The Need for Separating

University Management
and Administration from
Service Delivery:
Reviewing Disability Policy
at Four HEIs in Wales

Jonathan Bishop
Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems, UK

ABSTRACT
This chapter looks at how suitable the current equality policies of Waless universities are to compete
in the current economic climate and the changes needed to deliver best value to people with disabilities
and all other taxpayers. The chapter makes the finding that universities are too bloated, by carrying
out functions, which in Wales could be better handled by the public sector that is under direct control
of the Welsh Governments education minister. This would involve learning from how the telecoms and
energy companies work UK wide, so that HEFCfW becomes an infrastructure provider, Estyn would
become responsible for ensuring the equality of access to higher education and ensuring the standards
of university education. Universities would thus consist mainly of teaching and research staff, optimising
how they use the infrastructure to attract the most students to their degrees, which are homogenised. The
chapter makes clear, however, that whilst this policy would likely work in Wales, it would be unlikely to
in England, perhaps allowing clear red water between governments.

INTRODUCTION
Much of the Western hemisphere is engaged in an age of austerity in terms of national economic policy
(Roy & Buchanan, 2015). This has resulted in cuts to welfare payments to some of the most vulnerable
groups in society as part of an ideological battle to reduce public spending and taxes at the same time as

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9850-5.ch014


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

trying to repay debts that have not fallen due and grow an economy without increasing investment and
encouraging consumption (Loopstra et al., 2015). The budget cuts of the UK Government have been
passed on to the devolved regions, which in turn have been passed on to the local governmental bodies
they are responsible for, who in turn have passed it on to their service users, who especially in the case
of people with disabilities often have no one to pass their loss onto. Cutting public services can therefore
be seen to adversely affect those people for whom taxes are meant to be collected to support through
social programmes (Sandhu & Stephenson, 2015).
Labours Prime Minister Tony Blair promised education, education, education (Hodgson & Spours,
2013) and his opposite number in the Welsh Government, First Minister Rhodri Morgan, promised
clear red water between his administration and that of Tony Blairs (Moon, 2012). As they are both
members of same political party this it can therefore be argued that education policy in Wales needs to
follow a more statist agenda compared to the more market-given approach in England (Hawkes, 2013).
It has been argued that the Welsh Government is already committed to a specifically planned rather
than a market-led approach to the organisation of its higher education sector (Waring, 2013). It should
therefore be appropriate to find means by which the freedoms to direct ones own educational destiny so
encouraged by Tony Blair can be realised in Wales, where there is a lack of willingness to use the private
sector to increase standards, can instead be done through the public sector to achieve the same outcomes.

BACKGROUND
Education and public policy in the United Kingdom has in general followed a two and fro between the
political party claiming to support leftist policies to the one claiming to represent the right-wing. In the
case of the left wing the Liberal and Labour Parties have represented this section of the population, and
the Conservative Party has represented the right. The Liberal Democrats, which formed from a merger
between the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party had tried to gain favour with the left or right
depending on where they were contesting elections. Since their coalition with the Conservatives and
the 13 years of New Labour there had been demands for a new party of the left, which some saw as the
Green Party. The difficulty for the Conservative Party had been the rise of the UK Independence Party,
which attempted to triangulate the territory the Conservatives always held in terms of being stronger on
immigration than Labour or the Liberal Democrats. However, as a result of the first-past-the-post system,
the Conservatives were elected with a majority, meaning that they will be able to deliver market-based
public policy without hindrance. It might be that as a result of devolution, Wales will be privileged in
that it will have a consistent approach to how it governs its affairs due to most of the parties in Wales
agreeing to a more statist line on public policy.

Higher Education Policy in Wales

Much of the expansion of higher education in Wales and throughout the UK during the early part of the
twenty-first century was accommodated by a number of government initiatives (Jackson, 2013). Since
then the Welsh Assembly has matured into a de facto parliament with an executive and legislature,
with strategic policies. This has included schemes like Cwricwlwm Cymreig, which seeks to embed an
appreciation of Wales, the Welsh language and Welsh culture more generally (Murphy & Laugharne,
2013; Turnbull, 2003). There is also an Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

(ESDGB) strategy that seeks to integrate a socially responsible ethos into Welsh education establishments, including universities.

Learning from the Privatization of Public Utilities and Services in Great Britain
Successive UK Governments since the 1980s has taken steps to move towards privately run public utilities and services, which has led to what can see as a best practice. Under the Conservative Governments
(1979-1997) this included privatising British Rail, British Telecom, and British Gas. Under New Labour
(1997-2010) this included part privatisation of Royal Mail, greater involvement of the private sector in
schools, and further deregulation of the telecoms markets. And under the Coalition Government that
came to power in 2010 there was the full privatisation of Royal Mail, privatisation of parts of the National
Health Services in the form of franchises, and dissolution of other public services.
One might consider the Coalitions policy of franchising off NHS hospitals as nonsensical. A private
monopoly is no better than a public monopoly, and so restricting the public to accessing a private hospital
offers no benefits to restricting access to publicly owned and run hospitals. The previous Conservative
Governments approach to railways, telecoms and energy - where the infrastructure is managed by one
company and the service provision a different one, at the same time as having a publicly funded regulator offers greater advantage in terms of meeting the needs of different people. People with disabilities
are known to have very different needs to those without any impairment, and so furthering this effective
model of separating regulation, infrastructure management and service provision, might offer some
benefits to people with disabilities if it were adopted in the provision of education.

