Guidelines for the creation of equitable opportunities for people with disabilities in South African Higher Education
Cape Higher Education Consortium
Prepared for CHEC by
Colleen Howell, October 2015
Table of Contents
1.Introduction
2.Guiding principles
3.Defining disability
4.The policy and legislative framework
5.The campus environment
6.Creating equitable employment opportunities for staff with disabilities
7.Creating equitable opportunities for students with disabilities to enter and succeed in higher education
8.The role and functioning of disability units
9.Monitoring and evaluation
Appendix A: Legislative and policy framework
Appendix B: Summary of key roles and responsibilities
Appendix C: Some useful resources
1.Introduction[1]
In December 2014 the Minister of Higher Education and Training announced the appointment of a Ministerial Committee tasked with the responsibility of developing “a Strategic Policy Framework for Disability in the Post-School Education and Training System” (DHET, 2014)[2]. This Ministerial initiative takes forward a commitment made in the White Paper for Post School Education and Training (2013) to improve “access to and success in post-school education and training (including in private institutions) for people with disabilities”(DHET, 2014). For higher education institutions, this policy imperative is not new and reinforces similar intentions outlined in the previous White Paper 3 (1997) on higher education and the National Plan for Higher Education (2001). At the policy level these goals around disability have always be recognised as part of a broader process of higher education transformation, focused both on redressing the inequalities of the past and building the capacity of the system to meaningfully contribute to South Africa’s development within a globalised, knowledge-driven world, including through greater responsiveness to diversity. These policy goals have also given meaning within the context of higher education to constitutional provisions and associated legislation that protect the rights of people with disabilities from unfair discrimination and recognise them as having been historically disadvantaged and thus the focus of measures aimed at redressing these inequities. This framework is strengthened by South Africa’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (2006).
Despite the existence of these strong enabling mechanisms, a number of barriers still exist that restrict access to and limit the participation of people with disabilities in higher education. In many respects, these barriers reflect the complex interplay between a range of internal and external factors that are both about how disability is understood and responded to in our society and broader systemic challenges faced by the post-apartheid public higher education system in South Africa. It is at the institutional level that the impact of these barriers is most evident, as institutions attempt to translate these policy goals into meaningful practice and grapple with them among a range of competing priorities.
This document has been developedby the Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) as a contribution to the Ministerial initiative underway and as an enabling tool for higher education institutions in their efforts to address this transformation imperative. Its objective is to provide a framework to inform leadership thinking in this area rather than to outline a set of technical specifications on what should or should not be done. It also does not provide an exhaustive overview of all the key issues for institutions to consider but rather attempts to capture those issues that are seen as most important and if addressed, provide a strong, enabling framework for institutions to work within.The contents of the document draw from and attempt to reflect a consolidation of important insights that have emerged over the last twenty years in South Africa from research, institutional reflections on practice and initiatives towards improving the capacity of the higher education sector to address disability. The document also draws selectively from similar ‘tools’ developed for the higher education sector in other countries. While it is recognised that in most cases these international tools derive from contexts very different to South Africa and thus need to be read with caution, they still offer valuable pointers to principles of good practice towards which institutions and the sector as a whole can strive.
The intention throughout has therefore been to make meaning of the issues within the South African higher education context with its specific complexities and challenges, not least of which are the pervasive inequalities that still characterise the sector and the overall declining levels of state funding for higher education (DHET, 2013)[3]Equally important, is the continued failure of the general education and training system to create the conditions for many students with disabilities to meetminimum entrance requirements and, as is the case for many students, prepare them adequately for higher education study (CHE, 2005; FOTIM, 2011)[4]. These factors impact directly on the capacity of institutions to respond to this area of concern. The guidelines therefore attempt to outline the core precepts that should underpin all institutional responses but which can and should be shaped at the level of practice within different institutional contexts.
These guidelines move from the premise that addressing disability in higher education should be directed towards creating the conditions for the equitable participation of all people with disabilities in higher education institutions (HEIs), in particular, staff and students with disabilities. To this end, the four sections that follow speak to broad issues that are important towards the creation of a non-discriminatory and equitable institutional environment. However, while there are a number of issues that are important towards the creation of such an environment and relevant to the concerns of both staff and students with disabilities, it is also extremely important for institutions to recognise the differences that are required in responding to the needs of staff with disabilities and the needs of students with disabilities.
