This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 15 October 2014, At: 06:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Disability & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

The Dearing Report andStudents with Disabilities andLearning DifficultiesALAN HURSTPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: ALAN HURST (1999) The Dearing Report and Students withDisabilities and Learning Difficulties, Disability & Society, 14:1, 65-83, DOI:10.1080/09687599926389

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599926389

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Disability & Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1999, pp. 65± 83

The Dearing Report and Studentswith Disabilities and LearningDif® cultiesALAN HURSTDepartment of Education Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE,

UK

ABSTRACT The movement to promote improved levels of participation from groups

under-represented in higher education which occurred between 1980 and 1990 neglected

disabled people. The position has been addressed by the national higher education funding

councils since 1992 and progress has been made. Therefore, it was surprising to ® nd that,

whilst certain social groups were highlighted, nothing was said about disabled people in the

terms of reference of Sir Ron Dearing’ s National Committee of Inquiry. This paper describes

attempts made to inform and in¯ uence the Committee. Next, it considers the Report itself.

First, the recommendations for future policy which are directed speci® cally towards disabled

people are discussed; secondly, the potential implications for disabled people of the general

recommendations are explored; and thirdly, the supplementary report on students with

disabilities is reviewed. The conclusion provides a brief overview of developments since the

Report’ s publication.

Introduction

The National Committee of Inquiry set up by the Conservative government in 1996

and chaired by Sir Ron Dearing was the ® rst major examination of higher education

in the United Kingdom since the Robbins Committee reported in 1963. No matter

what the outcome, the report produced by the Dearing Committee was anticipated

by many as setting the parameters of the higher education sector for the ® rst 20 years

or so of the next century. That being the case, those of us who are concerned to

ensure that the interests of students with disabilities and learning dif® culties were

not forgotten welcomed the opportunity to try to in¯ uence future policy.

Compared to the situation in 1963, it is true to say that considerable progress

has been made. The Robbins Report itself (DES, 1963) did not mention this group

of students whose presence in the sector at that time would have been very minimal.

Within the next decade a number of events drew attention to the needs of students

with disabilities and learning dif® culties. Some institutions achieved widespread

renown for their pioneering work, for example, the opening of Kulikundis House at

0968-7599/99/010065-19 $7.00 Ó 1999 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

66 A. Hurst

the University of Sussex which was a landmark in the provision of personal

assistance for students with severe disabilities. There was also the publication of the

® rst large scale research study [National Innovations Centre (NIC), 1974] and the

establishment of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students in 1974 (now

known as Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities; for a discussion of its

origins see Hurst, 1993). The real impetus for progress came at the start of the

1990s. The debate about the introduction of top-up loans presented the chance to

draw attention to the ® nancial needs of disabled students. In connection with this,

the government introduced signi® cant changes to the Disabled Students Allowances

(DSA) which meant that many were ® nancially better off than their predecessors.

That is not to say the improved DSA were problem-free as will be seen below.

However, perhaps the improved funding contributed to an increase in the number

of students with disabilities and learning dif® culties entering higher education. As

more institutions became aware of the needs of these students, those who chose to

go to university also had a wider choice of places to study and where their needs

could be met. Another important move forward came following the Further and

Higher Education Act of 1992. The national funding councils established by this

Act began to tackle the issues associated with the funding of institutions and the

spread of good practice. In England, for example, there have been a number of

special initiatives to encourage both improved rates of participation and also im-

proved quality of policies and provision. These have involved directing small

amounts of additional funds to institutions (for more details see Hurst, 1995).

Arguably, the above is rather Anglo-centric since greater progress has been made

perhaps under the auspices of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

which started from a very low baseline overall, but which has appointed and

continues to support the post of a national co-ordinator for policies and provision for

students with disabilities. Even so, compared to developments in other countries,

there is still some way to go. For example, in the United States of America, a strong

tradition of civil rights backed by strong legislation has meant that many universities

have excellent facilities (for more details on the situation in other countries see

Hurst, 1998).

With this progress and with the increased attention paid to disability issues

more generally, it came as both a surprise and a disappointment to ® nd that whilst

some under-represented groups were mentioned speci® cally in the Committee’ s

terms of reference, nothing was said about people with disabilities. This neglect

prompted action of several kinds.

In¯ uencing the Dearing Debates

The ® rst opportunity to raise awareness of disability issues came at a national

conference organised by my own institution, the University of Central Lancashire in

October 1996. The main speaker was Sir Ron Dearing himself and he was followed

by a number of contributors whose views might be seen as opinion-forming.

However, in only one speechÐ that by Douglas Trainer representing the National

Union of StudentsÐ was disability mentioned at all. Returning to Sir Ron Dearing’ s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 67

address, much of what he said had implications for students with disabilities and

learning dif® culties. He identi® ed a number of issues which he felt that his col-

leagues would be addressing. First, he emphasised the importance of having diver-

sity and distinctiveness within the sector. From the point of view of disabled

students, diversity allows for a wider range of choice; the greater the choice, the

greater the chances of ® nding something which best ® ts the individual’ s needs. Some

institutions have seen their policy and provision for this group of students as a mark

of their distinctive character. Whilst this is commendable, sadly distinction here does

not have the same high status as distinctiveness in other aspects, for example

research. Dearing also suggested that the creditable progress which the sector has

made since 1963 results from a laissez faire approach which recognised institutional

autonomy and which had bene® ted from little central intervention. From the point

of view of making progress for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties

there is scope for debate. Perhaps greater progress was made in those institutions

where there was an element of intervention; thus, the former Polytechnics and

Colleges Funding Council was much more pro-active than its Universities Funding

Council twin [see, for example, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

(PCFC), 1992], although all the higher education funding councils have been more

active than even the PCFC. Next, the importance of closer links with industry was

acknowledged. Industry and commerce want graduates with work experience. One

way in which this might be made stronger is to include more work placements within

courses. Whilst this might be accomplished without signi® cant dif® culties in relation

to non-disabled students, all kinds of issues arise for those with disabilities Ð trans-

port, physical access to buildings and to facilities within buildings, etc. Sir Ron

Dearing paid particular attention to small- and medium-sized enterprises who he

claim ed had not employed graduates traditionally. There might be a need to

persuade these companies about the value of graduate employeesÐ and given that

previous disability employment legislation exempted them from its provisions, there

might be an even greater need to address disability awareness.

