The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2 UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

Background policy and statistical evidence

2.1 The disability equality schemes, action plans and annual reports of the 20 Scottish universities and higher education institutions ( HEIs), and the 43 Scottish colleges, in addition to relevant guidance and research documents, have been examined to produce this report.

Wider policy context for universities

2.2 Before the 1990s, universities made very little provision for disabled students. Over the past fifteen years, many policy, legislative and funding measures have been introduced, including, in 2001, the extension of disability discrimination legislation to education. The inclusion of disabled students in higher education has been supported by a number of measures, including the Disabled Students' Allowance ( DSA) and premium funding intended to improve institutional accessibility. Funding Council initiatives aimed, for example, at promoting adjustments to the curriculum and to assessment, as well as quality assurance requirements, have also promoted inclusion. The extension of the Disability Discrimination Act ( DDA) to education in 2001 was also important, since it placed a duty on institutions to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students in relation to teaching, learning and assessment practices. These measures have contributed to a marked increase in the proportion of disabled students participating in higher education. In order to assess the extent to which universities are becoming more inclusive as a result of the disability equality duty, university disability equality schemes and annual reports were analysed.

2.3 There was evidence of progress in relation to disability equality in UK higher education institutions prior to the advent of the disability equality duty. For example, research on the barriers encountered by disabled students in higher education illustrated on-going challenges, but also considerable improvements in institutional support, particularly through the establishment of Disability Support Services in all higher education institutions (Tinklin et al., 2004a; Riddell et al., 2005a; Riddell et al., 2005b). The guidance documents produced by the Disability Rights Commission ( DRC, 2006) also provide examples of good institutional practice. The positive impact of these policy and practice developments on the experiences and outcomes of disabled students is borne out by the statistics discussed below (see Table 4.1). Despite improvements to funding provision for disabled students in 1993, Tinklin and Hall (1999) reported that there were still barriers relating to entrance, the physical environment, access to information and levels of awareness amongst staff. Tinklin et al. (2004b) observed how disability officers in the late 1990s were 'often trying to effect change at an institutional level with no senior management support' (2004b, p. 638), although the requirement, following the DDA 1995, for institutions to 'have regard to the needs of disabled students' and to publish disability statements, was seen to have some positive impact on raising awareness (Hall and Tinklin, 1998).

2.4 Following the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act ( DDA) to education in 2001, Tinklin et al. (2004) reported 'signs of a marked improvement in staffing and structures for disabled students in 2002, compared with 1996-97' (2004b, p. 646). They did, however, raise questions about the balance between providing individual support to disabled students, and working proactively to dismantle barriers in the institutional environment, in order to allow disabled students to participate without special provision. Amongst the more encouraging signs noted by Tinklin et al. (2004) were the inclusion of disabled students in policies on admission, assessment, estates, buildings and even institutional strategic plans. Nevertheless, the DRC guidance on the disability equality duty observes that 'there is still work to be done to improve the participation, satisfaction, achievements and opportunities of disabled students' (2006, p.5).

2.5 In Scotland, Equality Forward was established in April 2006 as a national organisation to support colleges and universities in meeting the requirements of equality legislation, in particular, the disability equality duty which came into force in December 2006, and the gender equality duty from April 2007. Their concerns are both with students and with staff. Their annual report (Equality Forward, 2007a) sets out five focus areas identified for them by Scottish Funding Council:

1. Have an advisory and supporting role to institutions, both informally and formally
2. Give demand-led support to the sectors
3. Identify the risks and challenges faced by colleges and universities in relation to equal opportunities
4. Be a conduit for good practice
5. Periodically give advice to the Chief Executive of the Scottish Funding Council.

2.6 Having noted the reluctance of staff in colleges and universities to disclose disabilities or impairments to their employers, Equality Forward used an on-line survey with follow-up interviews to research the experiences of disabled staff, and their report (Equality Forward, 2007b) explores ways in which social stigma about disability is reflected or challenged in colleges and universities; the clarity of the processes staff must go through to disclose; and impact of institutional cultures on disclosure.

2.7 A further potential source of guidance for institutions is the assessment of Higher Education Institutions' performance in relation to the disability equality duty ( DRC, 2007), which praised certain features of schemes as effective practice, including the use of baseline data on the numbers of disabled staff and students, involvement of disabled people in the impact assessment process, clear, well-structured plans with allocation of responsibilities, and action plans which were tied in to wider institutional plans and priorities, ensuring alignment to the strategic direction of the University. The same report cautioned against failure to illustrate clearly the priorities raised by disabled people and how those had influenced the actions in the DES; lack of detail in describing methods for impact assessment; and little or no information on gaps in information gathering and plans to remedy that in future.

