| Path: Home > Book Shop > Journals > Adults Learning > Back Issues > Commentary |
Commentary - November 2007
From compliance to culture change
Much has been done to positively promote disability equality for learners, but for disabled staff it’s a different story, says PETER LAVENDER
The interim report of the Commission for Disabled Staff in Lifelong Learning was launched in September. The report makes you wonder whether we have come very far in ensuring that colleges, universities and education providers are improving the equality and diversity of their staff. Much has been done for learners, it is true, but in the case of the staff it’s a different story.
The Disability Equality Act (2005) introduced a duty on public sector bodies to positively promote disability equality. Most people welcomed this because it is in tune with the prevailing belief that disability is a socially constructed concept in which equal treatment comes through the removal of socially constructed barriers. What this interim report finds, however, is that we have far to go if we want to make a difference to how staff working in the lifelong learning sector in England and Wales are treated. And the results are not yet all in. You still have a little time to get your name on the list of contributors to the full picture. And your views are badly needed.
So far the commission has heard that disabled people are under-represented in the teaching workplace, that there’s less data than we would like and that people working in the sector with a disability by and large get poor support. The belief is that, whatever the social model of disability suggests, if you have a disability or long term disabling condition, you’re the victim, and more likely to leave work than not, or never take this employment route at all.
The cost to the lifelong learning sector of staff not being well supported is immense. Leaving aside the personal cost, there are lost opportunities for role models, wrong messages sent to learners, employers and communities, and the waste of valuable talent. We can ill afford to be so casual about the way we treat disabled colleagues.
The big picture is well rehearsed, but still bleak. More than three million people in Britain aged between 19 and 59 are disabled, using the DDA definition; and of these about 840,000 work in the public sector. Disabled people are twice as likely to have no qualifications (29 per cent compared with 11 per cent); and half as likely to go to university. They are five times as likely to be out of work and claiming benefit. Employment rates for people with mental ill health are low at 20 per cent. Although social attitudes are changing, mental ill health is still perceived to be discomforting to the public. For instance, a 2007 study found that 72 per cent of the public considered someone disabled if they had a visual impairment but only 59 per cent thought the same of those with a mental illness. Now that every public sector body has to have a Disability Equality Scheme in place, there is at last some chance that education providers will have committed to improving opportunities for disabled people. However, although such schemes are intended to protect staff, they are much more concerned about learners. In some schemes the staff are hardly mentioned. And, of course, the private and voluntary sectors needn’t comply at all.
To make a difference requires more than legislation. That’s why the commission argues for culture change. Its findings thus far suggest that blocks to culture change include:
 | poor data on disabled staff in the lifelong learning sector; |
| major improvements for learners but not yet for staff; |
| perceptions that disabled staff cost more; |
| perceptions that disabled staff are absent more often; |
| false assumptions about ‘fitness for work’; and |
| poor use and understanding of the ‘Access to Work’ money. |
For now, the commission wants to hear more about part-time and agency staff; people with mental health difficulties; people from black and minority ethnic groups; younger disabled staff; less qualified staff. And, of course, more about where things work well, what solutions have been found and where the practice is worth sharing. The key issues emerging from the commission’s work are not surprising and relate to:
| disclosure – fewer staff than expected disclose a disability; |
| mental health and well being – fewer staff disclose this or see it as a disability; |
| recruitment and deployment – staff report wide variations in these HR processes; |
| support in the workplace – again, wide variation reported; |
| learning and training opportunities – some poor practice reported. |
As one member of staff observed:
The entire onus for procuring support services lies on the individual. I have therefore spent about one third of my working time trying to secure sign language interpreters… and other support services, rather than focus on my job.
The commission is anxious to obtain evidence on practice, on policies that help and on some of the above issues. Early response means earlier influence, so get your views in now. The chair of the commission, Leisha Fullick, will produce the report for March 2008, when it will be launched in London. To make a difference, tell us what you think!
To respond go to: www.niace.org.uk/commissionfordisabledstaff ; email: Commissionfordisabledstaff@niace.org.uk ; or telephone Caroline Law, 0116 204 4249.
Peter Lavender is Director, Research, Development and Information, NIACE
> View Contents page for this issue
