The values of this module are articulated through three core areas: Participation, Accessibility and Diversity. Through these areas, Campus Life for ID students will be supported and enhanced, enabling the achievement of the aims and objectives as set out above.

Participation
Higher education in today’s world represents a powerful and evolving set of relationships, a networked web of public, private and social factors that respond to an ever-increasing set of change factors. From being the most visible element in the assertion of rank, hierarchy and elitism in past centuries, higher education represents a market of competing ideas and visions concerning the role of academia in the communities of which it is part. Changing conceptions of higher education are held by governments worldwide, but we also have higher education institutions increasingly behaving like actors on a crowded stage searching for scarce resources among many other competing interests. In this context, if none other, higher education now faces the importance of the critical role of partnerships, linkage and strategic joint ventures to achieve shared goals in a transformed external environment. This environment is itself shaped not only by the pressures of neo-liberal capitalist competition, but by a set of crises emerging from the contradictions inherent in a system that is demonstrably producing greater levels of inequity and social division. Education now finds itself in a world enmeshed in economic, political and environmental challenges of unprecedented scale and import.

This evolving scene has profound implications for educators. The neat congruence of interests between academics, administrators, governments, enterprises, students and communities in the past meant the emergence of a stable set of assumptions. These were themselves based on an understanding of society and power that reflected rather than challenged bias and subjective assessment of the balance of socio-economic power matrixes. The University as the servant of the State, and the academic as the servant of the University were unchallenged norms.

The systems society creates around the understanding, development, structure and support of learning are systems broadly termed education – or its more systematic form, known as schooling. In a world where education is pervasive and essential for basic participation and where schooling in one form or another is by now nearly universal, it is hard to believe that as late as the 18th Century, schools as we know them did not exist. Those with wealth and power employed tutors. Vast sections of society received little or no formal education: this includes domestic servants, slaves, those with disabilities, peasants and females.

Learning was largely informal, personal and related to expected and allocated social roles in what were largely static social formations. Learning was contained within theological or ecclesiastical systems that were arcane and elitist. Learning was seen as the privilege of those who already had wealth and power. While industrialization was certainly not coterminous with democratization, it did open significant new avenues for access to the resources and techniques that could spread learning and knowledge. The irony was that industrialization produced an insatiable demand for scientific and technological know-how, continuous improvement, expertise and systems of knowledge transmission that simply could not be provided by traditional learning systems and cultures. In the external social and national environments this meant creation of schooling systems (usually organized on a national basis) where the basic skills required could be taught and internalized – reading, writing, numeracy and communications.

In the academic literature and research underpinning concepts of disability and inclusion, there has been a significant debate that contrasts medical and social model ideas of inclusion. This stems from issues raised since the later 1960s by the emergence of the independent living movement as well as a rights-based analytical model around disability issues. In education this reflects a conceptual difference between pupil inclusion (equity of experience) and pupil integration (being in a mainstream setting but not necessarily fully included). The disparity between individual and community based models demonstrates that continuing gaps exist at policy level regarding fully inclusive education for disabled children (Ainscrow, 1999). Even in those countries where the policy context supports a shift to inclusion, specific professional supports are needed to develop practice. However, inclusion can be fostered in settings that have flexible curriculums, staff exchange and training programs, processes for pupil participation and practices of peer mentoring and support for parents, pupils and professionals (Bruce, 2005).

Pupils with disabilities continue to experience inequality in the education system. This has resulted in lower levels of educational qualifications and workforce participation among people with disabilities (relative to those without disabilities), which results in social isolation and economic adversity. Access to inclusive education assists in promoting equal opportunities for pupils with disabilities, which will allow them to live independently and to actively contribute to and benefit mainstream society. Since the Salamanca Statement of 1994 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008), there is a political aim within EU countries that all children and adults with disabilities have the same right to inclusive education as everyone else.

There is no unified definition of inclusive education. There are various determinations of the concept which depend on perspective and teaching context. The common factor to all definitions of inclusion is that they stem from the principle of human rights (UNESCO 2001; UNESCO 2003) and are therefore defined broader as such as they relate to social inclusion and do not merely include the educational dimension of inclusion.

Finally, issues and elements around design, inclusion and access connect to concepts of social justice in education. This is critical for strategic planning for future education systems and learning methodologies. This conceptualization enables us to understand that universal design, like any measure concerning equity and enhanced inclusion, cannot be divorced from wider prevailing issues around power hierarchy and access to resources. Universal design for learning is one tool among many intended to remove barriers to participation. The comprehensive nature of its vision means that it challenges structures themselves.

