General support structures

The sparse literature on the experience of disabled students in tertiary education in South Africa has indicated that the students largely depended on disability units and lecturers for academic support (Crous, 2004b; FOTIM, 2011; Matshedisho, 2010; Naidoo, 2010; Swart & Greyling, 2011). As will be evident from the following section, these experiences were generally not just positive or negative, but rather hinged upon the simultaneous mixed realities of gaps in provision and strides towards inclusion.

4.4.1.1 Disability units

Analysis of the literature shows that South Africa has gained significant ground since 1994 regarding the inclusion of disabled students in higher education. Not only did the number of disabled students increase on these campuses (Howell, 2005), their participation was also

104 facilitated through support services offered by the majority of tertiary institutions

(Department of Basic Education (DoBE), 2010; FOTIM, 2011; Matshedisho, 2010). These services, provided by so-called disability units, included the conversion of printed material into Braille and large print, audio-recorded textbooks, the provision of extra time for examinations, computer centres with special software like JAWS for Windows (special screen-reading programme), mobility training, sign language interpreters and many more (FOTIM, 2011; Howell, 2005; Matshedisho, 2010). Apart from this technical assistance, staff of disability units typically also played a mediating role as they had to communicate the needs of disabled students to faculty. They furthermore advocated for these students and helped them with day-to-day challenges on campus (Howell, 2005; Matshedisho, 2010).

The importance of disability units was echoed in the accounts of disabled students, as they commonly believed that disability units played a central role in their inclusion on some tertiary campuses (FOTIM, 2011; Matshedisho, 2010). For example, in the study by

Matshedisho (2010), 25% of disabled students said that they felt comfortable and welcome on their first day at university. It is probably no coincidence that these were also the students who had the support of their respective disability units. On the other hand, the 75 % of

students who felt uncomfortable on their first day at university reported that they did not have the support of a disability unit. It is evident that, in order to facilitate full inclusion, these units generally provided more than mere academic support, but also helped with the adjustment to university life and, for example, finding a residence (Matshedisho, 2010). Finding new friends and forming a social network was sometimes a fortunate by-product of these units (FOTIM, 2011). This often happened since disabled students spent a considerable time at these units and therefore often met other disabled students there. In short, many disabled students attributed their adjustment to the support of disability units (Matshedisho, 2010).

105 Encouragingly, the growing recognition of these units as an important vehicle for inclusion has been mirrored in the establishment of HEDSA – Higher Education Disability Services Association; a body that represents disability units in South Africa. HEDSA is concerned with matters around the achievement of equity, diversity and inclusion of disabled students on tertiary campuses and therefore were involved with the Green Paper (DHET, 2012) on post- school education of 2012 (discussed later in this chapter) as well as the expansion of funding for these students. What is more is that HEDSA‟s board includes two student representatives, which left room for their voices to be heard.

Despite this progress towards the full inclusion of disabled students, disability units were, and still are, restricted in the services they offer. Firstly, they were commonly not autonomous, as they often fell under student counselling or student affairs. They were therefore often unable to develop and implement programmes, since they were bound by the restrictions of their overseeing departments (FOTIM, 2011). The nature of these departments, for example counselling centres, was also problematic since their focus on pathology and rehabilitation may have reinforced the notion of the medical model of disability (Lyner-Cleophas et al., 2014). The disability unit model, paradoxically, also played a role in keeping disability separate from other transformation and diversity issues and therefore out of the mainstream (Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), 2012, 2013; FOTIM, 2011).

In addition, financial constraints continued to be a very tangible reality for these units, especially for historically Black institutions (DHET, 2012, 2013; FOTIM, 2011; Howell, 2005; Matshedisho, 2007a). For disabled students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, this meant that disability units did not have enough permanent staff and sufficient equipment to provide for their academic needs (Naidoo, 2010; Sukhraj-Ely, 2008). As a result, their accessible course materials were often delayed, which left them with very little time to

106 prepare for assessments (Naidoo, 2010). Furthermore, the available computers and scanners were often not enough so that all students could work simultaneously, which meant that a lot of time was wasted (Sukhraj-Ely, 2008).

