1.
Introduction
The Physical Disability
Council of NSW (PDCN) welcomes the opportunity
to comment on educational opportunity for
students with disability. PDCN believes that all
people with physical disability should be able
to participate in society, as equal citizens, to
the same extent as the rest of the community.
This requires an effectively operating social
contract between individuals and society. The
contract has two elements:
People with physical
disability must be entitled to the rights and
accept the responsibilities that attach to the
power available to the population generally to
exercise choice and personal autonomy;
Society must accept and
promote its essential role in creating an
accessible social, cultural, political and
economic infrastructure, which includes the
school and post-school education systems through
which we equip ourselves with skills and
knowledge for life.
In summary the view of
PDCN is simply this:
- We believe that
physical accessibility is a fundamental
requirement of equality of educational
opportunity. The built environment of
learning institutions must be accessible to
all.
- Physical accessibility
is a necessary but not sufficient indicator
of equality of educational opportunity.
Education must be delivered to all students
within a context of
inclusiveness.
- The support that
students need in areas such as transport,
personal assistance, assistive technology,
human assistance (note takers, readers, etc)
must be regarded as essential contributions
to ensuring equality of educational
opportunity.
2. People with Physical
Disability In NSW
According to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), people
with disability in New South Wales make up 19.3%
of the total population, the same as in the
whole of Australia. The majority are people with
physical disability.
PDCN, therefore,
represents and advocates on behalf of the
largest group of people with disability by
"impairment type" in NSW and
Australia.
The ABS noted
that:
"Over half of all
people with a disability had a physical
impairment, (PDCN emphasis) either alone
(30%) or in combination with another
impairment (27%). More than one-third (37%)
had a sensory impairment, around half of
these (18%) having a sensory impairment only.
Other types of impairment were less common,
18% with psychological and 9% with
intellectual impairment."
Persons
with a Disability: Impairment
Types
3. Context of the
submission by the Physical Disability Council of
NSW
PDCN has been actively
involved in campaigning for the rights of adults
and children with physical disability, most
recently by its participation in the Action for
McRae Report and the State Integration Reference
Group with the NSW Department of Education and
Training (DET). PDCN also refers the Inquiry to
material on our web site, www.pdcnsw.org.au.
PDCN does not address
every issue raised by the Terms of Reference
for the Senate's Committee of Inquiry. We
are confident that other bodies, particularly
national bodies, will provide detailed
responses. We commend, in this regard, the
submission made by our own national body: The
Physical Disability Council of
Australia.
PDCN is keen,
nevertheless, to emphasise key principles,
which, in our view, must underpin any discussion
about access to education and people with
physical disability.
Through the State
Integration Reference Group in NSW, it was
unambiguously agreed that:
- Equity and inclusion
are fundamental principles of the NSW DET.
- All students should
have full participation in the curriculum.
- The NSW State
Integration Reference Group considered these
issues so important that both were
highlighted themes on the cover of group's
Access Plan final report.
The Senate Inquiry must
accept integration and inclusion as givens of
the minimum standards that any and all education
services and facilities must start from. To be
less than committed to either principle would be
to make compromises with the educationally and
socially redundant ideas that students with
disability are less a part of the community of
learners than others.
The key issue is no longer
whether or not education should be inclusive. Of
course it must be inclusive.
The debate is not about
whether students with disability should be
integrated, but:
What are the best ways to
achieve integration and inclusion of students
with disability into the mainstream education
system?
PDCN does not wish to
repeat well-researched and widely acknowledged
work. We refer the Inquiry especially to the
Submission to the Vinson Inquiry into Public
Education by Family Advocacy of NSW, November
2001, entitled "So Near and Yet So
Far".
Three quotations from that
work give a flavour of its compelling arguments
in favour of integration and
inclusion.
"Regular schools
with inclusive orientation are the most
effective means of combating discrimination,
creating welcoming communities, building an
inclusive society and achieving education for
all" (page 4).
"…strategically,
there simply does not exist a better long
term safeguard for the welfare of individuals
with disability than a large number of
intimate relationships between them and other
citizens. Very few people seem to realise
that valued people are virtually never
segregated. The only times that valued people
are segregated is when they segregate
themselves in order to increase their own
status and value." (page 7)
"…it is impossible
to teach positive attitudes about people with
disability if they are not an integral part
of our daily childhood experiences" (page
12)
4. Key comments to the
Committee of Inquiry:
i. A long-term,
lifelong approach to the education needs of
students with disability is
required.