MODELS OF DISABILITY AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS PROVISION

Disability policy is generally thought of in terms of three models, namely the medical model, the
recovery model and the social model. The medical model states that any deviant behaviour or social
practices can be described using medical diagnostic criteria and treated with medication or other therapy
on an on-going basis if it cannot be cured (Conrad, 1975). The recovery model states that it is peoples
lifestyles and outlooks that lead them to be deviant, and that by changing these any medical symptoms
will disappear. The social model, on the other hand, says any so-called deviance is as a result of a
society not recognising individual difference and that if it did there would be no problems arising out
of the difference some perceive as deviant (Oliver, 1993). Since the 1980s disability policy in the UK
has generally followed the social model. Whilst this is still the case in policies handled by the Welsh
Government, in the UK Government policy has shifted towards the recovery model, where it is argued
by them that people with disabilities wouldnt have them if they changed their attitudes to themselves
and work (Perkins & Slade, 2012).

The Margaret Thatcher Government

The education policy of the Margaret Thatcher government of 1979 to 1990 can be seen to reflect that of
trying to enhance the individual abilities of each person by being educated in an environment in which
their individual strengths can be maximised (Galloway, 2001). The Education Act 1981 introduced the
concept of statementing, which is where local education authorities have a responsibility to children


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

with special educational needs, requiring them to specify what individual support they need to have in
order to attain the same outcomes as people without a disability (Gibson, 2013; Hannon, 1982). In terms
of higher education, the Thatcher Government introduced Disabled Students Allowances to provide
additional support for students with disabilities to cover the extra support needed (Butler, 1986). Overall
the impact of Thatcher was to make education individualist and for more money to be spent on enabling
achievement in people with special educational needs. This was not always adopted by Labour Party run
local education authorities, resulting in judicial reviews such as R v Mid Glamorgan County Council
(ex parte Bishop). Cases like this led to reforms under John Major to ensure that the support for learners
with disabilities intended by Thatcher were implemented (Wise & Whittaker, 2012).

The John Major Government

he attitude of both John Major and Margaret Thatcher was that the ancient universities had failed to secure
fair access and that it was only by making the university market more competitive that change would
happen in favour of those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Trow, 1996). Reforms by both in terms of
wanting degrees to be modular allows for the transferring between universities, which was envisaged
as a means to increase standards (Agre, 1999).The Education Act 1996 exits in its modified form even
post-devolution, with it being the basis on which compulsory education is provided in both England and
Wales. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 set up separate funding councils for higher education in Wales, Scotland and England, and for further education in Wales and England (McNay, 1994;
Raffe & Croxford, 2013). The latter created the opportunity for former polytechnic or technical colleges
to become universities. The John Major Governments contribution can therefore be seen as expanding
opportunities to access universities beyond the elitism that would come from only a small number of
institutions being classed as universities (Jong, 2012).

The Tony Blair and Rhodri Morgan Governments

During the early years of the Tony Blair administration (1997-2007) higher education followed the
same policy framework as John Major would likely have followed if he had been re-elected, namely the
introduction of tuition fees after an independent inquiry and further expansion of university education
(Hillman, 2013; Ward, 2014). The subsequent appointment of Rhodri Morgan as Welsh First Minister
(2000-2009) included Jane Davidson as Education Minster (2000-2007) and Jane Hutt (2007-2009).
The impact of Jane Davidson saw tuition fees subsidised by the Welsh Government after the Education
Act 2005 gave them the powers to do so, and whilst there was an expansion in university provision she
sought to reduce the number of universities (Drowley, Lewis, & Brooks, 2013). Disabled Students Allowances were continued and increased value both in England and Wales.

The Gordon Brown and 1st Carwyn Jones Governments

The Gordon Brown Government (2007-2010) in terms of education was little different to that of Tony
Blair, continuing with the reform of secondary education through providing further choice in the form
of academies, and continuing to allow new universities to be created, as had been the UK Governments
policy since the 1990s. The first Carwyn Jones Government (2009-2011) had as its education minister
Leighton Andrews, who succeeded Jane Hutt (2007-2009). Andrews sought to reform universities in order


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

to improve standards (McClaran, 2010). He thus continued Jane Davidsons drive to reduce the number
of higher education institutions at the same time as increasing access to university (Drowley et al., 2013).

The David Cameron and 2nd Carwyn Jones Governments

The second Carwyn Jones Government (2011-Present) continued with Leighton Andrews until 2013,
where higher education policy focussed on making organisations efficient. Andrewss efforts in reducing
the numbers of universities was successful in so far as at the time of writing the University of Glamorgan
and University of Wales, Newport, had merged, but he was not able to convince Cardiff Metropolitan
University, formerly the University of Wales Institute Cardiff to join them to form a Technical University
of the Valleys prior to leaving office (Matthews, 2012). Cardiff Metropolitan University alleged this was
because Leighton Andrews had not presented a business case. It was later reported in the South Wales
Echo on 2 October 2014 that Cardiff Mets legal fees had increased six-fold during the period of 2010
to 2014, with it falling to 90 in the league tables in September 2014. Leighton Andrews was replaced
with Huw Lewis in 2013. Huw Lewiss contribution to the enhancement of disability provision sends
mixed messages. He did not change the amounts of money available for specialist support for students
with disabilities through the Disabled Students Allowance, but did introduce a stricter regime about what
money could be spent on. Other changes that might come about as a result of Huw Lewiss involvement
is the harmonisation of assessment and provision of support for people with disabilities giving rise to
special educational needs, which will collectively be termed additional learning needs. This study will
therefore not focus on how students with disabilities have their special educational needs assessed, but
how the way in which the system in which they are conducted and implemented are organised.

