Abstract
In 1991 The Ministry of Education reviewed the NZ Special Education Policy to ensure "all students have fair access to a quality educational environment to enable them to learn successfully and participate in society" (Ministry of Education, 1991, p.4). This right to education was underpinned by the premise that all people should have access to appropriate education and that disability arises from social, environmental, financial and psychological disadvantages inflicted upon impaired people (Oliver, 1991).
As a consequence young adults with an intellectual disability or learning disability gained the right to enter tertiary education to undertake study that offered them the opportunity to enhance their lifestyles. These educational programmes focussed on vocational, social and leisure activities.
This paper will discuss the growth and subsequent decline of these tertiary programmes and focuses on the issues that have confronted educators and students over the last decade. Legislation afforded this right to education but the subsequent development of policy in New Zealand has systematically excluded this group from post secondary education. As well as outlining the systemic difficulties faced the paper will outline the infrastructure developed by tertiary providers, the development of external support networks and the inclusion of curriculum standards into the NZ National Qualifications Framework.
This paper will discuss the growth and subsequent decline of tertiary programmes for young adults with an intellectual or learning disability in New Zealand. All these students at the institute where I work have an intellectual disability or learning disability and range in age from 18 years to 45 years. Many of them have come direct from school while others have been in sheltered workshops or have been staying at home. Most of the students attend the polytechnic for up to two years and the majority of them when they graduate choose to affiliate themselves with a supported employment agency and seek full or part time employment.
Up until the mid eighties students with an intellectual disability were denied access to tertiary education but with the introduction of deinstitutionalisation, the parent movement of the late eighties (Judge, 1987) and the move towards the rights discourse (Fulcher, 1989) the paradigm shift towards providing tertiary education for people with an intellectual disability was seeded. These people had the right to be offered information, experiences, options and a chance to take risks. In writing about the challenges of higher education for people with disabilities O'Connor makes the point that " for some students with disabilities just being able to get into a course is reward enough" (O'Connor, 1992, p.10). The opportunity for choice and a more inclusive future was what these courses were offering.
In 1986 there was one full time course for students with an intellectual disability in New Zealand (Thorburn and Lavell 1988), and this was a direct result of deinstitutionalisation in a small rural city. By 1993 there were fourteen of the twenty one polytechnics delivering full time courses with 275 students enrolled nationally. All the full time courses had the common aim of providing an enhanced lifestyle with a focus on vocational, social and leisure opportunities. Twelve of these polytechnics were awarded an annual grant (as a result survey undertaken by the Ministry of Education) to cover extra staffing costs. The amounts ranged from $27,000 (NZ) to $63,000 (NZ) per annum. However with class sizes averaging about 14 - 15 students this grant did not go far and was subject to annual review. Some institutions covered additional staffing from their budgets while others relied totally on contestable equity funding and grants or on voluntary help. The staffing ratios of courses ranged from 1:7 to 1:14. No other tertiary courses had to operate under this system. The excluded were being included but where was the equity? Courses were being developed and funded in an ad hoc manner even though there had been a call for a more systematic development of continuing educational opportunities (Wilton, Tuck, Irwin and Coffey, 1988).
The development of these courses had relied totally on the advocacy and often pleading of individual educators to their management reminding them of their charter obligations, the pending Human Rights Act (1993), and the Education Act (1989).
While the advocacy of individuals had managed to spearhead the development of these courses until 1993, the tertiary sector established a subject forum under the terms of reference of the Association of Polytechnics New Zealand. This was powerful lobby group representing all the polytechnics teaching special needs classes in the country. This subject forum set goals and moved systematically towards gaining recognition in the education system for students with special needs both in discrete classes and for those in mainstream education.
The two main goals relevant to these courses were:
By 1998 these two goals had been achieved.
The 1997 budget announced there would be funding allocated to the tertiary sector for the needs of students with disabilities. This funding model was not as comprehensive as we would have liked but it was a start. We at the chalk face felt there was now a framework upon which conditions would surely improve.
Another development that gave us hope was New Zealand had signed the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994), reaffirming the right to education regardless of individual differences. This Framework for Action had several priority areas and numbers 56 and 57 specifically outlined the transition years from school to adult life, the development and delivery of continuing education programmes, and the need for special courses designed to meet the needs of different groups of adults with disabilities.
The second goal set by the APNZ National Polytechnic Disability Forum of having unit standards on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework was achieved in 1998. The Supported Learning unit standards were registered for students who required some form of support with their learning, either through additional resources, specialised equipment or adapted teaching programmes. The New Zealand Qualifications Framework was charged with developing unit standards and qualifications in secondary and post secondary education according to their level of difficulty with no distinction between academic and vocational training. All qualifications would become part of a seamless web (Roberts,1997), this now meant students with an intellectual disability were able to be assessed on the basis of measured outcomes and for the first time ever receive national recognition for their achievements.
They were included.