A coordinated
plan should be followed from two years before
a child with disability enters the education
system until completion to whatever standard
fulfills the personal potential of that
learner. Education service planners,
providers and funding bodies must operate on
the same set of assumptions for students with
physical disability as they do with students
with no disability: in short, a child with
permanent physical disability at four years
old has as much right to the best quality
educational opportunity as every
child.
Access to education
must be founded on the principle of the right
to education consistent with the learner's
potential and attainment at any stage of
their educational development. All new
educational establishments must be physically
accessible throughout to all stakeholders in
the purposes and use of those facilities.
Every existing facility must be required to
submit to HREOC a Disability Action Plan
consistent with achieving the highest degree
of accessibility for all (mindful that, under
the terms of the Disability Discrimination
Act, no provider would be required to effect
changes that might result in unjustifiable
hardship).
In addition to planning
for an accessible physical environment,
however, education planners, providers and
funding authorities must accept their
responsibility to ensure that if assistance
is required by individual students to
equalise educational opportunity that
assistance should be made available
throughout the learning career of the
individual.
Students with physical
disability are engaged with learning at every
level of primary, secondary and tertiary
education. Therefore, it ought never to come
as a surprise to planners, providers and
funding bodies of educational facilities and
teaching resources that children with
physical disability enter High School seven
years after Primary School, or (like the
population as a whole) a significant and
increasing proportion of students with
physical disability enter university or other
further education seven years
later.
There should be no
doubt about ongoing funding for teacher's
aides nor uncertainty about modifications to
schools. Transport subsidies should not be
cut out simply because a student with
physical disability leaves school and attends
university. These types of support are
essential investment in the possibility of
achieving educational excellence. They are
investments that must be made in the hope of
better future for all.
Students' requirements
should never be met only because parents or
other supporters cajole or harangue education
service systems until action is taken. Sadly,
this remains the case in many people's
experience. Not all parents can be strong
advocates, nor should any parent be required
to be because an education service system
treats a child or adult learner with physical
disability less favourably. That less
favourable treatment is wrong, it unfairly
discriminates against people with disability
and it is bad education policy. No student
should be denied educational opportunity
because physical access is inadequate or
because their support needs are easier to
ignore or put in the 'too hard
basket'.
ii. Equality of
educational opportunity means more than physical
access.
Recent
improvements in funding for physical access
to schools, work such as the NSW response to
the McRae Report and broader acceptance of
barrier-free design and construction
principles, mean that choice for students
with physical disability is improving
(sometimes frustratingly slowly). However,
improving access to the built environment of
the education system is not the same as
inclusion. Equality of access to education
facilities is a necessary right but it is not
sufficient on its own.
PDCN calls for a
genuinely inclusive education service system
at all stages throughout the lifelong
learning career of all students. Inclusion
requires that people with physical disability
can not only attend a school, college or
university, but, also, that education
services' planners, providers and funding
agencies ensure that students with physical
disability have fulfilling education
experiences. We must be genuinely included,
as contributing and benefiting members of any
and all educational community of learners,
some with disability, most with no
disability.
Teachers and principals
should become skilled in providing education
services that bring the student with
disability into the school, college or
university community. No education policy,
service system or ancillary activity should
result in students with disability becoming
isolated, on the margins of the community's
activities, as a consequence of systemic
inadequacy, inability or refusal to embrace
the principles of inclusive
education.
We require a wholesale
shift in culture. We need to develop
inclusive environments, educational skills
and day-to-day practical techniques that meet
the developing needs of current and future
learners, some of whom have physical
disability. We must move away from cultures
and practices that are fixed in a past that
was never desirable and is no longer
sustainable or valuable. Many senior
education practitioners have little or no
personal experience of people with disability
in education. This is not necessarily
anyone's fault, as such, because, prior to
1990, students with disability were sent to
'special schools'. Times and attitudes have
changed, however, and educators must change
also. Inclusive practices must be employed by
teachers and demonstrated to other
students.
Inclusive services must
include transport to sport, excursions and
school events. For example, recent
experiences by members of PDCN
include:
- A requirement that
the parents of a student with disability
pay extra for their child to attend sport.
- School excursions
are arranged without transport plans that
meet the needs of children with physical
disability, or which impose an extra levy
on the parents or the school to act
inclusively.
- Accessible
transport buses are ordered but do not
turn up, or the bus company cannot assure
the school that a suitable bus will be
available.
- Regular taxi
providers are often inflexible about
changing pick up times, or they demand
significant extra payments.
iii. The transition
from school to tertiary education needs
particular attention.