A CASE STUDY INTO THE DISABILITY POLICIES AND

PRACTICES OF UNIVERSITIES IN WALES
Universities have often seen themselves as being privileged and what can be termed a law unto themselves. In many institutions someone claiming an external right such as requesting a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 or the Equality Act 2010 are treated less favourably
because they are seen to be interfering with the operations of the club in which they are part.

The Cases
This study reviews documents and other information relating to the provision of disability support at
four universities in Wales. These are Cardiff Metropolitan University, the University of Glamorgan, Aberystwyth University and Cardiff University. These universities were selected as a convenience sample
as records were easily accessible for investigation.

Methodology
The methodology chosen was a documentary analysis. This involved the interrogation of documents
for where they contained the types of statement in Table 1. The statements selected were those that
expressed information relating to the institutions attitude or policies towards students with disabilities.


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

Table 1. Types of statement investigated in documents from universities and their staff
Statement Type

Descriptions

Methods

Methods are the way a person, community or institution carry out things, such as the tasks they perform and
services they provided. A method that is discriminatory might be requiring students to do coursework a given
way that is not suited to someone with their disability.

Rules

Rules are those values, norms or policies that affect how those within a community or institution must act.
A rule is discriminatory where it requires a disabled person to do one thing, but not expecting the same from
others such as demanding a disabled student provide access to their medical records.

Enmities

Enmities are those persons inside or outside an organisation or community that a person finds are not
congruent with their best interests. An enmity in a university might be a welfare officer who has their own
ideas on how people with disabled people should be treated which is not compatible with the law or that
disabled persons needs.

Amities

Amities are those persons who provide a supportive or friendly presence within or beyond an organisation.
An example would be a person who treats a disabled person favourably where others may be discriminating
against them.

Memes

Memes are those beliefs or opinions a person, community or institution holds that are pervasive among their
members. This could include a belief that disabled people should not be treated more favourably than nondisabled people.

Strategies

Strategies are those goals or objectives that affect why a community or institution might treat a disabled person

Results
The results of the study revealed key differences in how the university handled disclosure and assessment of needs, assignment criteria and assessment, the provision of specific technology support, and
the provision of support workers.

General Policy and Attitude towards Accommodating Additional Learning Needs

There were significant differences between the three universities investigation with regards to their attitude towards students with special educational needs and the extent to which accommodations were
made. In terms of meeting the rules in the Equality Act 2010 with regards to changing policies, provisions
or criteria Cardiff Universitys policy was that evidence was required for [a]nything that is seen as an
alteration to usual practice. This evidence-based approach would be expected to be adopted elsewhere
but this was not the case. Students at Cardiff Metropolitan University were looked at with suspicion if
they want to operate outside the universitys support system. I dont think [the student] will produce
bills that will meet the figures in red below but I dont know how much support [the student has] had
and have no way of verifying it, one member of staff commented. If he is choosing specific s/w for his
study I want a justification why this is DSAable and why he isnt purchasing it himself?? was another
comment they made.
The UK higher education system include a number of assessment centres in various geographical
locations that provide students with disabilities the chance to have an objective and independent assessment called a needs assessment (Clark, 2007; Draffan, Evans, & Blenkhorn, 2007). This is the
higher education equivalent of a statement of special educational needs. How the universities use this
is however quite inconsistent. For instance Cardiff Metropolitan University stated in one document that
even though students can attend an independent assessment centre this did not negate the need for the


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

[university to gain access to] medical records prior to enrolment. The University of Glamorgan was
clear that reasonable adjustments would have to be suitable for all students My concern is to ensure
the learning opportunities of the majority of students are not disrupted by the action of one individual
student, one record stated. A UWIC member of staff said: Reasonable adjustments need to ensure that
disabled students difficulties are accounted for so as to ensure everybody is equal. They cannot be used
to create an unfair advantage in terms of unfairly aiding their academic achievement. It is clear that the
attitude towards students with disabilities is often based on attitudes to students without disabilities and
the effect changes have on them even though they have no impairment.

Disclosure, Independence and Continuity of Support

Whether a student could be independent, be required to disclose their disabilities, or whether support
was carried over from other providers depended on the university in question. Cardiff University stated
to one student: Regarding support funded via the Disabled Students Allowance you can, of course,
liaise with the funding body directly if you prefer. A spokesperson for Cardiff Metropolitan University
on the other hand said to a student that it cant comment on what has been done in the past at different
universities-only explain to you how we manage support here.
It was quite clear that UWICs position was that a students support arrangements should not be allowed to be consistently applied at all universities, especially theirs. In relation to one student they were
recorded as saying:
Were very aware of [this students] concerns and are trying to support [them[ appropriately. Unfortunately some of [their[ support was instigated prior to [them arriving at UWIC (on previous courses)
and it was continued into his study here. This wouldnt have necessarily been accepted by us and has
made the organisation of his support quite difficult subsequently. I understand [their] need to control
[their] support but his expectations of appropriate support arent always consistent with ours vis-a-vis
acad standards/boundaries/educationally related/appropriate fee etc.
This was quite a different approach from that taken by the University of Glamorgan. [The student]
was supplied with a range of assistive technology and software for [their] previous studies and much of
this equipment will meet [the students] need for this current course, one document stated. On this basis,
the Needs Assessment discussion focused upon identifying additional equipment that may be required,
it concluded. There was no documentation relating to Aberystwyth or Cardiff indicating whether they
would or would not continue support arrangements from previous study.
In terms of the independence of the student in specifying and arranging their support independently
clear differences were evident. Cardiff University said to one student: Regarding support funded via
the Disabled Students Allowance you can, of course, liaise with the funding body directly if you prefer,
adding: You can register with us at any point so if you prefer you can wait to see if this is necessary.
UWIC, however, insisted on a more direct involvement. Im responsible for the development and implementation of disability policy and am responsible for ensuring legal compliance across UWIC regarding
disability issues and providing specialist advice and guidance where required, one member of staff said.
The University of Glamorgan on the other hand suggested minimum use of external medical evidence
was required Im sure that many of the reasonable adjustments that we (ie the University) would wish