Improving participation rates was a third concern mentioned by Dearing who

discussed the situation of those from Social Classes IV and V. Passing reference was

made to women, part-time students and those from minority communities. Nothing

whatsoever was said about people with disabilities and learning dif® culties.

Discussion of additional numbers participating led logically into a consideration

of funding issues. As Sir Ron Dearing pointed out, directing more money towards

higher education was not the highest priority for government no matter what its

political persuasion. Within education the lim ited ® nances available were being

spent on the school sector. Perhaps because of this, he suggested that `higher

education is expected to do for a shilling what it used to do for one-and-six’ (speech

given at the University of Central Lancashire October 22nd 1996). This might well

be the case, but it raises very serious questions about persuading institutions to incur

any additional costs associated with improving policy and provision for disabled

students. The ® nal point which was made was to consider the roles and responsibil-

ities of the institutions, their governing bodies, and their senior managers. Sir Ron

Dearing praised them for their success in keeping costs manageable during a period

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

68 A. Hurst

of expansion of student numbers and uncertainty in terms of long-term planning. He

pointed out that this good housekeeping was becoming impossible to maintain and

that other ways of funding the sector needed to be explored. Reference was made to

the pattern in other countries where students have to make some contribution to the

costs of their education. In fairness to Sir Ron Dearing, he did say that if a system

which involved students paying something was to be introduced it would not have

to be seen as burdensome or a deterrent. This is signi® cant for students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties since they already incur many additional costs.

A more formal opportunity to ensure that students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties were not overlooked came with the invitation to submit written evidence

to the Committee. Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities drew

attention to a number of points in its very detailed submission (see Corlett, 1997,

for a complete version). Following this, in February 1997, Skill was invited to send

a small delegation to present oral evidence to members of the Committee. This

delegation comprised the Chair of the organisation, the Assistant Director, two

experienced staff from higher education institutions with a reputation for high

quality provision and a student who is a wheelchair user. (Since the venue chosen

for the meeting created a problem of access, this in itself provided an unexpected

way of drawing attention to some of the relevant issues!) The time available was

lim ited, but it did allow the delegation to reinforce some of the points made in the

submission. Thus, the attention of the committee was drawn to the distinction

between those factors for which the sector itself could be held responsible (for

example, the allocation of ® nances between and within institutions, physical access

to buildings, staff attitudes and prejudices, and lack of appropriate support systems)

and those outside its control (for example, the lim ited availability of practical

support, such as sign language interpreters, the poor education provided in some

special schools/colleges and its impact on quali® cations prior to entry, and the low

expectations of some teachers, parents and students themselves). When asked to

identify examples of good practice for the Committee, rather than list speci® c

examples, the delegation highlighted those factors contributing to success. These

included: the genuine interest and commitment from very senior managers; the

employment of full time experienced specialist staff; the allocation of appropriate

levels of funding; the embedding of policies and procedures relating to students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties within normal operating practices; clear lines of

management and responsibilitie s; ¯ exibility and creativity to meet unpredictable and

changing demands; good planning especially for the longer term; opportunities for

staff development; and strong links with local, regional, national and international

networks. It was pointed out that these characteristics derive from the thorough

evaluation of the ® rst two special initiatives funded by the Higher Education

Funding Council for England (see Higher Education Funding Council for England

(HEFCE), 1995, 1996). Successful policies are also based on the application of

some fundamental principles: the empowerment of the students, the availability of

choices, and the recognition of the individual’ s right to take decisions affecting

her/his own life. Some time was spent exploring options for funding provision

including the system operating in Sweden where the operating budget of each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 69

institution has to devote 0.15% to students with disabilities and learning dif® culties,

the Australian system where institutions devise equity plans which are funded if they

are completed successfully, and the American system which is built around anti-

discrim ination legislation (Hurst, 1998).

A further chance to present the case came with the invitation to attend a

seminar on widening participation held in March 1997. All participants had been

asked to submit brief papers outlining their issues of concern. The focus of the

seminar did seem to be mainly on socio-economic issues; where disability was

mentioned it seemed to be regarded as a part of the `mission’ of individual

institutions rather than as core policy for all. From being involved in this seminar it

appeared that a great deal was being expected of Dearing on the issue of widening

participation alone. That being the case, it seemed that for students with disabilities

and learning dif® culties to gain a mention at all in the ® nal report would be the most

that could be expected.

`Higher Education in the Learning Society’ (The Dearing Report)

When the Report was published towards the end of July [National Committee of

Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE), 1997a] , many of those anxiously awaiting

its appearance were somewhat taken aback by its size. The full Report consists of

some 460 pages and this is supported by a range of separate reports and appendices.

Given its size and scope the analysis and discussion which follows below has been

divided into three sections: disability issues mentioned in the main Report, the

implications for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties of the comments

and recommendations in the main Report, and the supplementary report which is

about supporting students with disabilities and learning dif® culties.

