Barriers to study for the disabled

The digital revolution may equip some people with disabilities with the information technology that has the potential, when combined with ongoing political and social struggle, to free our society from the reality of disability.

But, in the digital age “disability” is also socially constructed through such technology, which in itself can prevent adequate solutions to real social problems for disabled people. Many people with disabilities cannot afford to become part of this solution. Besides other barriers, the equipment costs are simply beyond the means of those who survive on the disabled pension. As Goggin and Newell (2003) put it:

It is not so much the latest add-on, the fastest computer, or even the more expansive application or universal design that will confer the greatest benefit for people with disabilities. Rather, we need to recognise that in whatever we do we have the opportunity to disable or enable. We recommend that it is time for society to decide that it wishes to reconnect with people with disabilities in the digital future that will be our emerging society. This is not so much a technological question, as a political one.

The digital revolution can create additional barriers for people with disabilities: for example, by creating a digital divide - a widening of the socioeconomic gap - between people with and those without disabilities, rather than helping to close these gaps.

These gaps are highlighted when the disposable income available through the disability pension is compared with the average disposable income of the able bodied. The digital revolution may be at the forefront of a divide between the educational and interrelated disparities of people with disabilities and most of society’s so-called "normal" members.

People with disabilities need a collective and empathetic approach so as not to add to the social exclusion and impoverishment they already feel compared to mainstream society. They need to be regarded as more than just the stereotype of people with lesser abilities. They need collective assurances that using technology to develop new skills is not an elusive dream.

I am a severely physically disabled person, with a PhD from the University of Melbourne, who has been through this experience. I believed the idea of developing self-esteem through the gaining of a PhD sounded attractive. But many ideas are often attractive in theory but destructive in practice. An example of this is the price of computers: they are not cheap to the average disabled pensioner. Some of the costs involved are:

• a working computer with required software;
• installation - having a motor function type of disability stops me from installing my own computer;
• connection to the Internet and the constant monthly bills; and
• after sales service and constant purchase of the required computer programs and accessories, printing paper and ink.

This takes a large sum of cash from a meager entitlement like the disability pension, which is fixed at about $510 a fortnight, leaving one with little, if any, disposable income for any further computer hardware and software, and upkeep.

Again, this shows the need for continual intervention from government to realise that concepts such as merit are not neutral, but are socially constructed. In this example, my capacity to participate in higher education on the basis of merit is severely constrained by factors like, for example, the inadequate provision of collective entitlements for people with disabilities i.e. limited finances.

Disabled people are often in situations where the social structures around them are inadequate: the dominant political agenda reinforces this with the theory that fewer entitlements creates more empowerment. So by reforming social policy with fewer entitlements, which in turn increases the government’s budget surplus, government can then justifiably reduce taxes.

This is further illustrated by the government’s attack on the Pensioner Education Supplement.

The Liberal Government attempted to change, or reduce entitlements for students with disabilities in the 2003 budget. For example, an email from the co-convener for the Australasian Network of Students with Disabilities (ANSWD) states:

[I]t has been brought to my attention by a member of ANSWD that the Pensioner Education Supplement is to be cut by 25 per cent. This was part of the main welfare reforms in the 2003 budget. They seem to believe that you don't require your Education supplement during the three months vacation [summer 2003 -04]. I would have thought that [many people with disabilities] would have to be preparing for study over the summer break.

The PES is a meagre education supplement that can be applied for by those on the pension, but the government could see wisdom in reducing this already small entitlement.

The Pensioner Education Supplement (PES) was first introduced under the federally funded Austudy/Abstudy scheme in 1987, and since 1998 it has been funded through Centrelink. The Pensioner Education Supplement is to provide those in receipt of a pension with an incentive to further their education, by offering them pecuniary incentives to be used towards the extra cost of study materials. It is a flat payment of about $30 a week and a once-yearly entry into education payment of about $200.

In 2003, Amanda Vanstone, then Minister for Family and Community Services stated in the Senate:

If you take two people who are pensioners - one of whom is not studying and one who is - over the summer break they will be in the same position, because the one who is studying is not attending their university or TAFE course over the summer break and is therefore not in need of the supplement. They will not be without assistance. They will be in the same position as hundreds of thousands of other disability support pensioners who are not undertaking tertiary study.

This drives home the fact many politicians have failed to acknowledge the diverse problems likely to arise from a disability. The practical fulfillment of higher education for people with disabilities can help to alleviate some of these. For people with disabilities higher education can help to lift self esteem.

This issue has particularly filled me with rage, for the reason that from the years of 1993-1997, I was a recipient of this supplement. Although the extra benefit was nowhere close to enough it was something. It helped to keep my head above water, in a learning environment not suited to many people with disabilities.

Another education expense incurred during my years of study from 1993-1997 was the substantial cost of the M50 (a vehicle capable of transporting those confined to the wheelchair) taxi-fares, as public transport is definitely not suitable to somebody in my condition (Friedreich’s Ataxia) when I attended the peninsula campus of Monash University.

During this time I attended classes about three times a week for the 26-week period: a round trip in the taxi cost about $30. While the extraordinary expense was not entirely covered by the PES it did provide some contribution thereby  enabling me to complete my undergraduate studies.

In 1997, I completed a Masters qualifying year at the Clayton campus of Monash University where for doing this I was in receipt of the PES and my taxi costs were about the same.

I decided to speed up the process of getting a degree by taking on summer school. For many people with severe physical disabilities, and despite Vanstone’s comments, there is no break from regularity of the day-to-day existence provided by a disability. Cutting out the pittance of additional support we get through the pensioner education supplement further limits the choices of higher education for students with disabilities.

According to Vanstone in 2003, by reducing the supplement to pensioners, we would save $39 million in four years. Such savings would reduce the governmental burden of social spending and add to the prospects of a healthy budget surplus.

Despite the governments attempt to remove the PES during the summer break they were not successful, as the bill was unable to gain passage through a hostile senate, as for this particular bill the government had failed to gain influence over the senate.

In conclusion, my knowledge and experience of digital updates and political reforms within the disability sector, allows me to question the social and economic costs of denying adequate government entitlements for the higher education of people with disabilities.