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

to make in respect of [the students] academic experience here will be sufficiently supported by a statement from the Medical Officer, one piece of correspondence said.

Assessment Methods
Attitudes towards making changes to assessment methods by the universities were clearly split between the
given universities. The University of Glamorgan and Cardiff University were willing to make changes to
accommodate students with disabilities, but Cardiff Metropolitan University and Aberystwyth University
were not willing to. Claims were made in one document that respective regulations require UWIC to
take cognisance of academic standards in implementing any support. Cardiff University on the other
hand said that providing evidence in support of adjustments would also include any alterations to assessment. In the case on one student changes were made to the word-count so that 3,500 words could
be used instead of 2,000 subject to the University receiving supporting documentation via the Disability
and Dyslexia Service. When a similar request was made at Aberystwyth University a student was told:
Support had been available to you from the University and your Department to pursue your studies.
However it is not University policy to extend this support to allowing additions to word limits and also:
Aberystwyth University does not adjust the word lengths of dissertations to take account of any disability
or learning needs. The University does not add marks to compensate for special circumstances or needs
of any kind. The University does not allow appeals to question the academic judgement of examiners.
In one document it was clear that the University of Glamorgan took an inclusive approach to making
reasonable adjustments that makes what is available to students with disabilities available to all students.
Firstly, one student has requested that they undertake their [assessment electronically] rather than face
to face for personal and business reasons, it said. This opportunity can be afforded to all of you.

Provision of Specific Technology Support

There were significant differences between the universities in terms of how they dealt with the use of
specialist technology, such as computer hardware and software. In relation to one student, Cardiff University said that where an independent recommendation had been made for a student to have a particular
piece of computer equipment that they would seek to help obtain it if funds were not easily accessible
from the Disabled Students Allowance. The decision to fund this (the computer) once the assessment
has been sent will initially lie with [the funding body] as disability advisers are no longer allowed to
make requests for items of equipment, they said. This situation though doesnt mean that we would
not challenge decisions made by [the funding body] on your behalf, we would be happy to do so and
with your permission work with the needs assessor to help make the case as strongly as possible. Cardiff Metropolitan University on the other hand was of the view that only that hardware and software
provided internally should not be disability specific but any additional funding must be spent on that
equipment designated for people with disabilities. Unless I hear significantly differently I believe its
s/w [the student] is choosing for [their] research and should self fund, one member of UWIC staff said.
We are also looking into alternatives internally [the student] could make use of, they continued. This
was followed up with a further statement at a later date saying: Further to this IT have just confirmed
we dont have any of the items hes requested so that kills that idea and we will need to progress with
purchase. This clearly shows that to UWIC, making technological adjustments for people with disabilities is a big ask. This contrasts with the University of Glamorgan, who simply said to one student:


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

Could you please make a list of the software you requested to one of our tutors and ask them to write a
sentence or two confirming the software is essential for your course. Aberystwyth Universitys policy
stated they made adjustments including making effective use of technology and a one-stop shop approach to enable easier access for all, and there appeared to be no objection from them in supporting
the technology recommendations from needs assessments.

Provision of Support Workers

There was little difference between most of the universities with respect to the provision of support
workers. Cardiff University allowed students to self-manage their support workers, as did the University
of Glamorgan and Aberystwyth University. In the case of UWIC, it was stated in relation to one student
that the requirement to work with [the student] on a one to one basis [gives rise to a] legitimate concern
to request access to the [students] medical records so that it could arrange for an informed assessment
to be carried out, not only to enable them to assess [the students] support needs. This contrasts with
Cardiff University, which said that to provide one-to-one provision only evidence that is relevant to
the adjustment requested for consideration was required. In relation to one student a UWIC member
of staff said to them in relation to their self-management of a support worker that although they would
like to manage this as independently as possible and prefer to utilise staff they are already using that
they must be clear that students are taking up support which is appropriate/quality controlled/academically suitable and necessary/and demonstrates reasonable expenditure of public funds. The staff that
are at Cardiff Metropolitan University therefore seem to be of the view that support workers can affect
academic standards.