The support
system established for the state-based school
system should not stop when students with
physical disability make the transition to
the federally funded university system. This
is often a time when greater distances are
involved, both in travelling to campuses and
on campuses. For example, a student may
require an electric wheelchair for the first
time to cover large distances. It may be more
complex to ensure access to an entire
university or TAFE versus a relatively small
school, and needs greater advance planning.
Of course, the best solution is to design the
campus and buildings according to good access
principles in the first place.
Similarly, universities
expect students to learn independently,
including vast increased amounts of research.
New learning requirements may change
equipment and other support needs. It may be
difficult for a student with physical
disability to access a photocopier, for
example, or some students may require the
services of note takers for the first time in
otherwise gifted and high-achieving academic
careers. It would be tragic, would it not,
for Australia to lose the potential of
developing the intellectual potential of a
new (Australian) Stephen Hawkings, Albert
Einstein or Franklin D Roosevelt because a
class was up a flight of stairs and could not
be relocated, the photocopier was not
accessible or a note-taker was deemed to be
too costly.
There is often a
demarcation dispute about where a
responsibility lies. Does it belong with a
government department, an education
institution, a personal support agency, or a
charity? There should be better coordination
of the overall needs between different
service providers, and, perhaps, one
department or programme to undertake or
contract all services.
iv. Funding should
attach to the individual, although some services
can be shared.
PDCN believes
that people with physical should not need to
reapply for funding simply because they
change schools or progress through the
system. Funding ought to be linked to people
and must be portable.
At the same time,
however, there may be scope for some services
to be shared between students learning at the
same institution. Approximately 4% of the
students in universities have a physical
disability, which means that larger colleges
and universities are likely to have hundreds
of students with disability. Clearly, the
addition of a lift into a hall or ramp into a
room benefits everyone, not simply an
individual who may be vocal enough to make an
application. Some students with physical
disability may need assistance with aspects
such as personal assistance support. There
could be some scope for co-ordinating
campus-wide facilities and personal support
services to meet the needs of a range of
students throughout their participation in
the life of the institution.
v. Educators and
service providers need appropriate,
non-intrusive, person-centred, holistic
information about students with physical
disability.
In consultation
with the student, education providers must
acquire relevant information about the needs
of students with disability. Information
gathering and (if necessary) assessment of
aspects of the disability related
capabilities and/or requirements must be
conducted within the context of a whole
person approach to the student.
Students with physical
disability must never be reduced, through
assessment or information gathering, to
diagnostic stereotypes or functional
generalisations. Students must be viewed
holistically, focusing on individual needs
and circumstances. The 'default-value' of
assessment and information gathering must be
on maximising the potential of each student
to achieve levels of academic achievement
consistent with the student's educational
ability and/or potential.
Educators should be
required to improve their awareness of
disability, disability rights and
person-centred, inclusive practices of
educational and personal development of
students from historically disadvantaged
and/or discriminated against backgrounds.
Education facilities and support providers
within education systems must become centers
of excellence and maintain high standards in
the possibilities of assistive technology (if
needed), support systems for students with
physical disability and teaching techniques
for inclusive education.
Educators and education
facility managers and staff must become
conversant with and champions of the rights
of people with disability who may wish to
access their services. Teachers and support
staff must have awareness of these types of
responsibilities built into their
professional development regimes.
Staff in education
institutions should be supported with
appropriate policies, procedures and clerical
assistance to fit with current legislation
relating to anti-discriminatory practice and
to meet the needs of students with physical
disability as fully participating, valued
members of the community of lifelong
learners.
vi. Access and adequacy
of funding and support
The research
referred to in The Devlin Discussion Paper
'Students with Disabilities in Higher
Education: At Whose Cost and What Price?'
(August, 2000) outlines the inadequacy of
public funding of universities to cover the
costs of including students with disability.
The report demonstrates that Australia lags
behind most Commonwealth countries in respect
of both dollar amounts and approach.
PDCN maintains that the
major flaw in allocation of funding to cater
for the needs of people with disability in
education in Australia is the lack of focus
on whole of life support to facilitate the
person's entry to the education system. This
must take place well before the student gets
to the post compulsory education
stage.
The problem originates
with the significant differences in the
value, breadth, depth and funding levels of
support programmes at varying levels of the
education sector (both public and private).
Such inconsistencies exist in many programmes
and systems intended to deliver improving
quality of life and higher standards of
living for population that includes many
people with disability, i.e. Health,
Transport, Social Security and, in this
particular instance, Ageing, Disability and
Community Services Sectors.