Disability and Learning within the Main Report

Those who are concerned with students with disabilities and learning dif® culties

were given encouragement from the very start since a paragraph within Chapter One

acknowledges that this group is under-represented in higher education:

Apart from the economic imperative, there are other in¯ uences pointing to

resumed growth. Unless we address the under-representation of those from

lower socio-economic groups we may face increasingly socially divis ive

consequences. As a matter of equity, we need to reduce the under-

representation of certain ethnic groups, and of those with disabilities. Not

least, there will be increasing demand for higher education for its own

sake by individuals seeking personal development, intellectual challenge,

preparation for career change, or refreshment later in life. (Paragraph 1.17)

However, there is then no speci® c mention until the discussion on widening

participation (Chapter 7). There is a recognition that collecting reliable statistics

remains a major problem since without accurate data, it is dif ® cult to be certain

about the extent of the problem (Paragraph 7.14). Continuing with this af® rmation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

70 A. Hurst

of issues already known to those working with students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties, there is recognition that this group of students do have to incur

additional costs (Paragraph 7.33). The need to ensure that those institutions which

try to develop high quality provision do not feel that they are punishing themselves

® nancially is noted along with the bene® ts of the special initiatives ® nanced by the

national funding councils (Paragraph 7.35). In fact, the issue of funding is one which

is given most attention. The impact on partic ipation rates of the withdrawal of some

social security bene® ts when people with disabilities enrol as students is mentioned

(Paragraph 7.40) as is the desirability of extending the DSA to part-time students

and the abolition of the means test on DSA (Paragraph 7.41). Skill has argued for

many years in favour of the latter and has pointed out that because of the nature of

their disability, many people have to study on a part-time basis. The success of the

Open University in recruiting and supporting disabled people provides a good

illustration of this. Skill is also aware of situations where because the parents of a

student with a disability or learning dif® culty have a level of income which means

that only a small amount of DSA is paid, they are placed at a double disadvantageÐ

they cannot gain the additional funds and yet they have to provide whatever is

necessary from their own pockets (see the case of a Deaf student reported in the

Times Educational Supplement, 1996). If these were to constitute the basis for future

action, the situation would improve for many students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties. Further progress might result also from extending the Disability Dis-

crim ination Act 1995 to encompass higher education, although the Report is

disappointing about this and suggests that institutions might comply with legislation

on a voluntary basis (Paragraph 7.42). The ® nal comment in this Chapter

speci® cally about students with disabilities and learning dif® culties notes that their

participation might be facilitated, or inhibited by different strategies of learning and

teaching (Paragraph 7.43).

The rest of the Report and its associated recommendations seem to lose sight

of disability issues. There is a reference to the DSA and to the additional expenses

which students have (Paragraph 17.25) and also the problems with the current

system for allocating DSA (Paragraph 20.42). What is interesting, however, is to

consider the rest of the Report and to speculate on the implications for students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties. This is the focus of the following section.

Non-speci® c Comments and Recommendations within the Main Report

In order to analyse succinctly those comments which appear to be of most

signi® cance for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, the discussion will

be structured around a series of simple questions:

1. What are some of the characteristic features of contemporary higher education? Chapters

3 and 4 examine the current context of the higher education sector. In doing so, they

highlight many points which both validate my own personal experience of work, and

also have implications for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. Thus,

there is reference to the huge increase in staff workloads which have been created as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 71

a result of teaching larger numbers of students, the introduction of modular

structures, the shift to a semester system, etc. All of these mean that staff have less

time and this could have adverse effects for those students who might require a little

more support. Linked to this is the decline of traditional arrangements for pastoral

support. In fact, the sector has changed in a radical way, but in many cases staff have

not been prepared or trained for this. Recommendation Six which proposes the

establishment of the Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) says that it must

consider the needs of students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. This should

serve to overcome some of the dif® culties resulting from a lack of awareness amongst

tutors. Turning to look at the programmes of study, the Report comments fa-

vourably on the growth of work experience as an integral part of courses. Whilst this

might be a sign of progress, arranging work placements etc. for students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties can be more complex and dif® cult. Taking the

example of a wheelchair user, consideration would need to be given to transport to

and from the placement, access into the building and to facilities within the building,

health and safety requirements, and so on. This situation might be made worse by

the generally poor record of many employers in terms of the employment of disabled

people. The usefulness of Information Technology (IT) as an aid to the learning

process is noted. For many students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, the

availability of IT has been of great value in helping them participate fully in higher

education. Whilst the value of IT in facilitating access on a general level is noted

(Paragraph 4.45) its potential for disabled people is not acknowledged. The ® nal

aspects of the review of the contemporary scene examine funding. The Report points

out that sixty six institutions are already in de® cit, and thus trying to persuade them

to spend more on developing provision for students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties seems to have little chance of success if provision is seen as additional and

extra. (On the other hand, if it is seen as core business, this statement would not be

true.) Issues of student funding are also identi® ed and quite early on the idea that

individuals should contribute more towards the costs of their own learning is raised.

As has been mentioned before, this could act as a disincentive for those whose

disabilities and learning dif® culties create additional ® nancial burdens already.

2. Who is envisaged to be participating in higher education in the future? Apart from the

general concern to ensure that partic ipation rates of under-represented groups

improve (which is a major focus of Chapter 7 as outlined already) the Report makes

two other points which are signi® cant in relation to disabilities and learning

dif® culties. First, it is predicted that more older learners will join the system

(Paragraph 4.67). If this is the case, then since many people become increasingly

disabled as they grow older, it might be that disability issues are much more obvious

than is the case now. Secondly, throughout the Report there is a concern with

part-time students and efforts to remove some of the current anomalies between

part-time and full-time learners (see, for example, Paragraphs 20.1 and 20.60). It

has been pointed out already that full-time students have access to additional

® nancial support which is denied to part-timers and yet, for some people, the nature

of their disability or learning dif® culty makes this mode of study necessary. Even for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

72 A. Hurst

current full-time students, their ® nancial position means that they have to obtain

some paid work which they undertake alongside their studies. Having a part-time job

is double-edged; certainly, it can provide some very valuable work experience, but

it might also prevent making best use of the opportunities for study. In any case, for

people with disabilities and learning dif® culties, ® nding and holding a part-time paid

job is dif® cult.