Dealing with Unplanned Events

In relation to unplanned events, only Cardiff Metropolitan University (UWIC) and the University of
Glamorgan had any data available. In terms of the University of Glamorgan, when a student experienced
a psychotic episode they were allowed time to recover and then their studies resumed without question,
leading to the completion of their degree. At UWIC, however, a student experiencing a psychotic episode
was not automatically allowed back. The University would need to obtain updated medical evidence
when [the student is] ready to resume [their] studies and prior to [them] re-enrolling, one document
said. Another stated: I have requested access to [the students] medical records to enable the University
to consider how fully to discharge its statutory responsibilities prior to [their] re-enrolment. A further
document stated: Once we have contacted [the students] GP and have the full medical evidence we
will be able to determine how we may proceed with [the students] application to rejoin the course. This
clear difference between the two universities should be something of concern, as it is a virtual post-code
lottery in terms of the ability of students with mental health difficulties to postpone and resume studies
when they encounter difficulties managing their condition.

CLASSIFYING THE DISABILITY EQUALITY MODELS OF WELSH UNIVERSITIES

The differences between the universities in terms of how they offer support to students with disabilities
should be of concern to education policy makers. Students with disabilities requiring order and consis-


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

tency, such as autism spectrum conditions, can find the fact that they enjoy one benefit by one university,
yet are denied by another confusing and in some cases distressing. This section therefore aims to define
the different approaches taken to disability policy by the various universities in order to assist students
with disabilities in assessing the benefits of not only the universities investigation, but ones with similar
profiles also.
As can be seen from Table 2, only the University of Glamorgan scored the highest possible marks
in regards to the themes drawn out of the data. The University of Glamorgans policy is that students
can disclose conditions to the disability service that then verify them and provide only the reasonable
adjustments needed to tutors and not the medical conditions that give rise to disabilities. In the case
of the data investigated advice was needed only from an internal medical officer. Equally it was found
that they would work within the recommendations of an independent assessment centre. An interesting
finding in relation to reasonable adjustments at the University of Glamorgan was that if they offered an
adjustment to a student with a disability, they then also offered it to other students. One might therefore
call the disability policy used at the University of Glamorgan inclusive universal adjustment, as their
policies are designed to accommodate the needs of all students, even those who have not disclosed a
disability but would benefit from an adjustment a student who has disclosed is getting.
Cardiff Universitys model of disability could be called inclusive individual adjustment, because
they make changes on a case-by-case basis to each individual student with a recognised disability. As can
be seen from Table 1, they require medical evidence, but this is minimal and they do not require medical records. Compare this to Cardiff Metropolitan University (UWIC), where a student was required to
provide access to their medical records in order for adjustments to be put in place. UWIC was the only
university to score negative on all the criteria drawn from the data.
Cardiff Metropolitan Universitys model of disability could be called populist inclusionism. This is
so named as UWICs approach is based on a populist approach to education in order to achieve a form
of inclusion that plays to the lowest common denominator. Cardiff Mets focus is for both students with
and without disabilities to be treated exactly the same and they tried to do this by referring to academic
standards. In other words, UWIC are not willing to make any additional provisions for disabled students
if it meant their access to resources and the summative assessment they were subject to was different
from that of other students.
Aberystwyth Universitys model of disability could be called natural inclusionism, on the basis
that if a student is able to take part without any changes to the programme of study then they will suc-

Table 2. Overview of reasonable adjustment provision

Standard Offerings

UoG

CU

AU

UWIC

Makes changes to assessment

Does not require medical information

Does not require medical records

Recognise previous support

Allow students to self-manage support

Allows specialist software support

The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

ceed, but they should not expect any adjustments to the course, beyond those that are required for them
to take part in it.
As can be seen from Figure 1, there are clear links between the disability score derived from this
study as set out in Table 1 Overview of reasonable adjustment provision and data available on universities
from the Office for the Independent Adjudicator. This data was manipulated using Equation 1, which is
where N is the number of students, C is the number of Completion of Procedures (CoP) Letters issued
when complaints conclude, and k is a transformer with the value of 1000. Equation 1 produces a dissatisfaction weighting, which will be used to compare the university. The highest performing university
(i.e. University of Glamorgan) had a disability equality score of 6 and a dissatisfaction weighting of
6.02. The lowest performing university (i.e. Cardiff Metropolitan University) had a disability equality
score of 0 and a dissatisfaction weighting of 12.94. This clearly shows that those universities with the
best opportunities for students with disabilities are likely to produce an overall satisfactory experience
for all students.
d=

N
C
k

Equation 1 Computing Dissatisfaction Weighting

A MODEL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN WALES

Based on the qualitative data it is clear to see that there are too many hoops that people with disabilities
need to jump through in order to get the support they need. There is the assessment centre, the funding
body, the universitys student services, and the students academic team. As was shown in the data, there
are mixed messages from all of these, which need to be dealt with. The quantitative data showed that
the universities with the highest disability equality scores (e) have the lowest dissatisfaction scores. This
Figure 1. Metrics associated with the four universities investigated


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

means that reforms to universities to increase equality for people with disabilities will have a beneficial
impact for all students. This section therefore discusses how the model of service provision used for the
energy and telecoms markets that have developed since the privatisation of the 1980s can be used along
with other emanations of the state to provide a higher standard of provision for students with disabilities.
An overview of this model is Figure 2 shows how this proposed model for reforming universities in
Wales can compare with those used in gas and telecoms throughout the UK.

