Opinion - Supporting Students with Disabilities: A Call for Change in Eligibility Criteria

Introduction

Inclusive education is a cornerstone of equality. I believe many students with disabilities in higher education face systemic barriers due to restrictive eligibility criteria for The Fund for Students with Disabilities (FSD), which is managed by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) on behalf of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS). 

In this opinion piece, I explore the challenges experienced by students without formal documentation of their disabilities and offer recommendations to address the gaps in current eligibility requirements for the FSD. The article also examines how legal frameworks, including the Equal Status Act 2000 in Ireland, highlight the importance of prioritising the removal of barriers over rigid evidentiary requirements.

The Problem: Evolving Policies, Unmet Needs

Recent policy changes in secondary education in Ireland have unintentionally compounded the challenges for students transitioning to higher education. Initiatives such as the Reasonable Accommodations at Certificate Examinations (RACE) and the School Inclusion Model have shifted toward needs-based support, often bypassing formal diagnoses. While beneficial in secondary education, these policies leave students entering third-level institutions without the documentation required for FSD support (Trinity College Dublin, 2024).

The FSD follows similar evidentiary criteria as the Disability Access Route to Education (DARE) admissions scheme, requiring formal diagnosis or specific evidence thresholds to access supports. While these criteria aim to ensure consistency, they create significant barriers for students awaiting formal assessments or whose disabilities are managed under needs-based models without documentation. This approach risks excluding students in genuine need, undermining the equity and inclusivity these schemes are designed to promote.

Alignment with Needs-Based Models and UNCRPD Guidance

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) General Comment No. 4 on Article 24 (Right to Education) provides a critical framework for addressing these gaps. The Committee explicitly states that:

Provision of reasonable accommodation may not be conditional on a medical diagnosis of impairment and should be based instead on the evaluation of social barriers to education.

This principle underscores the need for a transformative approach to disability supports, such as those provided by Trinity College Dublin. By focusing on the barriers students face rather than their diagnostic labels, institutions can foster a more inclusive environment. Article 24 calls for systemic reform to ensure that educational policies and practices prioritise accessibility, equity, and meaningful participation for all learners.

In Ireland, the mismatch between the evolving needs-based approach in secondary education and the rigid documentation requirements at the third level underscores the necessity of adopting the UNCRPD’s guidance. The current model excludes students who lack access to costly assessments, perpetuating inequities and hindering their educational success.

The Need for Alignment with Needs-Based Models

The Dyslexia Association of Ireland called a meeting (June 2024) with the HEA and representatives from the Irish Universities Association (IUA), the Dyslexia Association of Ireland (DAI), and the Disability Advisors Working Network (DAWN), to discuss DARE eligibility changes for dyslexia and ineligibility for disability supports for FSD supported students, leading to a misalignment between third-level disability support allocation models and the evolving needs-based approach prevalent in primary and secondary education.

At the primary and secondary levels, supports for students with additional educational needs have shifted to a needs-based model, focusing on the functional impact of a condition rather than relying solely on diagnostic evidence. This progressive shift recognises that timely intervention is critical, irrespective of whether formal documentation is available. However, at the third level, the Fund for Students with Disabilities (FSD) continues to operate under restrictive evidence requirements. These requirements often exclude students who lack access to updated or costly diagnostic assessments, such as psychometric testing, even if their needs are evident.

A key area of concern raised during the meeting was the conflict between the evidence thresholds required by the FSD and the recently revised Disability Access Route to Education (DARE) scheme for dyslexia. While DARE now allows for updated and more inclusive approaches, such as recognising the impact of dyslexia through educational impact statements and school-based assessments, FSD still relies heavily on diagnostic documentation. This inconsistency means that students who qualify for DARE based on educational disadvantage may still be excluded from accessing FSD funding, creating significant barriers for those in need of support.

During the meeting, I strongly advocated for the acceptance of students without FSD-level evidence, proposing that interim reports, school-based assessments, or GP letters should suffice to demonstrate need based on the DAWN legal opinion. Despite this consensus, no substantive changes have been made to the FSD Guidelines since the meeting.

Key Data Trends

Analysis of students (without evidence of disability set by funding body) reveals significant increases in disabilities requiring complex support (Trinity College Dublin, 2024):

• ADHD: 100% increase from 33 to 66 students.
• Mental Health Issues: 57% increase from 94 to 148 students.