3. When will people wish to participate in higher education in the future? The key to

success for the Dearing Committee is a system which is ¯ exible and allows people

to `drop in’ and `drop out’ as and when the situation demands it. The growth of

modular-based courses, and the use of a credit accumulation and transfer structure

has gone some way to making this happen already. For students with disabilities and

learning dif® culties, a greater degree of ¯ exibility should be useful. However,

perhaps the issue which could be of greater signi® cance, especially for institutions

which try to ensure that ef® cient and effective support is available for these students,

is the idea of post-quali® cation entry (Paragraph 8.39). Currently, for those entrants

using the traditional G.C.E A-level route, the pattern of application-conditional

offer-exams-entry can work where students follow procedures and, importantly,

meet the conditions required by the particular institution for entry to their courses.

The dif® culties occur where students fail to meet the conditions and wish to make

use of the `clearing system’ to join a course. In relation to students with disabilities,

effectively this could mean trying to compress a planning process which can take

around 6 months into what is often less than one. As some institutions have

switched to a semester system in which the aim is to complete the ® rst semester

before the Christmas vacation, time for planning is even more reduced. Changing to

a system where students have secured quali® cations prior to entry could remove

some of the current problems.

4. Where will students pursue their studies in higher education in the future? One pattern

which is emerging already irrespective of the Dearing Report is that more students

are choosing to study at an institution near to their family home. (Note that this does

not mean that the students actually live with their families.) In relation to students

with disabilities and learning dif® culties, the corollary of this is that all institutions

need to be as accessible as possible to all people, irrespective of the nature of the

disability or learning dif® culty. The Dearing Report itself places great emphasis on

the value of and impact upon their local communities that the higher education

institutions have Ð they support local industry and enterprise, and they offer social

and cultural richness. In connection with the latter, if events and facilities are to be

available to the local community, then the requirements of the Disability Discrimi-

nation Act will need to be met. If this happened, clearly this could bene® t students

as much as disabled people in the local community for whom compliance will have

occurred in the ® rst instance.

A second aspect of this question concerns the availability of higher education in

further education colleges (Paragraphs 16.39± 16.41). This is another feature of the

current system. At the conference at which Sir Ron Dearing spoke and which has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 73

been described earlier, David Melville, Chief Executive of the Further Education

Funding Council, pointed out in his speech that already around 13% of students in

further education colleges are taking higher education courses and that 20% of the

funds distributed by the HEFCE support this kind of work. David Melville claimed

that in 1994± 95 ninety further education colleges had over 500 students enrolled on

higher education courses and, of the 90, 40 had over 1000 students. For students

with disabilities and learning dif® culties, this could offer some valuable opportuni-

ties, the more so if the recommendations of the Report of the Tomlinson Committee

[Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), 1996] are implemented. Many

further education colleges have made progress in developing high quality support for

inclusive learning.

Thirdly, in connection with location, the Dearing Committee note the value of

collaboration as opposed to competition (Paragraphs 16.42± 16.47). Considering

policy and provision for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, there are

recent examples of the bene® ts of collaboration. For example, the higher education

institutions in the cities of Manchester and Salford have worked together to develop

a shared resource base. This is one of the projects funded by the 1996± 99 HEFCE

Special Initiative as are other partnerships involving seven institutions on the South

Coast and also the partnership between the institutions in the Avon area.

Finally, there is a chapter in the Report (Chapter 23) which looks at the

situation in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. (There is also a separate report

on Scotland.) Clearly, this is caught up with debates about devolution. However, the

Scottish Higher Education Funding Council has been active in promoting access for

students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. In addition to publishing two

editions of a very useful practical guide [Scottish Higher Education Funding

Council (SHEFC), 1994] it has funded and continues to fund the post of the

national co-ordinator. Most recently, it announced the allocation of £250,000 for

each year until 2001 to be directed towards institutional infrastructure, and to

improve responsiveness of its member institutions to students with disabilities and

learning dif® culties. In the past the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

(HEFCW) has tried to prompt action by some rather lim ited special initiatives,

although by 1997 interest does seem to have waned. The Dearing Report gives

much attention to Northern Ireland mainly because of the high proportion of

students who decide to leave the island for their higher education. It is not clear how

much this applies to students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, but if they are

to be attracted to remain in Northern Ireland, the institutions there will have to

ensure that they are in a position to meet their needs. Certainly, there are 3-year

projects based in the two major institutions in operation which started in 1996.

5. What are some key features of programmes of study in higher education in the future?

Much of the discussion relating to this question is based on Chapters 9 and 10 of

the Report. Within the former there is an acknowledgement of the fact that different

types of students have different needs. Hopefully, this assertion does include

students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. The discussion tries to identify the

key skills which all undergraduates should have on completing their courses (Para-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

74 A. Hurst

graph 9.17). A major contribution towards the acquisition of these skills is work

experience which should be an integral element of as many courses as possible

(Paragraphs 9.26± 9.32). Issues surrounding work experience for students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties have been explored earlier and so will not be

taken up again here. There are three other aspects of courses which should be noted

because of their potential consequences for this group of students. To begin with the

Committee comments upon methods of assessment (Paragraph 9.37) and then later

on ways of recording achievement (Paragraphs 9.44± 9.53). Encompassing all of

these is a concern for quality and there are some interesting proposals on this. For

example, there is a call for a code of practice (Paragraph 10.79). In all of these, there

is a need to consider how they might impact upon students with disabilities and

learning dif® culties.

