Nondisabled Peers Research Articles

Lessons learned from a blended telephone/e-health platform for caregivers in promoting physical activity and nutrition in children with a mobility disability

BackgroundChildren with physical disabilities report higher rates of sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy dietary patterns than non-disabled peers. These behaviors can increase comorbidities, caregiver burden, and healthcare costs. Innovative interventions are needed to assist caregivers of children with physical disabilities improve health behaviors. Objective/Hypothesis: The purpose of this pilot study was to test the usability and preliminary efficacy of an e-health and telecoaching intervention compared to telecoaching alone. MethodsParent/child dyads (n = 65) were randomized into either the e-health and telephone group (e-HT) or the telephone only group (TO). All participants received regular calls from a telecoach, and the e-HT group received access to a website with personalized weekly goals for diet and physical activity, and access to resources to meet these goals. At the conclusion of the intervention, participants in the e-HT group were asked to complete a semi-structured interview to discuss the usability of the e-health platform. ResultsFifty of the 65 randomized dyads (77%) completed all baseline measures and had at least one intervention call. Forty families (80% of those that started the intervention) completed the study (50% spina bifida, 24% mobility limitation, diagnosis not reported). Age of the children ranged from 6 to 17 years old. Both groups had high adherence to scheduled phone calls (e-HT (n = 17): 81%, TO (n = 23): 86%); however no significant differences in dietary intake or physical activity were seen within or between groups. Primary themes to emerge from qualitative interviewers were: the platform should target children rather than parents, parents valued the calls more than the website, and schools need to be involved in interventions. ConclusionsE-health interventions are a promising way to promote healthy behaviors in children with physical disability, but technology must be balanced with ease of use for parents while also engaging the child.

Future design of accessibility in games: A design vocabulary

Abstract Games represent one of the most significant cultural artefacts of this century. They are a massive force in economies around the world and are enjoyed by millions of players worldwide. With their cultural significance firmly in place, it is important to ensure that all people can participate in and play games in order to feel included in our wider society. For people with disabilities, games in particular provide a cultural outlet where they can be included with everyone else, and enabled to do things on an even footing with their non-disabled peers. However, this only happens if we create the necessary design environments that provide inclusive opportunities to game alongside the rest of the player base. Guidelines have been successful in raising awareness of accessibility in games and still function well for evaluating finished games. However, they are not the generative design thinking tools that developers need. Further in being divided to address specific disabilities, they are not capturing the diversity of needs of players with disabilities and the personalised and idiosyncratic adaptations that they make in order to play. We therefore propose developing a vocabulary and language of game accessibility which is no longer about whether someone can perceive or operate an interactive technology, but instead as to whether they can have the experience they want to have. We propose the structure for such a vocabulary showing that it needs to distinguish between access to controls, enablement to meet the challenges of the game and the player experience itself. We show how the intermediate-level knowledge embodied in guidelines can be reformulated in this way to be more generative and so support designers to develop games that deliver accessible player experiences.

Seclusion and Restraint of Students With Disabilities: A 1-Year Legal Review

News of teenager’s death in California shocked the special education community in early December 2018. Despite the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act’s provision for positive behavior supports for students with disabilities, these inidividuals continue to be secluded and restrained at disproportionately higher rates than their nondisabled peers. Using the Special Ed Connection® database, the authors identified 11 court cases from 2018 and analyzed their contents based on individualized education program (IEP) behavior components, type of restraints used, and prevalence of seclusion. Within these cases, all 12 included students were boys, four IEPs included behavior components, nine students were physically or mechanically restrained, and two were secluded. A review of the four cases that included the use of positive behavior supports is included.

POWER UP: A Persuasive Writing Strategy for Secondary Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

In the area of written expression, students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) typically perform one to two grades below their same age, non-disabled peers. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on writing interventions to improve these outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a persuasive writing strategy called POWER UP to improve the quality of persuasive essays for secondary students with EBD. The results suggest that a mnemonic strategy based on the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model (SRSD) can improve the quality of persuasive writing essays for secondary students with EBD.