2.8 A final important aspect of the policy context is the possibility of developing a unified equalities action plan, including steps to promote race and gender equality, in line with the terms of the Equality Act 2006.

Wider policy context for colleges

2.9 The Scottish colleges are covered by the same guidance in relation to the disability equality duty as the universities (Disability Rights Commission, 2006). They have, however, a longer tradition of inclusion and of supporting disabled learners, for example, as providers of specialised courses for young adults with learning difficulties. Over the past fifteen years, a number of policy, legislative and funding measures have been introduced, including, in 2001, the extension of disability discrimination legislation to education. This placed a duty on institutions to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students in relation to teaching, learning and assessment practices.

2.10 Scotland's colleges serve a broad cross-section of the community, and in their mission statements, tend to pride themselves on their inclusive ethos, providing academic, vocational and community education courses, for learners ranging from those with complex learning needs to those preparing for higher education qualifications, including school pupils engaged in the Skills for Work programme, young and mature adults engaged on vocational education or apprenticeships, and a wide range of adult learners, including those developing literacy, numeracy and English language skills. Data on post-school destinations from Careers Scotland underline the diversity of the population of Scottish colleges, showing, for example that in 2006-07, 40.4% of school leavers who were declared or assessed disabled had moved into further education (Scottish Government, 2007a, p. 16).

2.11 In general, the colleges' disability equality schemes suggest that they have embraced the diversity and equality legislation enthusiastically, many opting to produce joint policies and schemes which cover gender and race equality too. Like the universities, Scotland's colleges are supported by Equality Forward, established in April 2006 as a national organisation to help colleges and universities meet the requirements of equality legislation, in particular, the disability equality duty which came into force in December 2006, and the gender equality duty from April 2007, for both students and staff.

Research and statistical evidence

Inclusion in higher education

2.12 All institutions must submit statistics of disabled students to the Higher Education Statistics Agency ( HESA) ( www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student), in categories which reflect a predominantly medical, rather than a social model of disability. Analysis of these by Weedon and Riddell (2007) demonstrated a rapid rise in numbers of students with a known disability, at a time of expansion of overall student numbers, from 11,162 (3.5% of total students numbers) in 1994-95 to 26,085 (7% of all students) in 2004-05. They also noted changes in the composition of the group, with a remarkable rise in numbers of dyslexic students. Table 1 shows these changes, and updates the picture with the 2006/07 HESA statistics.

Table 1. Categories of disability used by HESA and percentages of first-degree disabled full-time undergraduates as a percentage of total numbers of disabled full-time students 1994/95; 2004/05; 2006/07

2.13 At institutional level, HESA statistics provide a useful measure for comparison both with previous years and with other institutions, although they have not been used in all disability equality schemes and annual reports.

2.14 Statistics on disabled staff are harder to ascertain, because, unlike students, they have nothing to gain by disclosure and, as research on disability disclosure by Equality Forward (2007b) suggests, they may feel they have a lot to lose, in that it might damage their employment or promotion prospects. Several schemes reported that only 1% or even fewer staff declared a disability, although national statistics suggested the actual number should be far higher.

Inclusion of disabled students in colleges

2.15 For the colleges, assessing how much progress has been made on the inclusion of disabled students and staff since 1997 is hampered by the relative dearth of research on this sector - far less than has been produced about university education. Nonetheless, important insights are provided by the studies which do exist.

2.16 As Figure 1 demonstrates, statistics supplied by the Scottish Government show a steady increase in the numbers of further education students declaring a disability from 2000-01 to 2006-07, even while numbers of non-disabled learners were falling.

2.17 Yet Ash et al. (1997) point to the dangers of assuming that the presence of disabled students in colleges means that they are fully integrated. Their study of other students' attitudes towards disabled students in three colleges of further education found that social contact between disabled and non-disabled students was not extensive, and that non-disabled students were not aware of the issues facing their disabled colleagues in college. This picture of little social and academic mixing of disabled students with others in further education is also reflected in more recent research in Scotland (Riddell et al., 2001; Farmakopoulou and Watson, 2003), and probably reflects the vocational emphasis of many further education courses, where the focus is on the acquisition of particular work-related skills rather than the wider social development of the individual.