For staff with disabilities the issues are about the creation of an equitable and just employment environment requiring attention to issues of employment equity, non-discriminatory conditions of employment and fair opportunities for development and advancement, with all of these imperatives being framed by specific policies and legislation pertinent to all employers. However, for students with disabilitiesthe issue is primarily about ensuring ‘epistemological access’ to higher education and its benefits (Morrow, 1993)[5]. It is therefore about ensuring that students with disabilities are able to participate in all facets of the academic project (in and outside the classroom) and have fair chances to succeed in their studies. With these important distinctions in mind, Sections 6 & 7 deal with staff with disabilities and students with disabilities respectively. The last two sections look briefly at the role and functioning of disability units within institutions and the issue of monitoring and evaluation. In Appendix A and Appendix B summaries are provided of the important policy and legislative provisions in place and the main responsibilities required by all the key role players across the public higher education sector. Appendix C provides a list of some useful resources for institutions.
The focus of this document is on the creation of equitable opportunities for people with disabilities within higher education environments, either as employees or as students. It is therefore strongly orientated to considering the issues through the lens of the university as an employer and in relation to its core function of teaching and learning and the responsibilities of the latter towards facilitating access to the curriculum for students with disabilities. The document does not address in any meaningful way issues around curriculum transformation towards building greater understanding around disability and the value of research that seeks to build more inclusive societies. Both of these are extremely important to institutional transformation efforts and should also be given attention as part of institutional strategies to address disability.
2.Guiding principles
The following core principles and concerns should underpin and inform how disability is addressed in all higher education institutions:
- A Leadership concern
Like many other transformation challenges in higher education, addressing disability is a senior leadership concern. This means that it needs to be integrated as a key element of the transformation agenda into all aspects of the leadership’s strategic thinking and associated institutional planning. All senior managers need to be aware of the institution’s strategic intentions towards addressing disability and understand these intentions in relation to their specific areas of responsibility. They also need to have an adequate understanding of the policy and legislative framework governing disability in South African and be aware of its implications for higher education.
- Valuing diversity and the inclusive development of HEIs
There is increasing recognition across the world that disability is one element of the diverse human condition and not a deficit that needs to be compensated for. For HEIs this means recognising disability as a natural part of the diversity of South African society and the broader globalised world and valuing what such diversity offers the academic project, both in relation to the nature of the knowledge produced and for the learning experiences of students, in and outside the classroom. For HEIs this means building an inclusive academic and campus environment with institutional practices and systems flexible enough to respond to the differences that such diversity may bring to the institution. It also means a commitment to transforming existing institutional environments to value and accommodate such diversity rather than pursuing solutions that seek to assimilate into an unchanged environment. Central to such transformation is institutional culture. Building an institutional culturethat respects and values diversity is especially important towards the creation of an enabling environment receptive to change.
- A flexible teaching and learning environment
The above principle is an especially important one in the design and functioning of the teaching and learning environment and building the capacity of an institution to respond to the differences that students bring to the teaching and learning process. It has particular relevance for the South African higher education context as the learning needs of students are increasingly informed by a complex set of influences, ranging from severe educational disadvantage and lack of preparedness for higher education study to the demands of the ‘digital age’. Towards addressing the needs of students with disabilitieswithin this context two issues are especially important here:
- Firstly, it requires recognising the primacy of the teaching and learning process in the creation of equitable opportunities for students with disabilities to succeed in higher education. Central to this are institutional strategies aimed at building the capacity of academic staff to respond in integrated ways to the needs of students with disabilities in the classroom. This requires the central involvement of teaching and learning structures in addressing disability within institutions and integrating disability responsiveness into all processes towards the orientation and development of academic staff (See Section 7).
- Secondly, it means recognising that many students with disabilities, like their able-bodied peers, come from extremely disadvantaged educational backgrounds. Their learning needs and what they require to succeed in their studies therefore emerge both from the nature of their disability and what this means for how they access the curriculum (e.g. through Braille), as well as from the challenges of educational disadvantage and associated ‘underpreparedness’. The teaching and learning support needs of students with disabilities cannot therefore be reduced to the provision of particular assistive devices and require a much more holistic approach by institutions.
