DEL CARRASCAL DE PEBREDO A SARIÑENA

In 4.3, we saw that the “Quality Education For All” report of 1997 identified two aims for the inclusion of disabled students in higher education. These aims were directed towards equal and increased access and participation for these students on tertiary campuses. Now, in the light of the experiences of disabled students, we can review the progress since the release of this report.

4.5.1 Participation

Despite strong policies and the positive strides towards supportive structures for disabled students, their experiences revealed that practices did not change overnight. In some important ways, some students are still excluded from full participation in all spheres of campus life (Chataika, 2007; DHET, 2012, 2013; DoBE, 2010; FOTIM, 2011). In part, this slow move towards inclusion could be ascribed to the initial focus on the inclusion of other previously marginal groups, such as racial groups and women (Chataika, 2007; FOTIM,

116 2011; Howell, 2005, 2006; Howell & Lazarus, 2003; Matshedisho, 2007b; Morrison, Brand, & Cilliers, 2009).

It seems that the DHET, in their Green Paper (DHET, 2012) and White Paper (DHET, 2013) on post-school education and training, identified the gaps in provision very accurately. I will highlight the two most important issues here, namely, funding and awareness.

Firstly, the DHET recognised the lack of funding for disability units, particularly at

previously Black institutions. Apart from being the result of the Apartheid regime, they stated that this problem was a result of the way in which institutions were funded. In the past, the state did not provide subsidies for disability grants; disability units had to raise funds from external sources. But, in the Green Paper of 2012, the DHET (DHET, 2012) responded to this issue. In this paper they made a commitment to determine the financial needs of various disability units and, hereafter, to allocate resources based on the needs of each unit. In their White Paper of 2013 (DHET, 2013) it became clear that this commitment was not empty. In fact, the DHET provided funding for infrastructure audits at each of the 23 universities and allocated R130 million to improve accessibility on campuses. The amount that was allocated to each university depended on whether disability was a priority for that university and whether they had the capacity to address disability. While this plan seems sufficient and effective, it is not clear what is meant by “capacity”. In other words, what would make a university not eligible for funding due to capacity? And would this criterion not serve to exclude some previously disadvantaged universities?

The second issue that was prominent from the experiences of disabled students, was the lack of awareness regarding disability. Once again, the DHET did not overlook this problem. In their Green Paper (DHET, 2012) they stipulated that, through the teaching of accessible teaching methodologies, disability awareness will be enhanced for lecturers and able-bodied

117 students. In the subsequent White Paper, disability awareness was not directly addressed, but rather full integration of disabled students was addressed through the aim to develop a strategic policy framework.

In their White Paper (DHET, 2013) the DHET identified the need for a strategic policy framework. Such a policy, they argued, would provide clear guidelines for universities on how to improve the access and success of disabled students on their campuses. This

framework would require that all institutions develop clear plans to address disability within their contexts. It furthermore would attempt to define and give guidelines on “reasonable accommodations” for disabled staff and students. Lastly, they aim to provide standards and norms for the inclusion of disabled staff and students in all spheres of campus life, including academic, sport and culture. It thus appears that this framework will serve as a benchmark against which universities would be able to measure their standards regarding the inclusion of disabled students. It would also ensure a less fragmented and a more integrated approach across universities.

It is thus clear, in the light of the current literature on the experiences of disabled students, that the DHET pinpointed gaps in provision quite correctly. However, since the FOTIM report of 2011 (FOTIM, 2011) also found minimal involvement of disabled students in the functioning of disability units, the DHET could also take this into consideration in their strategic policy framework. For example, they could suggest a disabled student representative for each disability unit.

4.5.2 Access

Despite a growing number of disabled students in higher education, equitable access has not yet been obtained. In 2011, across 22 of the 23 public universities, only 1% of the entire

118 student population was disabled (FOTIM, 2011). This proportion showed that, in 2011, many disabled students of school-leaving age were still not enrolled for tertiary programmes. In fact, in 2010 and 2011, only 47% and 55% of the DHET allocated funds for disabled students were used (DHET, 2013). So, in spite of available funding for their studies, many disabled students still did not pursue a tertiary qualification.

These figures could largely be ascribed to the exclusionary practices within schools that largely remained unchanged after 1994. In 2010, the DoBE (DoBE, 2010) stated that, of the two billion rand that was initially allocated to expand inclusive education, more than 50% was utilised for other priority areas. As a consequence, regular schools continued to refer disabled learners to special schools, without any legal implications. As seen before, these special schools commonly upheld a medicalised view of disability and thus did not prepare learners for life beyond its borders (Howell, 2005, 2006). What is more, access to basic education post-1994 was still not guaranteed for disabled learners. Although the constitution made it clear that all children had the right to basic education, statistics painted a different picture (DHET, 2013). In 2007, 44 847 children between the age of 7 and 18 still did not attend schools, because they were disabled (DHET, 2012). These continued practices in schools were problematic, since primary and secondary education is an indispensable channel towards higher education.

In 2010, the DoBE (DoBE, 2010) restated their commitment to increase the number of disabled learners in schools where they could receive quality education and support. In this regard, they particularly targeted children from poor and rural communities. They stipulated that special schools should only serve children with “high needs”. Steps have already been taken to improve the infrastructure and service delivery within special schools. For example,

119 funding, more than 20 million rand, has been allocated for assistive devices for disabled children, such as laptops and wheelchairs.

It is thus hoped that, through the increased access to schools, the number of disabled students will increase on the terrain of higher education.

4.6 Conclusion

South Africa has clearly come a long way in the inclusion of disabled students since 1994. The establishment of disability units, in particular, served to better the lives of these students on the tertiary terrain. However, despite policy aims for equal access and participation, the voices of disabled students told a different story. In many regards, they felt alienated as lecturers and peers were not informed regarding disability. Furthermore, support was often delayed and inadequate due to budget constraints.

Fortunately, these gaps in provision have not been overlooked. In fact, as we have seen in the previous section, the DHET already took steps to promote and ensure inclusion for disabled students and learners.

So, although South Africa clearly still has a long way to go in terms of the inclusion of disabled students in higher education, this fact is recognised by important governing bodies. Furthermore, steps are currently being taken to put policy into practice.

120

CHAPTER 5