Figure 1

Source: Scottish Further Education Funding Council ( SFEFC)
Note: Numbers correspond to enrolments on both Vocational and Non-Vocational Further Education courses at Colleges.

2.18 On the other hand, it appears to be the case that many disabled students undertaking higher level courses in colleges benefit from the presence of well-resourced learning support departments. As part of a wider study of disabled students' experiences of higher education, Riddell et al. (2005a) presented a case study of a college, with 50% of its student population on higher education programmes. The college had links with a network of community learning centres, and was located in an area of multiple deprivation. Thirty six per cent of students, including disabled students, were from deprivation category 5 based on the Scottish Deprivation Index. This reflects a far more socially disadvantaged student population than would be found in most universities, particularly in the pre-92 sector. For twenty years, the college had been given additional funding by the Scottish Executive to provide higher education to deaf students, who continued to be attracted to the college because of the presence of a well-established deaf community. The social inclusion agenda underpinned all of the college's work and staff regarded disabled students as a core part of the student population, rather than a new group of students making additional and unfunded demands.

Inclusion of disabled staff in colleges

2.19 Statistics on disabled staff are harder to ascertain: in schemes which present statistics, these are often accompanied by a comment that the known figure is probably lower than it should be, due to a perceived reluctance amongst staff to disclose. As the research by Equality Forward (2007b) demonstrates, despite the fact that disclosing a disability means that a staff member may then request reasonable adjustments to their working environment, it seems to be the case that beliefs about the benefits of disclosure may be outweighed by the fears of stigmatisation.

2.20 To obtain a clearer picture of the number of disabled staff employed in colleges and their employment experiences, Equality Forward used an on-line survey with follow-up interviews. Their report (Equality Forward, 2007b) explores ways in which social stigma about disability is reflected or challenged in colleges and universities; the clarity of processes staff must go through to disclose their disabilities; and impact of institutional cultures on disclosure. Equality Forward also support local fora for the discussion and spread of good practice, and many of the colleges participate in these. Collaboration between institutions is an important feature of the college sector.

2.21 In their report to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, Riddell et al. (2005c) considered many aspects of equality and diversity in the further education workforce, not only disability. It is interesting to note that they found two colleges which did not record data on staff disability at all, and that even when colleges were providing good training on equalities issues, attendance at these staff development sessions was described as poor. At least one college recorded that no staff member had disclosed a disability, and others noted that percentages of disabled people in their local community were higher than the percentages of disabled staff employed in college.

Reporting on progress

2.22 In the sections which follow, we shall present first the areas in which progress towards equality is evident from the disability equality schemes, action plans and annual reports, followed by discussion of the areas in which progress is not evident. The report will end with

• discussion of the use of categories of impairment in the schemes;
• the evidence of the involvement of and consultation with, disabled people and their families; and
• a summary and conclusions.

Reporting on progress: areas where progress is evident

Access to higher education

2.23 Although improvements to information for intending students, and to admissions and induction procedures figure in most of the action plans, it is not easy to assess how much progress has been made in many of the institutions. Some do not provide any statistics on disabled students in their schemes or reports; others provide global numbers, without reference to any of the sub-categories of disability. At the other extreme, one university has included in its annual report a table showing the precise number of students within each of the 9 HESA categories of disability in each of its constituent schools, even where there are only one or two students in the category in a school. The same institution set targets to increase numbers of students in two categories, by working with special schools, and was able to demonstrate in its first annual report that four additional students had been recruited in each of the categories of mobility and sensory impairment.

2.24 Some institutions admit that they have gaps in their information-gathering, both in terms of numbers and in terms of the needs and requirements of disabled students, and set out plans to improve their data, through additional surveys or interviews, or through improvements to their systems, to ensure that the progress of disabled entrants is tracked throughout their years in the institution. For those schemes which neither include statistics nor discuss plans to improve their data collection and monitoring processes, it has not been possible to assess whether their data collection is adequate to allow them to assess their progress in terms of numbers of students gaining access. It is also worth noting that the Scottish Funding Council no longer ask universities or higher education institutions to report back on the use of the Disabled Students Premium. This means there is less intelligence available about support for disabled students.