Increasingly these imperatives are being captured under the concept of universal design and, when specifically applied to the teaching and learning environment, the concept of ‘universal design for learning’ or ‘universal design in education’. The following definitions of these concepts may be helpful for institutions:
- Working within a non-discrimination framework and exploring innovative solutions
South Africa’s policy and legislative framework that impacts on both staff and students with disabilities in higher education recognises disability as a basis of discrimination, acknowledging the historical impact of such discrimination and providing for its prohibition in a democratic South Africa (See Section 4 and Appendix A). This means that institutions are both legally obliged and ethically directed to ensure that the fair and equal treatment of people with disabilities is embedded into all their governance, planning and operational practices. Moreover, it requires the execution by staff and students of their responsibilities in a non-discriminatory matter.
Despite a commitment to non-discrimination as a principle, institutions are often challenged to remain true to the principle in a higher education environment severely challenged by high societal expectations, competing priorities, limited resources and significant teaching and learning challenges. In this context, the challenge of addressing disability, like other development challenges, is one that contains inherent tensions with imperatives often in seeming competition to each other. What is especially important in remaining true to a non-discriminatory framework is that institutions seek to mediate these tensions through careful and nuanced practices, rather than in the employment of seemingly simpler solutions that may directly or indirectly discriminate against staff and students with disabilities. It is with this concern in mind that the notion of universities within a region ‘specialising’ in a particular disability (Suggested in the White Paper, 2013) is strongly rejected and should not be considered as a possible option for the sector in moving forward.
It is recognised that mediating these inherent tensions is not an easy task and in many respects requires “counter intuitive” leadership thinking (Ndebele, 2007)[6] – leadership thinking able to go beyond the probable to re-imagine what may be possible under the most difficult of conditions.It is important to note here that there is increasing evidence to indicate that some especially innovative solutions around addressing the needs of students with disabilities are emerging in the most resource constrained environments, with these solutions often having benefit for other students, such as those who are not studying in their mother tongue.
- Enhancing collaboration and partnership
Within the policy framework that informs the functioning of the public higher education system in South Africa, including policies that speak directly to the issue of disability, the value of collaboration and partnerships is asserted. This imperative has especially important implications for addressing disability in higher education. On the one hand, building networks and partnerships between institutions as well as between institutions and disability role-players outside the sector, particularly non-governmental organisations offering services to people with disabilities and disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), provide important vehicles for sharing knowledge towards improved practice and drawing on expertise that the university may not have itself. However, while such collaboration is valuable it should always be seen as a way of strengthening and improving institutional efforts, rather than on removing any responsibility from the institution towards its students and staff.
Perhaps most important are those networks and partnerships that are set up at the institutional level. Throughout this document the issues that are raised all point to the importance of a strategic, holistic, integrated approach to addressing disability within institutions and taken the nature of universities, this cannot be achieved without building strong, sustainable partnerships, particularly across traditional institutional boundaries. Setting up intra-institutional forums and communities of practice are seen as a valuable way of harnessing institutional efforts towards addressing disability and ensuring that disability is appropriately integrated across the institution. At the institutional level building networks and communities of practice that draw on the experiences and insights of students and staff with disabilities themselves are regarded as especially important and a valuable source of knowledge to inform institutional practice.
3.Defining disability
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines a person with a disability in the following way:
The Convention emphasises therefore that the concept of ‘disability’ has to be understood in a relational way – that is, it emerges out of the relationship between a person with an impairment and their environment, where they are confronted by “attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (UN, 2006).
If disability is understood in this way, then two issues emerge that are important to recognise: Firstly, the relational nature of disability suggests that it will always be “an evolving concept” (UN, 2006) and thus open to ongoing contestation and engagement. Secondly, the different environments in which people with impairments interact and participate create particular kinds of barriers that shape the nature and experience of disability in that context and may change as the environmentchanges. Thus the experience of disability is very different in an environment where few barriers exist for a person with a particular impairment compared to another environment where that person experiences a range of barriers. Perhaps the most obvious example here is where a person who uses a wheelchair works in a building that is fully accessible and enables them to move throughout the building without obstruction and have accessto all its facilities. In another building where access is restricted to the use of stairs and the facilities are inaccessible to a wheelchair user, the experience of disability will be very different and the person’s ability to participate and be productive will be severely restricted.