Reviews, changes to the public sector legislation and policy were also taking place within New Zealand at this time. The Ministry of Education was reviewing Special Education and a team known as SEPIT - Special Education Policy Implementation team had a brief to develop a framework for policy. Their brief was to consult with interest groups, parents, families and professionals in order to ensure 'all students have fair access to a quality educational environment to enable them to learn successfully and participate in society" (Ministry of Education, 1991, p. 4). While tertiary education for students with special needs was acknowledged within this brief, when the policy was first developed it was ignored. This was in spite of one of the key features of the Statement of Intent stating "there will be a system to allow special education resources to follow students as they move across sectors and between special and regular settings" (Ministry of Education, 1991, p.5). However, in the final report in 1993 the SEPIT team did recommend the Minister seek a separate report into the tertiary sector.
At the same time as the APNZ Forum was trying to achieve equal status and a seamless education system for the students it represented, educational and social reforms were also taking place in government. The bench mark for contemporary education in New Zealand was a statement that had been made in 1939 by the then Minister of Education.
The government's objective, broadly expressed, is that every person whatever the level of his [sic] academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in the town or country, has a right as a citizen to a free education of a kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of his powers", (Preston, 1974, cited in Stephens, 1997, p. 194).
However good these key objectives, and subsequent similar statements made by various governments were, the influence of Treasury was beginning be felt in the education system. In 1990 the Labour Government introduced for the first time a standard tertiary fee of $1250.00 per annum. In 1994 there was a change to a National government who stated the tertiary sector had almost one third of the education budget and it was time to reduce the funding per capita and for students to incur a private debt, i.e. pay fees. Traditionally tertiary education had been seen as a "right" it was now being promoted "as an investment commodity for future employment prospects and economic growth," (Fitzsimmons, 1997, p. 108) - this was known as The Human Capital Theory. The government was claiming this new policy would still guarantee every school leaver access to tertiary education as of right (Fitzsimmons, 1997).
Thus began the decline of tertiary education for students with an intellectual disability . The APNZ Forum had managed to gain recognition for these courses within the polytechnic system on the Qualifications Framework and the 1994 Report on Funding Growth in Tertiary Education had recommended that students with disabilities attract additional funding. The hand of Treasury with its "change in philosophy from perceiving education as a right to perceiving it as an economic commodity" was eroding it (Stephens 1997, p.190). There appeared to be no interface between government departments and while was one department was recognising the rights and needs of our students other departments were making changes to policy that were eroding the hard won gains.
The introduction of the fee system required the student to pay for their tertiary education either by their own means or take out a Student Loan - this was in line with the Human Capital Theory. The majority of students with an intellectual disability were on an Invalids Benefit and were unable to pay the fees themselves. They were however able to apply for a Training Incentive Allowance. The Training Incentive Allowance had been introduced in 1985 to encourage a range of beneficiaries to "develop work skills and self confidence that would better equip them for employment". (NZ Income Support, 1996) and in turn gain independence from the benefit system.
This allowance, along with the approval of a hardship grant up until 1997 covered the cost of the fee, (approximately $ 2,250). But once again different government departments came into conflict with each other and there was a review of the system for the TIA. This had a major impact for both the students and the tertiary institutes. The TIA rate of payment as a result of this review was reduced to 60% of the course fee with a maximum payment of $3000.00 (including transport costs). It was assumed that the customer who qualifies for the TIA would be able to fund the remaining 40% of their course costs via the student loan scheme (NZISS, 1996).
On paper this policy appeared to be very clear, 60% paid for under the TIA, 40% paid by a student loan. However in practice each local office interpreted and applied this policy differently. It appeared to depend on the attitude of the person you were dealing with as to whether you would be granted the allowance.
Some of the discrepancies students or caregivers have been faced with were:
J. Thompson (personal communication, 2 June 2000).
For the students and caregivers the rise in student fees and the impending dilemma of accessing a student loan was horrifying. This is best illustrated by Traver's Story.
Travers is a young man on our New Horizons programme. In September 1999 his mother, C. Brown (personal communication, 21 September 1999) wrote to the Minister responsible for TIA stating the following:
If Travers is accepted on his tertiary course in 2000 he will be required to pay fees of $3000.00+ , he will have approximately $1600.00 paid by TIA leaving a balance of $1400.00.
He has two options, someone else could pay the balance, or he could take out a loan and start accruing interest. Travers like any other student would have to start paying back the loan and interest when he earns $14,700.00 pa (which includes his Invalids Benefit of $9612.00pa). He could earn $5000.00pa before he gets the loan taken out of his wages. However if he doesn't get a job then the loan and interest on the loan will keep accruing until he dies. Parents are not required to stand as guarantors unless the student is under the age of eighteen nor are any due monies to be taken out of any estate.
It is unlikely Travers will get a job for some time. My queries are:
The policy seems to adopt the rationale that one size fits all. If there is no intention for the government to get the student to repay the loan why go through the exercise.