Emotional difficulties and self-harm among British adolescents with and without disabilities: Cross sectional study

BackgroundLittle is known about the prevalence of emotional difficulties and self-harm among adolescents with a disability. ObjectiveOur aims were: (1) to estimate the prevalence of emotional difficulties and self-harm among British adolescents with and without disability; (2) to determine whether prevalence varies by gender, severity of disability and type of functional limitation associated with disability. MethodsSecondary analysis of age 14 data from the UK's Millennium Cohort Study. ResultsAdolescents with disability reported significantly higher rates of emotional difficulties and self-harm than their non-disabled peers. Among participants with and without disability, prevalence rates were notably higher among girls for most outcomes. The strength of the association between disability and emotional difficulties and self-harm was greater for: maternal report of adolescent emotional difficulties; disabled adolescents with moderate/severe activity limitations; and adolescents with psychosocial impairments. ConclusionsThere is a clear need for providers of all mental health services to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made to services to ensure that they are responsive to the specific needs of adolescents with disabilities. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which our results can be generalised to adolescents in other settings, to specific subgroups of adolescents with disabilities, to other measures of emotional difficulties and to other informants. Future research is also needed to further explore the consistency and determinants of the intersection between gender by disability regarding adolescent mental health.

Hate speech harms: a social justice discussion of disabled Norwegians’ experiences

This article presents findings from a survey on hate speech reported by disabled people in Norway. Previous British and American research shows that disabled people are more likely than their non-disabled peers to be the victims of hate speech and hate crime. In our study, 38% reported at least one experience of hate speech during the previous 12 months. The respondents reported a wide range of consequences of hate speech related to psychological, social and societal issues. The findings reveal that people place restrictions on their own lives as a result of being exposed to hate speech, including raising their opinion in public debates. Drawing on the work of Nancy Fraser, we discuss the mechanisms that prevent disabled people from participating in society on equal terms. We conclude that to combat hate speech, transformative strategies need to be applied.

Application of Didactic Strategies as Multisensory Teaching Tools in Organic Chemistry Practices for Students with Visual Disabilities

Visually impaired or blind students require adjustments to the traditional hands-on activities and methodological and didactic strategies employed by the teacher. These adaptations are based on multisensory teaching tools, which reinforce the learning of all students in general. This paper presents simple teaching resources that allow students with visual disabilities to solve problems of Organic Chemistry independently and on an equal footing with their nondisabled peers.

How does disability influence child care arrangements for young children? An examination using the NHES ECPP

Affordable child care is an essential support for families with young children, and quality of care impacts a range of child development outcomes. Still, many families face a number of barriers to accessing high-quality care. Given the necessary resources for raising a child with a disability, high-quality child care may be particularly salient for families with a child with a disability. Yet, these families face additional challenges to accessing appropriate care, and children with disabilities may be less likely to be receiving quality care than their nondisabled peers. Despite these challenges, little empirical work has been done to examine differences in child care arrangements between families who have a child with a disability and those who do not. Using data from the National Household Education Surveys (NHES) Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) surveys, this paper seeks to understand if there are differences in the types of arrangements used. Results suggest young children with disabilities are 50% more likely to be enrolled in formal, center-based care compared to no enrollment in child care and 25% less likely to be enrolled in informal care compared to center-based care than their nondisabled peers, with additional differences by household income and child's age. Findings offer a crucial first step in understanding child care arrangements for young children with disaiblities and indicate that center-based care may be particularly important for families.

Disability and Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Services in Cameroon: A Mediation Analysis of the Role of Socioeconomic Factors.

There is growing evidence showing that people with disabilities face more frequently socioeconomic inequities than their non-disabled peers. This study aims to examine to what extent socioeconomic consequences of disability contribute to poorer access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for Cameroonian with disabilities and how these outcomes vary with disabilities characteristics and gender. It uses data from a population-based survey conducted in 2015 in Yaounde, Cameroon. Mediation analysis was performed to determine how much of the total association between disability and the use, satisfaction and difficulties to access SRH services was mediated by education level, material wellbeing lifetime work participation and availability of social support. Overall, disability was associated with deprivation for all socioeconomic factors assessed though significant variation with the nature and severity of the functional limitations was observed. Lower education level and restricted lifetime work mediated a large part of the association between disability and lower use of HIV testing and of family planning. By contrast, while people with disabilities reported more difficulties to use a SRH service, no mediating was identified. In conclusion, Cameroonians with disabilities since childhood have restricted access to SRH services resulting from socioeconomic factors occurring early during the life-course.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities.

BackgroundHistorically, 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.ObjectivesIn 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.MethodA 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.ResultsBarriers 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.ConclusionAlthough 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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.

Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities

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.