Adjustments to teaching, learning and assessment in higher education

2.25 Progress has also been made in relation to adjustments to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. The Scottish Funding Council funded the Teachability project in the mid-1990s to produce staff development materials aimed at assisting staff in reviewing their approach to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Teachability assessments have been conducted in many universities to identify the extent to which teaching and assessment practices need to be adjusted to make them more inclusive. Assistive technology is also being used in increasingly imaginative ways. Efforts are being made to train staff and change attitudes towards disabled students. Assessment and examination arrangements are also an important focus, although by and large universities still adhere to rather traditional examination-based approaches. Some universities show particular interest in ensuring that disabled students can participate fully in non-academic aspects of student life, through involving students associations. Other key concerns are ensuring, through impact assessment, that institutional policies and buildings meet the legal requirements, and the Scottish Funding Council has assisted such developments through a series of targeted programmes. Concerns are expressed that greater effort should be made to meet the needs of disabled employees, but further progress is needed in identifying who such individuals are and how they can be assisted.

Disabled members of staff in higher education

2.26 Turning to the needs of disabled members of staff, many schemes and reports note the difficulties in encouraging staff to disclose their disabilities, and some include action points about conducting surveys to gain a clearer picture of staff difficulties, or about the provision of additional opportunities for disclosure. Several comment that they know that the statistics of staff declaring a disability are not an accurate reflection of the number of disabled staff employed, either because the declared numbers do not tally with the numbers of staff who are using assistive technologies, or who are known to have discussed problems informally in counselling sessions. Such comments could explain why there are far fewer action points relating to improving the position of disabled staff, as opposed to students, although many improvements to the physical environment are designed to benefit both groups. Reviews of human resources policies feature in many schemes, but issues such as harassment are not discussed in detail, and sometimes not mentioned at all.

Access to further education

2.27 Measuring improvement requires clear baseline information about disabled students, and, as discussed below in the section on categories, there is no standard approach to providing this information in colleges' disability equality schemes. Most, however, provide at least the global number of enrolments of students who declare a disability, although clear targets for increasing those numbers are not always expressed. An encouraging number of colleges compared the proportion of disabled students in college with local community statistics, and noted the appearance of any disparity. A few had set challenging targets for increasing the proportion of disabled students within the wider college population, to encourage admissions tutors to accept more on to their courses.

2.28 Many reports highlight their college's extensive support for students with physical or learning disabilities, including accessible websites and the availability of classroom support assistants for these students and those with behavioural difficulties. The production of disability equality schemes appears to have stimulated review of admissions and induction procedures, with increased attention to staff training, provision of individual interviews, and the use of feedback to improve procedures and support. Once students are enrolled, some colleges highlight the importance of individual learning plans in ensuring that individual students' needs are constantly reviewed.

Physical access arrangements in colleges

2.29 Most reports indicate that the disability equality duty is focussing attention on the monitoring and continuing improvement of physical access. Colleges operate in a wide range of physical settings. Some, such as Newbattle Abbey College, have needed to make adjustments to listed buildings, whilst others were coping with several scattered campuses. Yet others were in the throes of expansion and rebuilding. It was encouraging to find a particular college with a construction programme reporting that, despite a disruptive reduction in car parking spaces within their college grounds, the number of disabled parking bays had been increased. Some other reports of physical adjustments, such as the repositioning of ramps, provide evidence that the views of disabled users have been listened to and acted upon. Several schemes also report progress in the provision of assistive technologies and appropriate learning resources.

Improving reporting systems in colleges

2.30 In their schemes and their first annual reports, many of the colleges undertook a critical review of their current systems. They planned adjustments, for example, to ensure that data on the achievement and retention of disabled students could be readily disaggregated and monitored. Another area which often needed to be clarified or improved was the system for reporting, and acting upon reports of, harassment of disabled persons, either by staff or by fellow students. While it is not always possible to be sure whether this represents a change to procedures or simply an underlining of the roles and responsibilities, the clarification is in itself a sign of progress.

Collaborative working in colleges

2.31 As noted above in the section on the policy context, Equality Forward has made an important contribution in encouraging colleges to work together on shared concerns. In some areas, colleges have not only been working with their neighbours in their local Equality Forum, but also developing collaborative links with local disability organisations. In Fife, for example, Adam Smith College, Elmwood College and Carnegie College consulted collaboratively with a number of organisations in Fife working with and for people with a range of disabilities, through the Fife Employability Network. All three colleges received predominantly positive feedback on their disability equality schemes, although the consultation process highlighted the colleges' weakness in relation to individuals with mental health problems. Other colleges in the sector may well share this weakness, given the finding of the Equality Forward (2006b) research on disability disclosure that some disabilities / impairments are more stigmatised than others (2006b, p.21) and that mental health problems are seen to be particularly stigmatised. While most colleges are undertaking staff development to change attitudes towards disability in general, changing attitudes towards mental health problems, as opposed to physical disabilities, seems likely to be harder. Another example of local collaboration is the scheme produced by Shetland Islands Council in partnership with Shetland College; Shetland School Service; and the local transport authority, ZetTrans. The joint venture is designed "not only to comply with legal duties under the DDA but also to further enhance accessibility for the service user, to improve our services throughout Shetland and to promote joint partnership working". The scheme reports many projects on which consultation had taken place, and notes that "the small numbers of disabled representative groups within Shetland ... can often lead to 'involvement fatigue'." The setting up of a Shetland Disability Forum may enable the process of consultation about, and involvement in, all services for disabled people to be streamlined.