6. What other factors need to be considered in relation to higher education in the future?

There appear to be four issues to explore here. The ® rst of these is staff develop-

ment. At a number of points throughout the Report, the need for staff development

is highlighted. One major concern is with the adequacy of the training given to

academic staff. The feeling is that this is insuf® cient and that the overall picture is

unsatisfactory. To address this, the Report recommends the establishment of an

Institute for Learning and Teaching (Paragraphs 8.56± 8.66 and Recommendation

14). Should this happen, any initial tutor training programmes should include an

introduction to meeting the needs of different kinds of learners. Even without any

formal inclusion, it is often said that all methods used to promote effective learning

in the classroom often exemplify good practice in meeting the needs of students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties. Thus, the introduction of the Institute

for Learning and Teaching, and, with it, the accreditation of teachers, could bring

about a widespread raising of classroom standards which would bring bene® ts for

students with disabilities and learning dif® culties as a consequence of this non-

specialist process. The implementation of Recommendation 6 should ensure that

this happens:

We recommend to the Institute for Learning and Teaching that it includes

the learning needs of students with disabilities in its research, program me

accreditation and advisory activities.

The second issue is linked closely to the previous one and is about aids to learning.

Chapter 13 of the Report is about computers and the use of Information Technol-

ogy. Reference is made to the ways in which these might facilitate access (Para-

graphs 13.3 and 13.4). A speci® c comment is made about its potential in connection

with studying at home (Paragraph 13.39). In both instances there are some obvious

advantages for people with disabilities and learning dif® culties wanting to study.

Using IT could avoid some of the questions of physical access to buildings whilst the

developing technology can make access to the curriculum less problematic for those

with impaired hearing or impaired vision.

The third issue is about management. Going back to the ® rst part of this paper

and Sir Ron Dearing’ s conference speech, he was complimentary about manage-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 75

ment and the way in which there have been successful attempts to ensure that the

sector operates in a cost-effective way and gives society value for money in terms of

its investment of resources. This is also noted in the Report (Paragraph 15.2). Since

the situations in which institutions ® nd themselves differ, they need to preserve their

autonomy to act as they see ® t (Paragraph 15.4). However, from the point of view

of developing policy and provision for students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties, it has been suggested earlier that the laissez faire approach did not make

for good progress.

Despite the credit given for the good management of resources, there is

encouragement to do even better (Paragraphs 15.7± 15.32), for example, by review-

ing the length of courses (Paragraph 15.18). This is understandable given the

apparent shortness of the academic year. Already trials have been undertaken with

what have been labelled as `Accelerated and Intensive Routes’ . From the perspective

of some students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, moving to such a pattern

would create dif® culties. The fact that so many of these students choose part-time

programmes is one indicator of how their disabilities and learning dif® culties impact

upon their studies.

The fourth consideration is ® nance which is discussed in detail in Chapters 17,

18 and 19. Linking directly with the previous point made above, there is a reference

to the ways in which costs could be cut by having shorter courses (Paragraph 17.3

8). On the other hand, much more optimistically from the point of view of students

with disabilities and learning dif® culties, there is also mention of savings accruing

from greater use of computing and IT (Paragraph 17.43). The fundamental ques-

tion is the one about who should pay and the Dearing Committee is clearly in favour

of students making some contribution to their tuition fees, a move which would

bring greater parity between full-time and part-time students. One way to ensure

that institutions do not feel that they are imposing self-in¯ icted ® nancial penalties by

enrolling students with a variety of different needs is by revising the system of block

funding allocations from the national funding councils. In relation to students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties this was explored in some detail during 1997 and

no satisfactory formula could be devised. A major problem was the de® nition of

`disabled student’ on which any premium funding might be based, but if DSA is

extended to include part-time students and postgraduates, this problem could be

solved. Certainly it is Dearing’ s view that the DSA should be extended:

(We recommend) to the government that it extends the scope of the

Disabled Students Allowance so that it is available without a parental

means test and to part-time students, postgraduate students, and those

who have become disabled who wish to obtain a second higher education

quali® cation. (Recommendation 6)

Apart from this, there is also the point that if ® nance is included in a block grant,

there might need to be guarantees that any additional money is actually spent on

those for whom it is intended. In this respect, despite their dif® culties the various

special initiatives supported by the national funding councils have ensured that the

resources have been targeted. On the other hand, perhaps the need for guarantees

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

76 A. Hurst

is too cynical since institutions do recognise that high quality provision in medicine

and science, for example, and for which premiums are given already does cost more,

and so the additional funds are directed towards those subjects. It might be that

there is a need to change institutional culture to see disability as a core issue linked

to equal opportunities. Returning to more general concerns, the Report proposes the

setting up of a single Student Support Agency (Paragraphs 19.35 and 21.52). From

the point of view of students with disabilities and learning dif® culties who receive

DSA, this could be very helpful indeed. Many of the problems being experienced

currently in England result from the varying practices of the local education

authorities responsible for administering the scheme. The introduction of a single

body (on the lines of what happens already in Scotland) could result in the ending

of the many anomalies.

Having looked at the main Report and its recommendations, it is time now to

move on to consider the additional report which looked speci® cally at students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties.

Report Six `Widening Participation in Higher Education by Students from Lower Socio-

economic Groups and Students with Disabilities

W hen the full Report was published (NCIHE, 1997b), it was decided to

publish a series of additional reports indicating the kind of background

information and discussions which had occurred to inform the decisions made by

the main Committee. Reference has been made earlier to the efforts made by

Skill and by others, and the nature of the consultations involved and the

evidence submitted. Report Six was compiled by Professor David Robertson who

has experience of research on the economics of higher education policy and

provision.