In many instances, disability units therefore had to raise external funds to make the environment more accessible for disabled students (FOTIM, 2011; Howell, 2005;

Matshedisho, 2007a). This lack of funding shed light on universities‟ lack of recognition of the importance of these units for disabled students and reinforced the medical charity view of disability (FOTIM, 2011).

Despite limited funding, some small disability units still go out of their way to make the university a positive experience for disabled students (Howell, 2005; FOTIM, 2011).

4.4.1.2 Lecturers

While disability units could often not provide all the necessary services due to financial limitations, disabled students thought that lecturers‟ inability to provide accommodations was due to their lack of awareness around disability issues (Crous, 2004a, 2004b; Matshedisho, 2010; Swart & Greyling, 2011). For example, in his study of the experiences of disabled students at three South African universities, Crous (2004b) found that 67.3 % of disabled students believed that their lecturers had limited knowledge of disabilities. Where lecturers thus seemed unhelpful, students often related it to their lack of awareness regarding disability rather than a pure unwillingness to help them (Matshedisho, 2010; Swart & Greyling, 2011). Since the level of awareness differed from lecturer to lecturer, it should come as no surprise that in general there was no consistency across departments. At SU, for example, students in the Humanities and Social Sciences experienced more support and adaptations than students in the Natural and Economic and Business Sciences (Swart & Greyling, 2011).

107 In some studies, students suggested that lecturers should be trained to work with students with disabilities (Crous, 2004a; Matshedisho, 2010). At some universities there was evidence that showed that some institutions made efforts to raise awareness on disability. At the University of Cape Town, for example, awareness was built into students‟ medical training. In a study by Amosun, Volmink, and Rosin (2005), medical students were asked to use wheelchairs for a week in an attempt to gain insight into the lives of disabled students. At SU, disabled students themselves were actively involved with advocacy and raising awareness. These students, through the student association body for students with disabilities (Dis-Maties), held an annual “Dinner in the dark” function, in an attempt to make people aware of living with a visual impairment. Yet, it seemed like these efforts at awareness were mostly directed to fellow able-bodied students, rather than making provision for lecturers.

Yet, sometimes lecturers did not provide disabled students with support because they were simply not aware that a disabled student was attending their classes. In the study by Crous (2004b), 63.4% of participating students did not disclose their disability to lecturers. There are various reasons for this. First, students were sometimes under the impression that disability units or the university administration would transfer their information to relevant lecturers. Yet, in many instances this did not happen (Crous, 2004b; Naidoo, 2010) and in instances like these, disabled students had to mediate and communicate with disability units and lecturers (Naidoo, 2010). Other students did not inform their lecturers or the disability unit of their disability because they were afraid of their prejudices and possible discrimination (Crous, 2004a; FOTIM, 2011).

In other instances, lecturers and disability units remained unaware of disabled students on university campuses because disabled students were not aware of the existence of support services (Bell, 2013; Crous, 2004b; FOTIM, 2011). The FOTIM (2011) report, for example,

108 found that students, especially those from mainstream schools, often “stumbled” upon

disability services of the university by chance. This suggests that disability units should make a greater effort to market their services and to make it visible for disabled students.

Despite these negative experiences with lecturers, there were also accounts where lecturers went out of their way to accommodate disabled students (Swart & Greyling, 2011). At SU, students reported that friendly, patient and kind lecturers really made a positive difference in their lives.

Worryingly, however, is the underlying thread of the reliance on lecturers and disability units, rather than an acknowledgement of the rights of visually impaired students. Matshedisho (2010) ascribed this focus to the distance between formal and real rights for disabled students in a country, such as South Africa, where human rights were violated for centuries. He goes on arguingwhere political power is still unbalanced and where a country is still plagued by poverty, it is difficult to enforce formal rights. Therefore disabled students are still dependent on the attitudes of individual lecturers and disability support staff.