2.32 To sum up the evidence of progress, in both higher and further education institutions, assessing the achievement of measurable progress is problematic, because relatively few numerical, verifiable targets were set in the first round of action plans. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence of positive activity in the schemes and annual reports, particularly in relation to:

1: improving communication, in terms of providing more and better information for disabled students (and potential students), before they arrive in college, during the enrolment and induction processes, and during their courses;

2. involving disabled people in future planning, both by listening to and involving disabled students and by working in collaboration with outside bodies;

3: improving staff skills, through training sessions. In colleges, this is chiefly concerned with awareness-raising and cultural change, rather than pedagogic approaches; in the universities' plans, training sessions for Teachability and specific techniques to support learning and assessment for disabled students appear more frequently;

4: improving the student experience, both in access to student facilities by improving the physical environment, and in other improving the culture of staff and fellow students;

5: improving institutional processes, both by allocating and clarifying roles and responsibilities in relation to disabled students, and by designing and embarking on programmes of impact assessment of policies and procedures

6: improving links with outside bodies and disability groups.

Reporting on progress: areas where progress is less evident

Access to higher education

2.33 All institutions are obliged to submit statistical information to HESA in relation to the number of disabled students in particular categories, and the number claiming Disabled Students Allowance. Indeed, institutions have been incentivised to make accurate returns in relation to DSA claimants, because until recently the Scottish Funding Council has awarded premium funding to the institution in relation to this measure, based on the assumption that universities need some assistance and encouragement in making reasonable adjustments, as is their duty. Although some statistics are readily available, they are not widely used in demonstrating progress. A possible explanation might be a lack of communication within the institution between those compiling the disability equality scheme and those compiling statistical information, generally in the planning department. It should also be taken into account that statistics for disabled students may not present an accurate or complete picture, as we know that not all disabled students are willing to disclose their disability to the institution.

Adjustments to physical features, teaching and policy in higher education

2.34 Most disability equality schemes and annual reports provide some information on adjustments to physical features, teaching and policy, and have some action points, such as building new ramps or purchasing new hardware, for further development. However, there is a lack of evaluation of whether the adjustments made have actually achieved their stated goals. The Scottish Funding Council has had a series of special initiatives to improve university estates since the mid-1990s, so universities should be able to report on progress over time. This may indicate that those compiling the disability equality schemes could have liaised more closely with other departments, dealing with estates and buildings, or the development of teaching and learning.

Identifying and supporting disabled staff members

2.35 Both in universities and in colleges, demonstrating progress in the treatment of disabled staff is problematic. Although some institutions are actively encouraging employees to disclose a disability, and there are still very low disclosure rates, typically less than 1% of all staff members in universities. This reluctance to disclose in some organisations might be addressed to some extent by staff development and awareness-raising, and is likely to be assisted by the involvement of senior staff in carrying through action points in their area. Currently, aggregated staff information is collected from colleges by the Scottish Funding Council ( SFC), but this survey does not include a question about disability. The SFC are proposing to undertake an individualised staff survey, which may include a question on disability. In general, the colleges' schemes include fewer action points for improving the position of disabled staff, as opposed to students, although many improvements to the physical environment are designed to benefit both groups. Reviews of human resources policies feature in many schemes, although issues such as harassment are not always discussed in detail.

Retention, achievement and progression by college students declaring a disability

2.36 As noted in the preceding section, preparing their first disability equality scheme and their first annual report has motivated colleges to review their data collection processes, and several have now recognised the need to improve their systems, to enable them to disaggregate and track the retention and achievement by students who declared a disability on enrolment. As these adjustments are made, a clearer picture should emerge in future years of the impact of the legislation. Some of those colleges which are already able to monitor retention and achievement of disabled students have now set themselves targets in terms of progression.