With regard to students with disabilities and learning dif® culties, there are two

sections within Report Six which look in detail at some of the relevant issues. The

® rst (Section Four) is a review of the context. What emerges from this is the lack of

detailed information about the numbers involved. Statistical data can be obtained

using the self-declaration and categories on the standard application form, the

information collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, by the Department

for Education and Employment via the numbers receiving DSA, and by the higher

education institutions themselves. Reference is made to a small number of research

studies (Paragraph 4.6) and to the role of Skill (Paragraph 4.7). Recognition is given

to the progress made as a result of the national funding councils’ special initiatives

(Paragraph 4.4) and to the progress made in other sectors of post-compulsory

education as a result of other inquiries by Tomlinson (FEFC, 1996) and Kennedy

(FEFC, 1997 ; Paragraph 4.5). The second part of this section highlights the

experience of the students and mentions some of the causes of the additional costs

incurred and the issues surrounding DSA (Paragraphs 4.13± 4.16). The ® nal para-

graph tries to draw the discussion together and notes that compared to other sectors

of education, higher education is less aware of disability issues and is falling behind.

Policy and provision in the sector is uneven both in terms of the institutions and also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 77

the system for allocating DSA (Paragraph 4.17). Section Five makes a number of

recommendations. It opens by proposing the following:

The `normalisation’ of disability implies that universities should be encour-

aged to generate a culture and environment where disability is not regarded

as a problem. Students with disabilities rarely need special or exceptional

treatment but they do need considerate and fair treatment. Institutions

should therefore work towards:

disability awarenessÐ a recognition of structural, organisational, relational

and ® nancial consequences of establishing barrier-free access, where

`barrier-free’ should take the meaning adopted by the Open University of

providing a learning environment which is open to students regardless of

disability and circumstance:

disability sensitivity Ð a recognition that `disability’ as a concept covers

a multitude of different cases and special needs; that students with disa-

bilities have already demonstrated ® tness to achieve in higher education;

and that students with disabilities, despite their ability to negotiate the

world in which they ® nd themselves, will from time to time need inter-

vention and support. (Paragraph 5.1.)

The implication here is very positive and suggests the application of the `social

model’ of disability. Pursuing this the issue of compliance with the Disability

Discrimination Act is addressed. The anomaly of being both included (in relation to

facilities likely to be used by the community) and excluded (in respect of rooms used

for learning and teaching) is noted. Extending the legislation to include institutions

could improve access for students. However, in doing this, the issue of autonomy is

raised. Comparisons are made with the ways in which further education institutions

are the subject of more interventions from the FEFC. The potential costs of

compliance are also recognised. Taking all these into account, this part of the report

recommends either voluntary compliance or seeking amendments to the Act. Alter-

natively, the funding councils could be given the duty of ensuring that suitable

provision is made, although this could infringe upon the traditional autonomy of the

institutions. However, these points can be negated by recognising the fact that

compliance with the DSA would be required by law and not by any funding council

or other body. Secondly, the issue of autonomy is something of a `red herring’ since

institutions are not autonomous when they choose to avoid acting in a racist way.

This same principle could be extended to encompass disability discrimination.

In fact, at this point, it begins to appear that one must question the opening

paragraphs of Report Six and the notion of `deconstructing’ disability which is

mentioned below since it could be interpreted as another way to disguise the old

medical model. With these doubts beginning to appear, we must move on to the rest

of the Report. Next, there follows a proposal for a `comprehensive approach to

disability within a strategic framework’ . The competition for scarce resources is

recognised and the context is one in which disability issues are given a low priority.

One apparently cost-effective approach is for there to be an element of specialisation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

78 A. Hurst

with some institutions being recognised as `centres of excellence’ . Report Six notes

that this approach is unacceptable since it would limit choice for students and could

also lead to lim itations on the part of those with a reputation for the quality of their

provision. A suggestion is made about the `deconstruction’ of the category of

`disability’ to allow institutions to devise an action plan and to identify priorities:

For example, disabilities might be distinguished by the extent to which they

impede access to, and progression through, a conventional university

learning programme. Thus enduring impairments of sight, hearing or

physical mobility might be distinguished from disabilities which result in

periodic vexation, such as epilepsy, asthma and so forth. The purpose of

the distinction would be to facilitate the management of appropriate

institutional responses to particular disabilities in a focused manner. (Para-

graph 5.8)

This is taken a stage further in the next paragraph:

¼ universities could ® nd it useful to distinguish between environmental,

experiential, and personal dimensions of disability:

environmental factors concern the extent to which the physical environ-

ment is appropriate for a range of disabilities. Universities might wish to

identify in information materials which aspects of its environment are

suitable, or unsuitable, for disabilities. Many do this already in respect of

chair-bound access, but attention could usefully be paid to a wider range

of disabilities:

experiential factors re¯ ect the capacity of the institution to offer a quality

learning experience to students with disabilities. Attention would need to

be paid to dimensions of learning support, assessment, patterns of attend-

ance and locations, technological support and so forth;

personal factors concern the extent to which students with disabilities

require support and interventions in negotiating relationships within the

university, with family and friends, with peers and with external agencies

where necessary. (Paragraph 5.9)

Having started so optimistically, these comments signal the start of a shift away from

the more positive approach of the opening (including an example of politically

unacceptable terminologyÐ `chair bound’ ). They lead into a discussion of ® nance

which notes the disparities between full- and part-time students and the dif® culties

associated with the DSA. The ® nal proposal is most unfortunate:

Since the DSA is the principal means by which students with disabilities

gain any ® nancial support in recognition of their additional costs, it would

be altogether fairer if the allowance were a ® xed rate to the student by

disability, reasonably re¯ ecting the costs typically incurred by those with

different disabilities. It should be a grant to a ® xed maxim um with a loan

option to a maxim um available thereafter. (Paragraph 5.12)

This seems a very odd proposal. Using an old adage `equal treatment for all is unfair

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 79

to some’ . This simplistic system ignores far too many variab les including nature and

location of course as well as individual differences. It seems to hark back to a

`medical model’ of disability. It suggests that the opening paragraphs are rhetoric

and that there is no serious belief in the social model.

