this subject during the next year. If you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this paper, or contribute to the discussion, then please e-mail the author: gary@prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk
Endnotes
- The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill was published on-line by HMSO: http://www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldbills/003/2001003.htm#aofs
- Government information on Disability legislation can be found at http://www.disability.gov.uk/
- SKILL, National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, Sophie Corlett, “Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill”, 15th May 2001, http://www.skill.org.uk/SEN_Disability.htm Corlett’s contribution to the TechDis launch provided several themes for this current paper.
- Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, op. cit., 26:6
- This is discussed elsewhere on the PRS-LTSN web pages – http://www.prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk. For example, see: Gary Bunt, ‘Widening Dyslexic Access in PRS’ and ‘Widening Access in PRS for the Visually Impaired.’
- SKILL, op. cit.
- National Disability Team bulletin, Issue One, November 2000
Return to vol. 1 no. 1 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
