Resources search

Schools perform many functions outside of education. They provide a safe haven, a social arena, and, for families with children with special needs, they offer vital one-to-one support. Online learning, by comparison, is simply not up to the task. So what about their right to an education?

A summary overview of the findings of a study led by LIGHT FOR THE WORLD with its partners, supported by the Early Childhood Program of the Open Society Foundations. The aim of the study was to uncover the trends in aid for inclusive Early Child Development (ECD) for 2017. It further identified strategic commitments to ECD, as reflected in policy documents up until 2019. The research examined donors’ spending and commitments in three key areas: early childhood development; inclusive early education and pre-primary; and disability-inclusive early childhood development investments in the sectors of health, nutrition, education and sanitation.

This study presents a baseline on donor investment in ECD services in low- and middle-income countries for the children who are traditionally left behind. It draws lessons from six bilateral donor countries – Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) – as well as the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), European Union (EU) Institutions, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank. Donor advocacy briefs for each of these donors are provided.

The study focuses on donor contributions to scaling up ECD services in four African countries: Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Inclusion is positioned at the forefront of global educational reform. The study reported focused on a national Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme for Inclusive Physical Education (IPE) in England. The research was designed to critically explore how CPD providers (i.e. tutors) variously conceptualised and practiced inclusion in the context of running a day-long CPD course for physical education teachers. Using qualitative methodology, data were collected via course observations (n= 27), informal interviews with tutors (n = 10), and a tutor questionnaire (n = 18). Findings suggest that although tutors’theoretical interpretations of inclusion were largely consistent with contemporary, broad understandings, there was notable variability and inherent tensions in the ways they talked about and enacted inclusion in practice. In many instances, inclusion was infused with particular perceptions about ability and ability grouping. Only a small number of tutors encouraged teachers to question and ‘disturb’ their current practices. Findings from this research extend insights into the contested nature of inclusion in contemporary PE and highlight the need for research to engage with multiple stakeholders in physical education teaching and CPD. This research reflects that CPD providers have a key role to play in extending teachers’ understandings of inclusive pedagogy

Background: Historically, challenges faced by students with disabilities (SWDs) in accessing higher education institutions (HEIs) were attributed to limited public funding. The introduction of progressive funding models such as disability scholarships served to widen access to, and participation in, higher education for SWDs. However, recent years have seen these advances threatened by funding cuts and privatisation in higher education.

Objectives: In this article, the funding mechanisms of selected developed and developing democratic countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India are described in order to gain an insight into how such mechanisms enhance access, equal participation, retention, success and equality of outcome for SWDs. The countries selected are often spoken about as exemplars of best practices in relation to widening access and opportunities for SWDs through government mandated funding mechanisms. Method: A critical literature review of the sample countries’ funding mechanisms governing SWDs in higher education and other relevant government documents; secondary academic literature on disability funding; online sources including University World News, University Affairs, newspaper articles, newsletters, literature from bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Disabled World and Parliamentary Monitoring Group. Data were analysed using a theoretically derived directed qualitative content analysis.

Results: Barriers which place SWDs at a substantial educational disadvantage compared to their non-disabled peers include bureaucratisation of application processes, cuts in disability funding, means-test requirements, minimal scholarships for supporting part-time and distance learning for SWDs and inadequate financial support to meet the day-to-day costs that arise as a result of disability.

Conclusion: Although the steady increase of SWDs accessing HEIs of the sampled countries have been attributed to supportive disability funding policies, notable is the fact that these students are still confronted by insurmountable disability funding-oriented barriers. Thus, we recommend the need for these HEIs to address these challenges as a matter of urgency if they are to respect the rights of SWDs as well as provide them with an enabling environment to succeed academically.

African Journal of Disability, Vol 8, 2019

"Being disabled in Britain is a review into disability inequality in Great Britain. It builds on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory five-yearly report on equality and human rights progress in England, Scotland and Wales, Is Britain Fairer?.

We want this report to be used by UK and devolved governments to make improvements to law and policies, by local government to ensure services meet the needs of disabled people, and by disability groups to strengthen their case for change.

The report includes chapters on six areas of life, including education, work, health, justice and participation in politics, looking at where there has been progress and where there are still serious issues to be tackled. It also looks the experiences of those with different impairments and how these impact on people’s life chances"

The report encourages UK higher education providers (HEPs) to look at how they can support and offer the best environment for disabled students. It considers the requirement to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ under the UK Equality Act 2010, and suggests actions to mitigate risks associated with that. It has been produced by the Disabled Student Sector Leadership Group, a sector-led group. 

DFE-00044-2017

This paper draws on feminist and queer philosophers? discussions of precarity and employment, too often absent from disability studies, to explore the working lives of people with learning disabilities in England in a time of austerity. Recent policy shifts from welfare to work welcome more disabled people into the job market. The reality is that disabled people remain under-represented in labour statistics and are conspicuously absent in cultures of work. We live in neoliberal- able times where we all find ourselves precarious. But, people with learning disabilities experience high levels of uncertainty in every aspect of their lives, including work, relationships and community living. Our research reveals an important analytical finding: that when people with learning disabilities are supported in imaginative and novel ways they are able to work effectively and cohesively participate in their local communities (even in a time of cuts to welfare). We conclude by acknowledging that we are witnessing a global politics of precarity and austerity. Our urgent task is to redress the unequal spread of precaritization across our society that risks leaving people with learning disabilities experiencing disproportionately perilous lives. One of our key recommendations is that it makes no economic sense (never mind moral sense) to pull funding from organisations that support people with intellectual disabilities to work.

Location is often at the fore of decision-making regarding fieldwork and choice of methods. However, little research has directly discussed the importance of the choice of site in the production of research data, particularly concerning the way that different relationships will manifest between researcher and participant in different spaces. Site may be particularly important in research with (learning disabled) children, as research location is intertwined with the level of caregiving required from the researcher, and the sorts of surveillance the research engagement may be subject to. This paper draws on research with learning disabled 6–16-year olds that took place in homes, schools and the outdoors, in a variety of microgeographical locations from bedrooms to nature reserves. This paper reflects on the challenges, including the very ‘worst’ research moments, occurring in the different research environments. Whilst the research was carried out with learning disabled children and young people, the discussion has implications for research with non-disabled children and ‘vulnerable’ participants more broadly.

“Higher education institutions (HEIs) have responsibility for developing non-discriminatory competence standards, and designing a study programme to address these competence standards. HEIs also have the responsibility to ensure that assessment methods address the competence standards. Adjustments to ways that competence standards are assessed may be required so that disabled students are not put at a disadvantage in demonstrating their achievement. This guidance aims to support HEIs meet these institutional and legal responsibilities, and promote disability equality” by providing information and examples on key areas. The guidance will be of use to all staff involved in developing and assessing competence standards