Accessibility

Accessibility is not easily defined. Just about any material could be considered accessible in the right context and to the right person. Yet accessibility requires everyone to have equal access to learning, and this is easier said than done. Accessibility itself is ultimately the result of a dynamic interplay between person and environment. Therefore, understanding accessibility requires consideration of the person, the environment, and the relationship (interaction) between the two, as well as the outcome of said interaction. Because of this complicated nature of accessibility, it is important to include two definitions, one of which is focused more on goals and the other on the functional nature of accessibility. In other words, what accessibility is and what accessibility looks like?

When thinking about what accessibility is, an appropriate definition can be found in a resolution agreement between the Office for Civil Rights and the South Carolina Technical College System. Within this resolution agreement, accessibility was defined as: “Accessible” means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use. The person with a disability must be able to obtain the information as fully, equally and independently as a person without a disability.

Although this might not result in identical ease of use compared to that of persons without disabilities, it still must ensure equal opportunity to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology. (Office of Civil Rights Compliance Review No.11-11-6002) It is important to note that this definition focuses on the opportunities afforded to students. For materials to be accessible in this sense, the student needs to be afforded the same access and opportunities. This is a necessarily rights-based focus, and helpful in establishing the overall purpose and scope of the meaning of accessibility. What is also necessary is a more functional definition of what this might look like in context.

There are connections between accessibility and technology that should be mentioned. First, one can talk about accessibility in a generic sense, but, in practice, accessibility must always be tied to a particular type of material or environment. One can look at generic definitions of accessibility, but to put those definitions into practice one must understand the technology, the audience, and the demands of the task. This is why specific accessibility standards exist for website and building designs, but not for technology in all instances. This has important implications for course planning and delivery because, though there are some transferable ideas and practices, understanding accessibility requires understanding of the technology as well.

Second, technologies have the potential to increase accessibility. Potential is an important word to consider here, as not all technologies increase accessibility. For instance, while animated graphical presentation software, such as Prezi, may reduce the demand for working memory resources, the presentations may not be screen readable by assistive technologies. In this instance, use of the technology only increases the relative inaccessibility of the technology for some users. Another important connection between accessibility and technology is Assistive Technology (AT).

Accessibility is an important, though sometimes only implied, aspect of UDL. The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 stipulated that students with disabilities must have access to the general education curriculum. In particular, students must have access to content, be able to participate in instructional routines, and have the opportunity to make progress with the general education curriculum. As a result of this mandate, UDL was proposed as the framework for meeting those important goals (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002). As such, accessibility is imbued throughout the UDL framework as an integral step to ensure all students are included because accessibility is prerequisite for ensuring all students have the opportunity to participate and make progress. Accessibility provides a critical baseline within UDL.

Accessibility relates to all three principles of UDL, but is particularly relevant to the top level of the UDL Guidelines. These are the guidelines that speak most directly to some of the key ways in which students can be provided with access to learning. These Guidelines provide an initial way to consider accessibility, but ultimately accessibility standards must also be implemented in light of the specific design constraints of technologies.

Now that we have discussed connections between accessibility, technology and UDL, we need to consider how all three come together in reciprocal ways. They key relationship among all three of these elements is that considering all three together allows for an increased ability to create more effective, inclusive learning environments. Each element can be considered independently, but often, as we pointed out above, it would be insufficient in fostering inclusion for all learners. Accessibility could be considered, but if does not address the technology within the learning environment, then it is likely that access will still be limited due to contextual idiosyncrasies. UDL can be considered, but if environments are not accessible, then we have to ask if students can participate in the first place.

Learning environments must account for learner variability and effective pedagogy (UDL), accessible physical and digital spaces (accessibility), and a range of tools for both students and instructors to utilize (technology). By taking into account flexible technologies, accessibility requirements, and UDL principles, we are able to support inclusive course delivery and ultimately teach all learners more effectively, and ultimately put the learner and learning first. All three elements can contribute to creating more effective learning environments independently, but there is a particularly powerful impact when they are considered together.


Diversity

Social exclusion implies both a structure and a process in the ordering of human relations. As a structure, social exclusion relates to unequal levels of ownership of resources, unequal levels of opportunity and unequal levels of privilege and status in accessing goods, services or information. As a process, social exclusion is concerned with categories that historically may vary but are, in whatever form, denied full participation and equality. As a process, it is also further concerned with the forces and groups that, for whatever reason, implement and maintain exclusion.

Social exclusion concerns itself therefore with:
Groups that can be defined as excluded
The nature of the exclusion experienced
The attitudes of those who maintain exclusionary practices
The knowledge, skills and attitudes of officials in developing policies in these areas
The body of knowledge and practice regarding equality legislation and practice.