The Publicly Accountable Authority

The first level of the model is a publicly accountable authority, which is directed by central or regional
government, which would take over much of the non-teaching staff from the universities. This would
include the Welsh Governments education department, which would take over the administrative staff.
Bodies like the school inspectorate Estyn could take over the inspecting of university standards and be
the Welsh equivalent of the three English bodies, Office for Fair Access to Education, Ofqual and Ofsted,
which in the case of the latter it already is. Those responsible for financing of disability support, such
as disability service managers, would be offered the chance to work for Student Finance Wales; losing
control for all aspects of disability provision they currently have at universities, which would consist
primarily of teaching staff. Technical staff employed by universities such as in estates and IT support
would be transferred to HEFCfW, which would become the infrastructure provider.

The Infrastructure Provider and Infrastructure Being Provided

In the telecoms, rail and energy markets there is a clear identifiable infrastructure provider. This is BT
for telecoms, Network Rail for railways and Centrica for gas. This model has meant capacity in these
networks has increased, making the offerings of service providers that much more substantial. It could
Figure 2. A model for providing public services partnering cooperation with competition


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

therefore be argued that such a provider needs to exist in the case of higher education institutions. A
provider, which could be an expanded version of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
(HEFCfW), which would acquire all the properties of the universities and colleges in Wales and then
sell their use back to the universities as social providers. HEFCfW is already responsible for university
funding and auditing, so taking on a role of ensuring fair access to universities, such as through the
location or relocation of buildings into areas in need of education, would be an effective choice in the
case of Wales. Whilst higher education in Wales has not been that geographically distanced from the
general population unlike England and Scotland, this has been because local universities do not require
a substantial movement across space (Baker, Brown, & Williams, 2014). However, in order to reach out
to all peoples, some form of mobility is necessary.

The Homogenised Products Being Sold

The telecoms, rail, and energy providers work as a competitive market because what they sell has been
homogenised. Gas and electricity doesnt really change in how it is composed, and the functions of trains
are pretty standard. As a result of the Bologna process, degree structures and content is being harmonised
in order to enable students to study the same degree at multiple universities across Europe. This means
a near perfect competition model could be available, where choice of provider is the main factor for a
consumer, in this case a learner. A student studying in Wales could therefore choose their degree - such
as a LLB in Law with Psychology - and then choose which university to get the tuition from on the basis
of factors such as where the teaching occurs, bursaries, teaching style, among others. It might be that
someone doing such an LLB would want their legal training from the University of Glamorgan and their
psychology training from Cardiff University. At the end of the day they would get the same degree, but
the university it was awarded by would be the one of their choosing, such as where they sat their last
examination. With the involvement of Estyn as an inspector then ensuring these degrees are compatible
with Welsh Government objectives, such as Cwricwlwm Cymreig and ESDGB.

The Service Providers

HEFCfW would be required to lease the use of buildings to universities, in the same way BT leases access to its phone lines to telecoms providers like Sky or TalkTalk, and the way Centrica leases the use
of its gas pipes to energy providers like British Gas and ScottishPower. Students would choose where
to get their education on factors important to them. In the same way that TalkTalk or Sky might offer
a customer a better offer in one area or another, so that universities would seek to maximise their supply of lecturers to meet the demand of individual students who make the decision about where to get
their education on the basis of getting the best deal in this spending decision as others such as energy
or telecoms provider.
The risk process of university mergers could thus be avoided, and as a result students could choose
universities like any other brand. A course offered by the University of Glamorgan, which is based in
Pontypridd, could be provided in the city campus in Newport if enough people from that locality wanted
to be taught by University of Glamorgan lecturers. This would build on the market-driven Elevate Cymru
programme which offers additional learning to employees in West Wales & The Valleys as and when
required. This would mean that students would go to the provider that is best from them, and as each
student number would be important to these universities, they would need to accommodate the needs of


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

all students - including students with disabilities - in order to get the flow of tuition fees needed, regardless of whether it is paid by the student or the state.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This study has looked at the policies of four higher education establishments in Wales in relation to how
they ensure disability equality. It found that practices among universities were often inconsistent, with
disabled students at some universities, like Cardiff Metropolitan University, getting less than students
at others, most notably the University of Glamorgan. The study has thus recommended that the Welsh
Government use its leverage in terms of the civil service to take over many university functions in relation to administration and management. This includes making HEFCfW being responsible for ensuring
disability equality in infrastructure such as buildings, Estyn being responsible for ensuring equality in
curriculum and qualifications, leaving universities to be responsible for teaching only.
Wales, being a country dependent on the public sector, could as a result of this policy get the benefits
of both having a university structure that is driven by students and their needs, whilst leveraging the
civil service to avoid the duplication and inconsistencies that occurs at existing universities. The drive
for a reduction in the number of universities would therefore be unnecessary, because the only thing left
of universities would be their brand and the core workforce that the students buy-into and deal with on
a day-to-day basis. This may resemble more the collegial approach taken in top universities in England
like Oxford and Cambridge, which would likely increase satisfaction if the way universities operated
was similar. The policy as set out in this chapter would be unlikely to work in England, however, which
is much more market driven and dependence on the public sector would therefore stifle innovation.
Equally, the use of HEFCfW as the owner of the university infrastructure would offer little benefit
in England, whereas in Wales where the expansion in university estates is based on debt, such as by
Swansea University, a de facto nationalisation of them could prevent such debts going out of control.
An impact assessment if the policies set out in this chapter were adopted would be needed, especially
to see whether it can be further generalised, such as to Waless health service. For instance one body
could own the hospitals in Wales, such as from a Wales-wide merger of the Health Boards, which could
include private hospitals like those provided by Spire Healthcare. The managers and other non-health
professionals could become part of the Welsh Governments health department, with only doctors, nurses
and other frontline staff like cleaners being under the NHS brand and other providers like Bupa, Tesco
and AXA being required to use the same hospitals as the NHS.