2.37 Although this is an area in which many colleges have scope to develop their systems, a few have produced clear tables which allow comparisons (year by year, and between students who do not declare a disability, and those who do) of percentages for enrolment, achievement, and retention of students in each of the nine categories of disability. This provides baseline data for measurement of progress, although, especially in the smaller colleges, the numbers of students in many of these categories would be so small as to render any statistical analysis meaningless.

Adjustments to teaching and learning practices in colleges

2.38 In comparison with the universities' disability equality schemes, the colleges' schemes contain comparatively little about teaching approaches and staff development to help make the curriculum more accessible to disabled learners. This may be because systems of classroom learning support are long established, and the problem is conceptualised as the provision of sufficient individual support, rather than adaptation of teaching and learning practices by all teaching staff. Nevertheless, we note that some schemes highlight the Quality and Equality of Learning and Teaching Materials project: in Moray College, for example, staff are reported to be evaluating the audit tool produced by that project on a sample of their teaching and learning materials.

2.39 To sum up the findings on areas where progress is less evident, there is scope for improvement in

1: making full use of statistics compiled for HESA about numbers of students in categories of disability, in order to demonstrate progress

2: demonstrating the impact on the experience of disabled students of the adjustments made to the physical environment of the university or college and to teaching and learning

3: identifying and supporting disabled staff members

4: recording the retention, achievement and progression of disabled students

5: particularly in the colleges' schemes, providing more evidence of adjustments made to make the curriculum more accessible to disabled students.

Categories of impairment employed

2.40 Measuring improvement requires clear baseline information about disabled students, and there is no standard approach to providing this information. While all higher education institutions are required to report numbers of disabled students to HESA and must therefore have had statistics to hand, by no means all of them included these numbers in their disability equality scheme and/ or annual report. Some of the colleges' schemes simply provide global numbers of students who declared a disability, those who have no known disability and those who refused to state whether they had a disability. One college's scheme reports the total number of students declaring a disability, and the precise numbers for those with visual impairment, hearing impairments, mobility problems, mental health problems and dyslexia - numbers which total rather less than half of the overall number. Most commonly, colleges use the same nine categories which are also used by HESA for student enrolment:

Dyslexia;
Blind/partially sighted;
Deaf / hearing impairment;
Wheelchair / mobility difficulties;
Personal care support;
Mental health;
Unseen disability;
Multiple disabilities;
Other (not listed).

2.41 References, or targets for improving services, to individuals in any one of these groups are relatively rare in these initial disability equality schemes, most of which are reviewing or putting in place global procedures for ensuring equality for all disabled students and staff. Some are referred to in improvements to the physical environment - ramps, doors, residential accommodation, Braille signposting, car parking, for example - or in provision of accessible learning materials and assistive technologies. Others feature in targets to train staff, in deaf awareness, for example, or in references to the difficulties of encouraging disclosure of mental health problems.

Consultation and involvement

2.42 Some institutions appear to have tried hard to involve disabled students in the design of their action plans, but only a minority have demonstrated how issues raised by surveys, interviews and focus groups have subsequently been addressed. Given the noted reluctance of staff to declare disabilities, at least one institution has chosen to use an anonymous questionnaire, not only to establish more reliable statistics of staff disabilities, but also to 'inform the University whether it offers a satisfactory working environment for disabled staff.'

2.43 Many colleges cite the involvement of bodies such as Skill Scotland, Inclusion Scotland and local organisations concerned with disabilities in the development of their plans for disability equality. The example of the Fife colleges' work with a network of local organisations has already been discussed in the context of collaborative working, but there are also many other local partners cited in other schemes. Establishment of disabled students' fora and focus groups figure in many action plans. Some also cite feedback from learning support assistants and student support staff, and from mainstream and special schools who use college services, although evidence of how this feedback has been used to improve services is not always clear.

Summary and conclusions

2.44 There is substantial evidence of good intentions, and evidence of considerable activity, much of which has been started, and even more is planned. In the universities, the exercise has clearly put disability equality on the agenda, and provided incentives to prioritise improvements to communication, facilities and teaching. In the colleges, much work has been done in setting up and consolidating systems. Their traditional strengths in working with their local communities, and one another, and their experience in dealing with a very wide range of learners have given them a head start in this exercise. Perhaps, however, there is a need to encourage all institutions to describe their intended outcomes clearly, in ways which will ultimately help them to demonstrate beyond doubt that they have achieved them. The quality of baseline data, many institutions are currently seeking to improve, will also be important for demonstrating progress in future.

« Previous | Contents | Next »