Two issues emerge strongly from this. One is the question of equality of opportunity. Embedded firmly in the thinking and values of the French Revolution, equality as a concept has been a highly contentious issue in Europe ever since. Second is the question of the norm against which exclusion is judged. In charting the poor levels of access for those experiencing social exclusion, the literature of the European Union for example refers constantly to ‘average’ persons. In a context where the average is never defined or the normal spelled out, it is difficult to see social exclusion as anything other than that which is variably defined at any one time by individuals and structures which envisage themselves as average or normal. Clearly this value-ridden concept is less than useful.

As our understanding of those experiencing social exclusion changes from regarding them as objects to potential active participants in charting their own needs and aspirations, so also should our understanding of the role and potential of educational provision change. Essentially this comes down to building the capacity, confidence and self-expression of those seen as socially excluded so that they can participate, as of right, in mainstream society and to advance their own perspectives on the direction of social change needed to create a more inclusive society. Allied to this is the creation of awareness and skills among individuals and organizations so that they can profit from diversity and inclusion in creating more equal and just socio-economic environments.

The need to develop standardized procedures for the inclusion of people with disabilities requires an analysis of the assessment techniques and needs identification processes best suited to attain this goal. It also demands an emphasis on access and equity for those with disabilities. For many emerging from the experience of decades of documented discrimination and exclusion this is by no means an easy process.

The reality of exclusion and discrimination for those with disabilities exists at every level of personal and social functioning. Attitudes of exclusion have been described as pervasive. Where disability is acknowledged, it is often seen in terms of charitable beneficence or, at the other extreme, of social fear or stigma. The European Disability Forum, among others, has documented discrimination against people with disabilities in every European country.

In the United States disability was first described as the last great civil rights struggle. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) proclaims that the nation’s “proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to ensure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for each individual”. This represents a significant shift at Federal policy level toward mainstreaming and integration, and away from dependence and segregation. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that legislation can only go so far if underlying attitudes are not addressed. Ten years later, an extraordinary 60% of those with disabilities are still unemployed.

It must be acknowledged that internationally and nationally, people with disabilities have made increasing advances into mainstream social participation. Of notable significance are the inroads in the areas of education and employment. In the past, people with disabilities – like other disadvantaged groups – found themselves banished from the labour market or bared from mainstream education as result of attitudes and values that were harshly critical of what did not pass for “normal”. For people with disabilities, institutionalization, isolation and paternalism characterized the way their problems and issues were addressed. Contemporary society however now gives the opportunity for people with disabilities to avail of the services and facilities that exist for all. Various factors are involved in this shift. The influence of Europe in charting the importance of social rights and standards, the influence of US disability legislation, the impact of civil rights struggles internationally and the emergence of understanding from the struggles of the women’s movement in Ireland and the resultant equality lessons have all contributed.

But in the world of disability two other factors need to be mentioned: advocacy and empowerment. Through the considerable activities of people with disabilities who have taken an activist approach to social change, through the activities of those who have advocated on behalf of those with disabilities and through considerable bodies of research and information, society increasingly recognizes the vast human potential which exists within this community. For contemporary society, issues of diversity and equality are pressing ones for a number of connected reasons. In this, educational systems partly reflect the demographic, social and cultural changes of the wider socio-economic environment.

The current context of equality and diversity is concerned with the composition of the workforce in terms of multiple elements of identity: race, religion, gender, language or nationality for example. The nature of the modern labour market displays increased complexity and diversity emerging from social change and population movements. This links to issues such as:
• Forced migration.
• Regional impoverishment.
• Increased participation rates for women.
• The changing nature of work itself (due to technological advances and improvement).
• Legacies of colonialism and racism.
• Implications of legislation and human rights practice.

These issues touch on diversity in regard to rights, ethical practice, conflict resolution and promotion of equal opportunities.

Managing diversity and equality approaches can be seen, at a minimum, as tools to enable vocational educators and trainers to adapt to challenges posed by differentiated workforces (where expectations and levels of communication may even be sources of potential conflict). In a wider context, they may be seen as powerful resources to benefit from external change processes and to tap into levels of creativity and potential produced by radical departures from past certainties.

Barriers to equality stem from prejudice and ignorance. The removal of barriers can be addressed (at least formally) by legislation and monitoring practice. Deeper transformation can be expedited most rapidly by educators seizing the opportunities offered by social difference and incorporating them into the employment process itself in innovative learning paradigms. This places a critical focus on the training of trainers to achieve mainstreamed equality approaches and attitudes.