DISCUSSION
The global financial crisis that resulted in the recapitalisation of the banks through the Crass Keynesianism of Western Governments has created unprecedented challenges for government in re-balancing
their spending as the many pay the price for the greedy few. In the case of Wales, which has an economy
based significantly around the public sector, this is having huge problems as its devolved administration
the Welsh Government seeks to balance the books. One area that should be of particular concern is
ensuring that equality of access to higher education is not restricted.


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

This chapter has looked at how suitable the current equality policies of Waless universities are to this
climate and the changes needed to deliver best value to people with disabilities and all other taxpayers.
To do this, four universities were investigated the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff University and Aberystwyth University. A document analysis was performed, looking at
documents produced over a period of 16 years, finding significant differences in the way students with
disabilities are able to access higher education.
The study finds that whilst the University of Glamorgan made changes to assessment methods, they
had minimal requirements for medical information. They also accepted past and current recommendations
of support - this wasnt the case elsewhere. Cardiff Metropolitan University (UWIC) for instance, would
not allow the purchasing of specialist software unless it was disability specific indicating that software
should be supplied internally. The only other university to offer adjustment to assessments for people
with disabilities other than Glamorgan was Cardiff University. Aberystwyth University and UWIC both
made clear that they treat students with disabilities exactly the same as non-disabled students, even it
would seem if this placed disabled students at a substantial disadvantage as compared to a student without
disabilities. Another clear difference was in the use of medical evidence. The University of Glamorgan
had its own internal medical officer, meaning the requirement for external medical information often
problematic to obtain and analyse was not present. Cardiff Metropolitan University on the other hand
demands medical records, in particular where a student is requesting to re-enrol following suspending
their studies due to ill-health. UWIC was also of the view that they would not carry on the support disabled students had elsewhere if it was not cognizant with their own policies, even if this disrupted a
students education. Whilst Cardiff University, Aberystwyth University and the University of Glamorgan
allowed students to manage their own support, at Cardiff Metropolitan University insisted that it should
be for their disability services department to manage support to ensure, in their view, that students with
disabilities were not given an advantage over other students who have not declared a disability.
The chapter makes the finding that universities are too bloated, by carrying out functions, which in
Wales could be better handled by the public sector that is under direct control of the Welsh Governments education minister. Aspects of university policy would be better handled at a national level, so
as to ensure that students with disabilities have clarity and consistency in higher education provision
throughout Wales.
This would involve learning from how the telecoms and energy companies work UK wide, which
are very efficient at managing scarce resources, namely bandwidth and fuel supply respectively. The
chapter proposes that that the Higher Education and Funding Council for Wales (HEFCfW) would become an infrastructure provider, like Centrica and BT are in terms of gas and telecoms respectively. It
would be responsible for ensuring fair access to university buildings and would take over all the estates
of Welsh universities, of which many are funded through debt. The schools inspector Estyn would become responsible for ensuring the equality of access to higher education and ensuring the standards of
university education. For instance, they would play a role in ensuring that the assessment methods used
by universities did not disadvantage students with disabilities.
Universities would thus consist mainly of teaching and research staff, optimising how they use the
infrastructure to attract the most students to their degrees, which are homogenised. The Bologna process
has resulted in a commitment to harmonise degrees so that a student could take modules on a programme
in one country and continue the programme by taking modules in another. The mechanism proposed
in this chapter would allow for that to occur at a community level, so for instance medical, culture and
communications students in Cardiff could take their degrees at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

University or Cardiff Metropolitan University as they deem fit. The de facto nationalisation of disability
support would make attending different universities effortless, as the disability support would be put in
place outside of the universities corporate structures.
The chapter does suggest, however, that whilst this policy would likely work in Wales, it would be
unlikely to in England, perhaps allowing clear red water between governments. The proposed policy
would in effect be a nationalisation of the estates of universities, which in England would make things
less efficient and not more so. In England there are already systems like the ones proposed in this paper.
For instance, Oxford University and Cambridge University have a collegial approach, which already
allows students to take lectures in the same buildings as others, even if they are members of different
colleges. The way in which these colleges provide one-to-one support would be possible under the
proposed mechanism, meaning that university education in Wales could develop to the standard seen at
these two world leading higher education institutions.

REFERENCES
Agre, P. E. (1999). Information technology in higher education: The global academic villageand
intellectual standardization. On the Horizon, 7(5), 811.
Baker, S., Brown, B. J., & Williams, E. (2014). Illuminating a resilient rural culture in twentieth century
Y fro gymraeg using bourdieus bearn. Sociologia Ruralis, 54(1), 4056. doi:10.1111/soru.12032
Butler, M. (1986). Visually handicapped students in further and higher education: Some facts and figures.
British Journal of Visual Impairment, 4(1), 1719. doi:10.1177/026461968600400106
Clark, G. (2007). Going beyond our limits: Issues for able and disabled students. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 31(1), 211218. doi:10.1080/03098260601033134
Conrad, P. (1975). The discovery of hyperkinesis: Notes on the medicalization of deviant behavior. Social
Problems, 23(1), 1221. doi:10.2307/799624 PMID:11662312
Draffan, E. A., Evans, D. G., & Blenkhorn, P. (2007). Use of assistive technology by students with dyslexia in post-secondary education. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2(2), 105116.
doi:10.1080/17483100601178492 PMID:19263545
Drowley, M. J., Lewis, D., & Brooks, S. (2013). Merger in higher education: Learning from experiences.
Higher Education Quarterly, 67(2), 201214. doi:10.1111/hequ.12011
Galloway, D. (2001). Jack tizard memorial lecture: Educational reform and the mental health of vulnerable children and young people. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6(04), 150158. doi:10.1017/
S1360641701002702
Gibson, S. (2013). SEN and the question of inclusive education. Education Studies: An Issue Based
Approach, 36(4), 165.
Hannon, V. (1982). The education act 1981: New rights and duties in special education. Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law, 4(5), 275284. doi:10.1080/09649068208414593


