3 3.1 National Access Plan and Targets for increased participation: 2015-2019 3.1.1 National Access Plan – Vision The Review of the Fund for Students with Disabilities is an action that has arisen from the National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2015-2019 (i.e. The National Access Plan). The National Access Plan has the vision of ensuring that the student body entering, participating in and completing higher education at all levels reflects the diversity and social mix of Ireland’s population. One of the five goals under the Plan to achieve this is ‘to assess the impact of current initiatives to support equity of access in HEIs’ and Objective 2.3 under this goal is ‘To review the Fund for Students with Disabilities (FSD)’. Under the National Access Plan the HEA (and DES) are ‘committed to increasing participation in higher education by groups who have been under-represented’ and one of the groups identified in the Plan as being under-represented is Students with disabilities. While the HEA and the DES are committed to continuing to support students with any category of disability and to ensuring that all students with disabilities can access and participate in higher education on an equal basis, the Plan identifies and focusses on three under-represented groups in the disability community and sets specific targets for entry by those in the each of these groups as well as an overall target for people with disabilities The particular groups targeted are: • Entrants from socio-economic groups that have low participation in higher education. • First time, mature student entrants. • Students with disabilities. • Part-time/flexible learners. • Further education award holders. • Irish Travellers. These target groups cover a range of ‘under-represented groups’, not just students with disabilities. 3.2 Internal Review of FSD (2012) An internal review of the FSD carried out in 2012 identified a number of areas for development: • Lack of opportunity for systematic feedback from students; • Lack of comprehensive information on outcomes for students supported by the Fund; • Disparity in the reach and extent of disability support services; • Demand for a ‘level playing field’ for people with disabilities wishing or needing to participate in education on a part-time basis; • Delays in approval of applications for support from students in further education and training; • Need for equal access to psycho-educational assessments for students with specific learning difficulties; and
Services Assistive Technology • Alternative Format • Targeted Transport • ISL/Speedtext • Note Takers (Including electronic notetaking) • Personal Assistants • Photocopying • Study Skills/Learning Support • Targeted Transport • Tuition – Subject Specific Tuition • Other Services • Laptop/Desktop/Tablet Computers • Assistive Technology Software • Assistive Technology – Other The majority of expenditure has come under the category of Services (88.6% of overall expenditure), followed by assistive technology (11.0% of overall expenditure). Within the category of Services, the two sub-categories which account for the largest expenditure are: • Study Skills/Learning Support – This accounted for the largest proportion of expenditure each year under the Fund with 22.0% (€5.7m) of overall expenditure across the three academic years; and • Personal Assistants – This accounted for the second largest proportion of expenditure each year under the Fund with 18.1% (€4.7m) of the overall expenditure across the three academic years. Expenditure under the different categories has remained steady over the years 2012/13 to 2014/15 with the largest proportional change being a five percentage point drop in expenditure on ISL/Speedtext between 2012/13 and 2014/15. The seven pie charts in the figure below show the proportion of expenditure under each category overall and at the six different institution types; certain expenditure categories have been combined to allow for this analysis (See Appendix D – Part 1 for full details) and as such the expenditure has been categorised as follows; • Assistive Technologies – Including Laptop/Desktop/Tablet Computers; Software; and Other • Services – Notetakers • Services – ISL/Speedtext • Services – Personal Assistants • Services – Targeted Transport • Services – Tuition – Subject Specific Tuition • Services – Study skills/learning support • Other – Including Services (Alternative Formats; Needs Assessments; Photocopying; Other Services); and Other (where limited information on expenditure is provided: Q4 Estimate and Total Only (No
• Improvements in college resources; and • Increased knowledge of issues pertaining to disabilities and measures that can help overcome these. Some consultees noted that the FSD was having limited impact for some groups, for example those with mental health illness as their needs are less clear and possibly more complex, and that such needs may be different than those the FSD was originally set up to address. 5.2.5 Other Services Staff interviewed at site visits referred to additional supports provided by their institution for students with a disability. These included: physical resources; interactive social activities specifically designed for students with ASD; workshops in relation to student welfare and student finance (not exclusive to students with a disability); specialised progression support services; health and welfare assistance; physical alterations to buildings where necessary; and timetabling accommodations. Staff in colleges under the auspices of DDLETB highlighted very limited levels of resource available in their organisations. 5.2.6 Looking Ahead Staff reported that the needs assessments on entry to higher education and communication with the HEA worked well however they also highlighted a number of areas for improvement in relation to: • Additional funding • Additional resources in colleges to support accessing FSD – both operational and management level; • Level of funding/support available through FSD relative to time spent accessing this process is disproportionate – scope to simplify process? • Extending the FSD to other students (e.g. part-time students and other categories in FE) or those with a general learning disability); • General learning disability – not felt to be sufficiently catered for; • Mainstreaming and funding for innovation – it was suggested that more supports could be mainstreamed and annual funding should be provided for innovation in the support for students at a national level; • Equipment – a process to sell or donate equipment or guidance on equipment funded by the FSD at the end of a student’s time in education would be beneficial; • Staff training - beneficial if FSD funding could be provided for staff training to raise awareness of the range of disabilities and how they could support students; also awareness raising for students. • Timescales/timing – should be 3/4 opportunities for submission each year (i.e. greater flexibility of application deadlines for the Fund) to allow for those who are not diagnosed/do not disclose til later in the year; • Application form – should be amended to allow greater detail/explanation regarding complex and dual disabilities; • Greater flexibility in organisations in terms of how funding is used