Unlike the FSD or DARE evidence criteria, Trinity College Dublin’s Disability Service allows any student to apply for disability support, regardless of whether they meet formal documentation requirements. This inclusive approach ensures that students are supported at the point they seek help, enabling interventions based on interim evidence such as a general practitioner’s (GP) letter or documentation from a psychological counsellor. This practice not only facilitates immediate accommodations but also helps students navigate the process of obtaining formal diagnoses, should they wish to pursue one. By prioritising needs over rigid thresholds, Trinity’s model aligns with the principles of accessibility and inclusivity.

Legal Definition and Evidentiary Standards

Under the Equal Status Act 2000 in Ireland, educational institutions are legally required to ensure equal access for students with disabilities, focusing on the removal of barriers rather than imposing evidentiary thresholds. The Act defines disability broadly, encompassing physical, mental, and developmental impairments, and mandates reasonable accommodations whenever a student’s participation is hindered, even in the absence of formal documentation (Equal Status Act, 2000).

Critically, the Act emphasises the impact of the disability, rather than the cause, as the determining factor for support. This is further reinforced by legal advice obtained by the Disability Advisors Working Network (DAWN) in April 2023, provided by Byrne Wallace Solicitors. The opinion clarified that institutions must act on both actual and constructive knowledge of a disability. Constructive knowledge arises when there are clear indications or reports of a student’s disability, even if formal evidence has not been provided (DAWN, 2023).

The legal opinion highlighted that requiring strict medical or diagnostic evidence for reasonable accommodations could constitute discrimination under the Equal Status Act. Institutions are obligated to provide supports based on observable needs and self-reported barriers, aligning with the Act’s objective of prioritising access over proof. The advice explicitly stated that evidence of disability does not need to meet a predetermined threshold, and that supports should be implemented based on the barriers a student experiences, not the availability of formal documentation.

This approach aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which advocates for systemic changes to address inequalities and promote inclusivity. Article 9 of the Convention calls for the removal of barriers to access, highlighting that states and institutions must take proactive steps to accommodate individuals without requiring unnecessary or burdensome documentation (UNCRPD, 2006).

The DAWN legal opinion further criticised the over-reliance on the nominal cost exemption, which some institutions have used to justify limiting accommodations. It clarified that inclusivity should be prioritised even when accommodations involve additional expense, and emphasised that universities must engage in a meaningful and timely interactive process with students. This process should explore and implement accommodations while ensuring compliance with legal obligations and safeguarding students’ rights (DAWN, 2023).

In practical terms, this means institutions should not withhold supports based on the absence of a formal diagnosis. Instead, they must respond flexibly to students’ needs as they present, providing interim accommodations where necessary and supporting students through the process of obtaining further evidence if desired. This principle shifts the focus from proving a disability to addressing its impact, fostering a more inclusive and equitable educational environment.

Recommendations for Reform

To bridge the gap between policy intent and practical outcomes, this article proposes the following:

1. Broaden Eligibility Criteria: Expand the range of acceptable documentation to include school-based assessments, interim medical reports, and self-reported evidence, ensuring students awaiting formal diagnoses can access interim supports.
2. Introduce Needs-Based Assessments: Align FSD criteria with secondary education's needs-based approach, focusing on the impact of the disability rather than the availability of formal evidence.
3. Create Provisions for Unfunded Students: Allow institutions to claim partial funding for students under Restricted Registration, ensuring they receive the resources needed to succeed academically.
4. Provide Temporary Accommodations: Develop mechanisms for provisional funding and supports, enabling students to access accommodations while awaiting assessments.
5. Foster Collaboration: Engage with AHEAD and the Disability Advisors Working Network (DAWN) to establish best practices and create a unified framework for supporting students without full documentation.

The increasing diversity and complexity of student needs necessitate a shift in how supports are allocated. By revising the FSD eligibility criteria, DFHERIS and HEA can ensure equity in access and inclusivity in education. These changes, informed by the UNCRPD’s General Comment No. 4 and the Equal Status Act 2000 and the recent UK case, University of Bristol v Aberhart 2024 where the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has clarified responsibilities around reasonable accommodations in higher education, will uphold Ireland’s commitments under the UNCRPD and set a standard for accommodating students with disabilities based on their needs rather than their documentation. This case reminds us that inclusive education is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative, urging institutions to redesign systems and assessments to support all students effectively.