Programmes targeted at
similar groups of people with disability,
intended to meet the same fundamental
objectives, can differ from State to State,
within states or even in organisations
operating in more than one location. There is
little or no collaboration or co-operation
between Federal and State bodies, across
sectors or government departments to
streamline service provision and thereby
optimise processes, such as assessment, that
are supposed to be supportive of students'
needs
A clear example of the
potential to waste time and resources is
found in the provision of personal assistance
to people with profound physical
disability.
At 'special' schools,
schools with integration units and schools
where mainstreaming of individual students is
being attempted, support staff exist or are
contracted to assist with personal assistance
and support tasks such as feeding and
toileting. (We are aware that toileting
issues are currently subject to debate in
school settings.)
If a student with a
physical disability has had the determination
to get to university or college, she or he
may only get to attend if he or she can
manage daily living tasks without assistance.
We must also make an assumption (which is not
always so) that the student will have
physical access to toilets, cafeterias, etc.
If, however, the individual has the
determination and academic ability required
for post-school learning but does not have
the physical capability to carry out daily
living tasks without assistance, there is a
very strong possibility that such individuals
will not realise post-school educational
potential because universities and colleges
do not or may not allocate funds to provide
support that equalises educational
opportunity.
The dominant view
currently is that such tasks, which have to
be dealt with prior to or after formal time
spent learning and extraneous to that
learning time, are not and should not be seen
as matter for the education provider to
consider. Education providers refer to this,
generally, as whole of life support, which
might be re-interpreted to mean 'nothing to
do with us'. Providers see a distinct (we
believe false) separation between home,
recreation, education and work. This false
distinction helps to explain why some
students, who may have persisted against the
odds to gain entry to post-school education
rightly complain about
1) Lack of
access or inclusion re student union
activities such as sports clubs and social
events; and
2) Field experience
/ student 'pracs' in industry from which
they are excluded or inadequately
accommodated.
Significant differences
exist in the provision of personal assistance
and support programmes (eligibility; methods
of assessment; upper limits of available
hours that can be approved; amount of
involvement one can have in selecting,
training and recruiting staff/attendants;
etc, etc.). A key problem in NSW is that
personal assistance is almost always
restricted to support in the home only,
usually linked to activities assumed to be
required at the beginning or end of any day.
These variations and restrictions fail to
recognise that people with disability have
support needs throughout the day and not
restricted to the home
environment.
This situation must
change. We need:
- A whole of life
assessment,
- supported by
adequate funding
- with reviews that
allow for changing circumstances; and
- portability across
settings and States.
Such a logical
framework must link organically to needs for
associated mobility aids, assistive
technology or other support mechanism that
allow students to realise fully their
educational potential. We remind members of
the Senate's Committee of Inquiry of the
effective Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service
Vocational Sponsorship Program. It is an
example of innovative and worthwhile measures
to support students with physical
disability.
The programme was
widely used in the 80's to provide an
education and employment opportunity to
people with disability, including those with
congenital conditions and no compensation
entitlement. The program sponsored
individuals to attend short training
programs, take programs and university
courses for up to 3 years
duration.
The following
costs were provided:
1) Transport to and
from training by taxi wheelchair users in
Wheelchair Accessible Taxis;
2) University
fees;
3)
Textbooks;
4) Mobility aids
e.g. wheelchair to use around
campus;
5) Adaptive
Technology;
6) Personal
Assistants for note taking and
toileting.
This programme is no
longer available as it was in the 1980. There
are many people with disability who are employed
today, in professional and administrative
careers, as a consequence of the assistance made
available to students with disability. We
believe that, in this instance, one way of
progressing towards educational equality of
opportunity would be to look 'back to the
future'.
5. Conclusion
In summary, PDCN seeks a
model that requires that the needs of all
students, including students with physical
disability, be planned and coordinated from
their point of entry to the education system,
until the time they leave it. In the case of
Primary School children with disability,
planning and co-ordination must commence as
early as possible, before the child enters the
first day of schooling. This is a critically
important period.
The focus of all
stakeholders must be directed at developing a
culture of inclusive practices,
including:
- Physical access, to
both existing and proposed schools and
tertiary institutions.
- Exactly the same
freedom of choice as that offered to other
students.
- Inclusion in the full
curriculum, using techniques designed to
involve students with disability and benefit
the whole population of learners in a richly
diverse community.
- Adequate resources for
aides, personal assistance, equipment,
assistive technology, etc.
- Timely planning,
holistic assessment of need and coordination
between service providers.