In moving on to look at policy and provision in institutions, a number of places

are cited as having tried to make progress (Paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14). Perhaps it

would have been useful to explore why it is that these institutions have developed

good quality provision. To make further progress a list of eight actions is offered.

These cover the inclusion of the Disability Statements in signi® cant policy docu-

ments, more publicity for policies and practices, an indication of current dif® culties

and of plans for progress, inspection of planning proposals to check for `disability

sensitivity ’ , an improvement in staff training at all levels, better systems for collecting

data, commitment from senior management and the regular use of student feedback.

The ® nal recommendation is for a strategic review, possibly conducted by the

funding councils, along the lines of that undertaken by the FEFC chaired by

Professor John Tomlinson.

Early Responses to the Dearing Report

Most of the attention was directed towards the proposals that students should have

to pay a contribution towards the costs of their tuition. Perhaps, as a knee-jerk

response to try to allay some of the hostility, the Secretary of State for Education,

issued a press release on September 23rd 1997 in which he announced the allocation

of an additional £165M for higher education. This is to be used to cover costs of

repairs and renewal of equipment, the inclusion of an additional 1000 students to

participate in higher education on sub-degree programmes in further education

colleges and additional money for access funds. In connection with the latter the

abolition of the means test for students applying for the DSA was mentioned. Soon

afterwards, the government announced that it is to introduce primary legislation to

bring this about. The aim is to introduce the new measures for students entering

universities in 1998± 99. A comprehensive White Paper outlining the proposals was

due be published in early 1998. However, the government chose to respond in three

separate documents to the Dearing, Fryer and Kennedy Reports all of which were

made public at the end of February (DfEE, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Prior to this, in

December 1997 the government also announced increased amounts for the DSA

including a substantial addition to the non-medical personal assistance element

(from £5000 to £10,000 maximum per annum).

A number of organisations have also submitted formal responses to the

Dearing Report and its recommendations. The paper from the Committee of

Vice-Chancellors and Principals on participation, access and the regional context

[Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), 1997] seems to have

missed an important opportunity to raise awareness of disability-related issues. Per-

haps it is a good example of the need for disability sensitivity identi® ed in the report

and discussed above. Sadly, the response from the CVCP is concerned mainly with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

80 A. Hurst

socio-economic groups and their participation rates. There is no mention of people

with disabilities and learning dif® culties.

The Report in a Changing Context

In considering the Dearing Report it is important to acknowledge other aspects of

the contemporary context. First, the Report constitutes the third of a series of

publications linked to partic ipation in post-compulsory education. Immediately,

preceding it, there was the report of the committee chaired by Helena Kennedy QC

which was focused on opportunities for learning. Later came the report of the

committee chaired by Bob Fryer which explored lifelong learning (DfEE, 1997b).

The ® rst of the series was the Tomlinson Report in which the concern was with

inclusive learning. Given that it is the oldest of the three, actions have been taken to

implement many of the recommendations, the most recent being to initiate strate-

gies to spread good practice and high quality provision within the further education

sector. One should also recognise the government’ s intentions to improve the quality

of provision in schools (DfEE, 1997a). The result of all of these developments is that

higher education does need to take action if it is not to be left behind in respect of

learners with disabilities and learning dif® culties. The government has also given

added attention to disability issues by announcing its plans to extend the current

anti-discrim ination legislation. It has set up a Ministerial task force for civil rights,

it is extending the rights of access to goods and services which are incorporated in

the existing Disability Discrimination Act, and it is creating a Disability Rights

Commission to `protect, enforce, and promote the rights of disabled people’ (An-

drew Smith MPÐ speech to the Labour Party Conference October 1997). Given the

current position, the extension of anti-discrimination legislation will have a major

impact on all sectors of education including higher education. Apart from the

activities at a national level outside the sector, there are some important develop-

ments which higher education itself is initiating. First, the HEFCE has sponsored

two important research projects. One aims to identify good practice in producing

and publishing the Disability Statements which all institutions have to provide as a

consequence of changes to the duties of the funding councils as a result of the

Disability Discrimination Act. In particular, this will look at how these Statements

are used by students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. The other investiga-

tion, which is funded jointly with the Welsh Funding Council, will try to establish

what should constitute base-level provision for students with disabilities and learning

dif® culties in order to guide the sector as a whole, to act as a benchmark for

institutions and students, and to inform national funding policy. Both projects are

due for completion by the middle of 1998 and their ® ndings could be implemented

alongside the changes to DSA proposed by the government. Also both projects

should see the involvement of the recently established National Disability Co-

ordination and Development Team (known by the acronym E.Qu.I.P.Ð Extending

Quality In Provision). This consists of three experienced staff who are seconded on

a part-time basis from their posts in higher education to work with institutions

operating projects funded by the most recent special initiative to ensure that any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 81

gains made are both embedded within those institutions and embedded more

generally within the sector. The second development concerns the quality of policy

and provision for students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. Following the

Further and Higher Education Act 1992, responsibility for quality was divided. In

1997 a more uni® ed system has been introduced with the establishment of the

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). It will start work early in 1998, but meetings are

already taking place to brief staff about issues surrounding students with disabilities

and learning dif® culties and to persuade them to include these in their routine

procedures. One development in particular could be important, namely a proposed

Code of Practice. It is essential that this includes something on provision for

students with disabilities and learning dif® culties. Without it, there would be

questions about the credibility of the QAA in terms of its concerns beyond a narrow

traditional approach to the meaning of `quality’ in higher education. (In February

1998 a Code of Practice relating to students with disabilities in tertiary education in

Australia was published. What is interesting is that although the work to produce

this was supported and funded by the federal government, it has decided not to

publish it as an of® cial government documentÐ see O’Connor et al., 1998.)

