EU practices and policies for the inclusion of disabled students in Higher Education

1. Support and Inclusion of students with disabilities at higher education institutions in Montenegro – SINC@HE EU practices and policies for the inclusion of disabled students in Higher Education CONFERENCE 2012

2. Policy and Legal Context at EU level EU TFEU Charter on Fundamental Rights UN CRPD Article 4: promote the training of professionals and staff Article 5: reasonable accommodation Article 8b: awareness raising Article 24: inclusive education system Disability Action Plan: equal access to education EU2020 E&T2020 Member States policies and legal frameworks Lifelong Learning FP7PROGRESS

3. Problems/Needs of students with disabilities in EU • Access – disabled YP’s less likely to apply for HE • More disruption to studies; course changes; higher drop-out rates • Finance –disabled students cost higher than non-disabled • Mobility – layout; space; access; transport • Pedagogic – technical support for visual and hearing impairments; dyslexia; learning disabilities • Pastoral – stress levels greater; isolation; discrimination • Lack of representation • Low level of awareness • Low level of professional skills and training • Transitions – e.g. to work – more difficult

4. Support provision • Varies from country to country • In most countries, HEI’s responsible – more voluntary than mandatory • Preferential enrolment (Portugal; Greece; Hungary; Germany; Norway; UK) • Financial – combination of ‘block’ grant to HEI’s + personalised individual packages • Access and mobility – ramps; wheelchair access; transport • Technical/Pedagogic – photocopies; tape recordings; transcriptions; braille documents; e-exams; note-takers; signers • Disability officers – less developed • Staff training - less developed • Awareness-raising and networking - less developed

5. Persistent problems and Gaps in provision • HE sector more scope for interpretation of laws and policy than school sector – variability in level and quality of support • Definition – e.g. ‘reasonable accommodation • ‘Hidden disability’ – difficult to estimate numbers who don’t apply or don’t register – lack of reliable data and monitoring • Not enough focus on transitions • Not enough effort on awareness-raising and staff development • Poor representation and active involvement of students with disabilities

6. EU Good Practices • Ratification and support for UN CRPD • Over-arching policies promoting equality in education (EU2020; ET2020) • Major funding programmes (LLP; FP7; PROGRESS) • At member state level • Access (e.g. SWAP; Flemish Social Dimension in HE; French Active Guidance Policy; UK Widening Participation; Spain Inclusive Campus; Ireland DARE) • Support on Entry (German Studentenwerke; Norway Universell Service) • Supporting Study and Progress (French Social Criteria Grants)

7. EU: Provision and Gaps Kotor Meeting

8. EU: Implementation Good Practice Kotor Meeting

9. EU: Implementation Good Practice Kotor Meeting

10. sinc@he: Key results • Policies in place - ratification of the UN Convention and Protocol; ‘Strategy of integration of the persons with disabilities’; ‘Law of prohibition of discrimination of the persons with disabilities’. • But insufficient implementation in practice. • Public awareness relatively under-developed. • Numbers and type of YP with disabilities who are prevented from applying for higher education not clear. In Montenegro, only around 20 PWD officially registered in HEIs. • But unknown quantity not registered, or don’t consider going to University. Kotor Meeting

11. sinc@he: Key results-2 • Support to improve accessibility within the built environment variable . • Lack of integration between the different education sectors • Lack of qualified special needs education professionals and facilities for training professionals are under-developed. • AYDM plays a vital role, but its work requires more integration with government and HEI agencies. • The use of ICTs to support students with disabilities in HEIs is currently under-developed. • Financial support for students with disabilities is variable.

12. Priorities for the future in Montenegro • Priority Area 1: Definitions and Awareness: focusing on the gaps between policy and practice; lack of clarity in level of need; low level of public awareness • Priority Area 2: Financing: addressing fact that funding provision is neither coherent nor systematic; promoting more effective collaboration between government, HEIs and NGOs • Priority Area 3: Systematic Support: promoting better co-ordination between government Ministries; standardisation in entry, assessment and certification procedures; mainstreaming personal support; co-ordination of support activities; central database of resources; co-ordinating monitoring and evaluation; expanding and standardising ICT tools and assistive technology; support for transitions between school, university and work; involving more stakeholders, including disabled students’ family members Kotor Meeting

13. The problem with terminology GIFTED STUDENTS SPECIAL NEEDS PWD Michel Foucualt: ‘The purpose of education is to classify, control and punish” INCLUSIVE LEARNING