When the Labour Party became the Government in late 1999 they immediately withdrew the interest on student loans and returned the Training Incentive Allowance to 100% of the course fee but still retained the $3000.00 maximum pa. which is now less than the cost of one year's full-time study. In 1998 however, there were fifty four students with an intellectual disability who had taken out a student loan to pay either the full amount or the balance of their fees and to this day they are still accruing interest (APNZ Informal report, 1999).
The loan system raised ethical issues for both institutions and individuals:
Even with the TIA funding reviewed and the interest removed from student loans the annual rise in tertiary fees still leave the students with a shortfall and the decision of how this will be paid. The question must be raised, has the Government met their objective to "provide fair access to tertiary education for all New Zealanders," as stated in the report on funding in the tertiary sector (Report of the Ministerial Funding Group, 1994, p. 113).
With the review of TIA in 1997 what the government failed to tell the tertiary Institutes was that the policy now required courses to be approved or accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The special explanatory note in the policy stated
some institutions, mainly polytechnics, provide courses with varying "vocational" components for students with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. Some of these courses are designed to teach students the skills required to live in the community and clearly do not fit the objectives of the TIA programme. (NZ Income Support Service, 1996).
Our query is, aren't these the skills that underpin the ability to be able to get and then keep a job? However, NZISS did make inquiries to Institutes to ascertain the level of vocational awareness that was being offered within these courses - in fact they collected brochures which told them nothing about the percentage of the employment/vocational related content and it was on this information they based their decision. It was not until a raft of unpaid fees surfaced on the student report system that the Institutes were aware there was a problem. In 1998 this resulted in only seven institutions having their programmes approved. The programmes that were approved did have a very strong employment focus and in fact several were affiliated with Supported Employment agencies whose aim is to support graduates from these courses.
The growth in the number of supported employment agencies has grown rapidly in New Zealand but unfortunately many of them find it too hard to place people with an intellectual disability and some are only funded to work with students in mainstream classes. Is this inclusion?
Where does this leave us to date for the Institutions? Four of the originally approved institutes in 1999 stated a decline in the number of students enrolling due to the changes in TIA and the implication of student loans. The requirement of the TIA means programmes must now include NZQA unit standards, be assessed and be totally employment outcome focused. In reality for institutions this means they are becoming very selective about who they accept for courses at the exclusion of those who in the past were able to participate in order to gain social skills or independence and perhaps begin to think about the options available to them.
This year there are one hundred and fifty seven ( approximately) students enrolled in full time courses a drop of one hundred and eighteen students from 1993.
In conclusion, with the policy of inclusion in the school sector, the rise of the advocacy movement and the aspirations and expectations of students and parents to access tertiary education has there been a paradigm shift in the tertiary education sector? If we compare the present situation with that of 1986, yes there has been a shift. However, the shift needs to move further along the continuum if people with an intellectual disability are to be free from discrimination.
The polytechnics have examined their values and afforded these students the opportunity to undertake tertiary education. They have been included. These tertiary institutes have met the Salamanca Statement's (1994) objective of special courses designed to meet the needs of different groups of adults with disabilities. Now it is the turn of the policy makers to accommodate the needs of these students within the framework. Does the government really believe in the principle that if people with disabilities want to be accepted into the community then they should be treated the same as everyone else? It is ironic that some government policies are promoting inclusion while other government departments are putting in policies that cause exclusion for the same people by having a "one size fits all" policy. These courses are easily identified, they should be tagged and the students should be able to access them through need rather than the ability to pay for the course. It is apparent the current policy discriminates against people with an intellectual disability or other high support needs thus punishing people who undertake tertiary education to better themselves and their situation.
References
Fitzsimmons, P. (1997). Human capital theory and participation in tertiary education in New Zealand. In M. Olssen and K. Morris Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: the 1990's and beyond (pp. 107-109). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. East Sussex: The Falmer Press.
Judge, C. (1987). Mental Retardation. Mulgrave:Magenta Press Ltd.
Ministry of Education (1991). Special Education in New Zealand:Statement of Intent, Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministerial Consultative Group on Funding Growth and Tertiary Education and Training. (1994). The Report on Funding and Tertiary Education and Training, Wellington.
New Zealand Income Support Services (1997). Supplementary Grants and Allowances. Wellington, New Zealand.
O'Conner, B.(1992). Challenges in higher education to facilitate increased independence for people with disabilities. Paper presented at Independence 1992 International Congress Exposition on Disability, Vancouver,BC 22 -26 April 1992.
Thorburn, R. & Lavell, K. (1988). A survey of opportunities for handicapped students in Polytechnics. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Education, Continuing Education Division.
United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organisation (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted at the World Conference on Special Needs Education:Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain June1994.
Roberts, P, (1997) The critique of the NZQA policy reforms. In M. Olssen and K. Morris Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: the 1990's and beyond (pp.162-189). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Stephens, R. (1997). Financing tertiary education. In M. Olssen and K. Morris Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: the 1990's and beyond (pp.190-208). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Wilton, K., Tuck, B., Yates, C., Irwin, S. & Coffey, B. (1988). Employment and adjustment for school leavers with mild retardation in New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Development Disabilities, 14 (3-4), 235-244.
 |
 |