Closing Comments

In a recent speech at a national conference, Sir William Stubbs, a member of the

Dearing Committee, indicated the potential strengths of the Report for students

with disabilities and learning dif® culties (Stubbs, October 31st, 1997). He suggested

that the ® ndings and recommendations identi® ed responsibilitie s at three levels:

government which is in a position to resolve issues concerned with student funding,

the national funding councils which can take decisions about institutional ® nancial

allocations and set priorities, and institutions whose governing bodies are respon-

sible for policies on widening participation. For Stubbs, the Dearing Report contains

elements and qualities found in both the Tomlinson (FEFC, 1996) and Kennedy

Reports (FEFC, 1997). All have as their major focus inclusive learning and learning

support; they demonstrate a shift away from a concern with categories of disability

(the exception is the additional report compiled by David Robertson). They are also

united in their identi® cation of the development of a uni® ed framework of

quali® cations and credits, the need for additional funding to re¯ ect the additional

costs incurred by both students and the institutions which they attend, the need to

acknowledge a student demand-led system based on a well-informed choice, and the

need for better systems of guidance and student support.

Trying to improve the quality of policy and provision for students with disabil-

ities and learning dif® culties throughout the sector raises many dilemmas which are

still to be resolved. There is the complex relationship between attitudes and ® nance.

In some places, positive attitudes towards disability have resulted in the allocation of

appropriate levels of funding; in other places it would seem that it is the provision

(by others?) of suf® cient funding which will lead to changes in attitude. A second

matter is the delicate balance between a system in which progress is made through

the availab ility of incentives and one in which progress results from the fear of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

82 A. Hurst

reprisals and punishments (i.e. `carrots and sticks’ ). A third debate is about the

extent to which institutions should preserve their autonomy and the need for some

central intervention. In addressing these, the Dearing Committee seems to have

remained neutral. (Following the lead of Professor David Robertson who, as can be

seen from the above, was himself associated very closely with the Dearing Com-

mittee and its work on widening partic ipation one might ask the question `How

daring was Dearing?’ With regard to disability and the additional evidence sum-

marised in his report some people feel that Robertson’ s views represent a step

backwards rather than forwards.) The Dearing Report does offer hope for the future.

Perhaps what needs to be emphasised above all is that students with disabilities and

learning dif® culties are no different from others in terms of what higher education

is about and what it is for. In the words of the Report itself:

To be a successful nation in a competitive world, and to maintain a

cohesive society and a rich culture, we must invest in education to develop

our greatest resource, our people. The challenge to do this through the

excellence and effectiveness of education is great. (Paragraph 1.2)

The hope is that there will be excellence and effectiveness for students with

disabilities and learning dif® culties in the higher education of the future.

Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to Sophie Corlett, Assistant Director of Skill: National

Bureau for Students with Disabilities, for her help, advice, encouragement and

suggestions at various stages during the writing of this paper.

REFERENCES

COMMITTEE OF VICE CHANCELLORS AND PRINCIPALS (CVCP) (1997) Participation, Access and the

Regional Context (unpublished paper) (London, CVCP).

CORLETT, S. (1997) Evidence to the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, The

Skill Journal, No. 57 (March 1997), pp. 3± 14.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (1963) Report of the Committee on Higher

Education (the Robbins Report) (London, HMSO).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCA TION AND EM PLOYMENT (DfEE) (1997a) Excellence for All Children (Lon-

don, HMSO).

DFEE (1997b) Learning for the Twenty First Century (The Fryer Report) (London, HMSO).

DFEE (1998a) Higher Education for the 21st Century: response to the Dearing Report (London,

DfEE).

DFEE (1998b) Further Education for the New M illennium: response to the Kennedy Report (London,

DfEE).

DFEE (1998c) The Learning Age: a renaissance for a New Britain (London, HMSO).

FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL (FEFC) (1996) Inclusive Learning (The Tomlinson Re-

port) (London, HMSO).

FEFC (1997) Learning W orks: widening participation in Further Education (The Kennedy Report)

(Coventry, FEFC).

H IGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND (HEFCE) (1995) Access to Higher Edu-

cation: students with special needs (Bristol, HEFCE).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Dearing Report and Disability 83

HEFCE (1996) Access to Higher Education: students with learning dif ® culties and disabilities (Bristol,

HEFCE).

HURST , A. (1993) Steps Towards Graduation: access to Higher Education for people with disabilities

(Aldershot, Avebury Press).

HURST , A. (1996) Equal opportunities and access: developments in policy and provision for

disabled students 1990± 1995, in: S. WOLFENDALE & J. CORBETT (Eds) Opening Doors:

learning support in Higher Education (London, Cassell).

HURST , A. (1998) Higher Education and Disabilities: international perspectives (Aldershot, Avebury

Press).

NATIONAL COMM ITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO H IGHER EDUCATION (NCIHE) (1997a) Higher Education

in the Learning Society (The Dearing Report (London, HMSO).

NCIHE (1997b) Report Six: widening participation in Higher Education by students from lower

socio-econom ic groups and students with disabilities (London, HMSO).

NATIONAL INNOVATIONS CENTRE (NIC) (1974) Disabled Students in Higher Education (London,

NIC).

O’ CONNOR, B., WATSON, R., POWER, D. & HARTLEY, J. (1998) Students with Disabilities:

Code of Practice for Austra lian Tertiary Institutions (Brisbane, Queensland University of

Technology).

POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES FUNDING COUNCIL (PCFC) (1992) Widening Participation in Higher

Education (Bristol, PCFC).

SCOTTISH H IGHER EDUCA TION FUNDING COUNCIL 1 (SHEFC) (1994) Access to Success for Students

with Disabilities in Higher Education in Scotland (Edinburgh, SHEFC).

Times Educational Supplement (TES) (1996) The cost of imperfection, 16.2.96, TES, 2, p. 7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

06:

20 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014