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

Hawkes, N. (2013). How different are NHS systems across the UK since devolution? [doi]. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 346, f3066. doi:10.1136/bmj.f3066 PMID:23674337
Hillman, N. (2013). From grants for all to loans for all: Undergraduate finance from the implementation
of the anderson report (1962) to the implementation of the browne report (2012). Contemporary British
History, 27(3), 249270. doi:10.1080/13619462.2013.783418
Hodgson, A., & Spours, K. (2013). New labours new educational agenda: Issues and policies for education and training at 14. Routledge.
Jackson, M. (2013). The squeezed middle: An exploration of creativity, conformity and social class on
the academic achievement of undergraduate students within a UK art school. International Journal of
Art & Design Education, 32(3), 345351. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.12021.x
Jong, S. (2012). Academia s place in european capitalist systems and the conservative reform movement. Economy and Society in Europe: A Relationship in Crisis, 81.
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., Taylor-Robinson, D., Barr, B., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2015). Austerity,
sanctions, and the rise of food banks in the UK. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 350, h1775. doi:10.1136/
bmj.h1775
Matthews, D. (2012). Merge or dissolve - andrews plays his cards in cardiff met row. Times Higher
Educational Supplement.
McClaran, A. (2010). The renewal of quality assurance in UK higher education. Perspectives, 14(4),
108113.
McNay, I. (1994). The regional dimension in strategic planning of higher education. Higher Education
Quarterly, 48(4), 323336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1994.tb01660.x
Moon, D. S. (2012). Rhetoric and policy learning: On rhodri morgans Clear red water and Made in
wales health policies. Public Policy and Administration.
Murphy, A., & Laugharne, J. (2013). Childrens perceptions of national identity in wales. Education
3-13, 41(2), 188-201.
Oliver, M. (1993). Social work: Disabled people and disabling environments. Jessica Kingsley Pub.
Perkins, R., & Slade, M. (2012). Recovery in england: Transforming statutory services? International Review
of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 24(1), 2939. doi:10.3109/09540261.2011.645025 PMID:22385424
Raffe, D., & Croxford, L. (2013). One system or four? CrossBorder applications and entries to Full
Time undergraduate courses in the UK since devolution. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(2), 111134.
doi:10.1111/hequ.12009
Roy, A., & Buchanan, J. (2015). The paradoxes of recovery policy: Exploring the impact of austerity
and responsibilisation for the citizenship claims of people with drug problems. Social Policy and Administration.


The Need for Separating University Management and Administration from Service Delivery

Sandhu, K., & Stephenson, M. (2015). Layers of inequalitya human rights and equality impact assessment of the public spending cuts on black asian and minority ethnic women in coventry. Feminist
Review, 109(1), 169179.
Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective.
Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309324. doi:10.1016/S0952-8733(96)00029-3
Turnbull, J. (2003). Educating for citizenship in wales: Challenges and opportunities. The University of
Wales Journal of Education, 12(2), 6582.
Ward, S. (2014). Creating the enterprising student. Higher Education in the UK and the US: Converging
University Models in a Global Academic World.
Waring, M. (2013). All in this together? HRM and the individualisation of the academic worker. Higher
Education Policy, 26(3), 397419. doi:10.1057/hep.2013.7
Wise, I., & Whittaker, K. (2012). Legal obligations owed towards children with brain injuries. Social
Care and Neurodisability, 3(3), 140148. doi:10.1108/20420911211268768

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Devolution: The process of transferring powers from the United Kingdom Parliament to regional
and national assemblies and parliaments, such as the Welsh Assembly in Wales.
Estyn: Estyn is the non-departmental public body in Wales that is responsible for ensuring the standards of education in primary and secondary education is at an adequate standard.
Higher Education and Funding Council for Wales: The non-departmental government body in
Wales that is responsible for insuring the adequate distribution of public funding to Welsh higher education institutions.
Higher Education Institution: A university or other institution dedicated to providing education at
Level 4 and above, such as bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees.
Inclusive Individual Adjustment: An approach to disability policy where changes are made on a
case-by-case basis to each individual student with a recognised disability.
Nationalisation: The process by which an organisation or undertaking that is independent of a governmental body becomes part of it.
Natural Inclusionism: An approach to disability policy where if a student is able to take part in their
education without any changes to the programme of study then they will succeed, but they should not
expect any adjustments to the course, beyond those that are required for them to take part in it.
Populist Inclusionism: An approach to implementing disability policy that is based on a populist
approach to education that uses a form of inclusion that plays to the lowest common denominator.
University: A higher education institution that has the powers to award its own degrees.