1. Philip J Connolly – Policy and Development Manager
DSA – a £70 million cut or simply a transfer of responsibilities - how to keep everyone honest
Philip J Connolly – Policy and Development Manager
Disability Rights UK
Chair of “No cap on aspiration – DSA”

2. Risks to participation from current Government proposals on DSA
1) Cumulative impact of tuition fees and now threat to support
2) Lower socio economic groups unable to afford higher specification computers
3) Some evidence that the new universities have higher proportions of disabled students and thus face higher costs if they were to cover the first £200 cost of computers
4) A race to the bottom - Universities may cover the costs in the short term but then fail to do so over the longer term (e.g. after 7 or 8 years has they seek to reduce costs to them
5) SENDA Act of 2001 imposed “anticipatory duties” on universities to make programmes accessible through programme validation but this has largely not happened
6) Lack of awareness by students of their entitlement or their scope to complain

3. Institutional audit - Conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency
DR UK recommends that they have a theme of how universities are meeting their new responsibilities towards disabled students

4. Teacher frameworks – currently being introduced
DR UK recommends that the concept of Inclusive Practice should be at the core of these frameworks
                                                                                                                                     
Ramblings of a Teacher
With not even a hint of cohesion between

5. Accountability
DR UK recommends that the university should make information available to disabled students via their prospectus and websites
Feedback on its effectiveness should be sought from disabled students

6. Accessibility policy
Disability Rights UK believes that every university should have an accessibility policy that contains good practice standards to demonstrate their commitment to their duties and responsibilities
Policy statement
The University of Bristol is committed to making all its web-based information and services as accessible as possible to all people, including those with disabilities and regardless of their access requirements. The University recognises the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 as the standard against which accessibility should be assessed, and requires that:
all new web content and services created in-house conform to at least Conformance Level AA of the W3C guidelines,
web content and services provided by third-party developers conform to at least Conformance Level AA of the W3C guidelines,
vendors supplying software used to develop web-based services for the University provide information on conformance to the W3C web accessibility guidelines,
existing web content and services be gradually brought into line, as they are periodically updated.
We will continuously review this policy in the light of any future changes to the W3C's accessibility guidelines.
Implementation
To facilitate the implementation of the web accessibility guidelines, the University provides web page templates for faculties, schools, centres and services. These templates conform to the W3C WCAG 2.0 Level AA standard and are deployed through the University’s web Content Management System (CMS).
In addition, accessibility has been incorporated into the University’s programme of web training courses and Web standards and best practice guide for content publishers.

7. Programme Validation
DR UK recommends that universities should incorporate their commitments to accessibility into their programme validation
Programme validation
The validation process involves an examination of the academic plans for a programme of study. It focuses on whether the programme meets national and subject expectations and whether it is likely to provide a learning experience of high quality.

8. Procedure for reviewing reasonable adjustments
DR UK wishes to see each university adopt a procedure for reviewing reasonable adjustments and ensure that students are aware of this procedure and the means of making a complaint.

9. Complaints procedure
DR UK wishes to see every university has an up to date complaints procedure that includes their commitments to disabled students and the process for taking complaints to the OIA.

10. Exceptional case procedure
DR UK recommends that SFE fund students to obtain band 1 and 2 NMPH support where they are taking a complaint against the university
Benefits
1) the university is not required to fund the NMPH support that they do not deem reasonable
2) it maximises the likelihood that the student will be retained on the course
3) the university continues to receive a fee from the student
4) In the event of the OIA or County Court ruling in favour of the student the university will have little or no compensation to pay out
5) BIS and the Government will gain from the likelihood that the student will complete their course and enter employment rather than be on benefits
6) If universities lose the case then they will be required to refund SFE for the NMPH support
7) the procedure will act to deter universities from opting not to resource NMPH support

11. Advocacy support to students
Students will feel reliant on their universities given that they will be marking their course work
They are likely to have high levels of personal debt
DR UK recommends that in this environment that it contracts to provide disabled students with advocacy support to progress complaints

12. Contact Philip J Connolly Policy and Development Manager
Disability Rights UK
Can Mezzanine
49-51 East Road
London
N1 6AH