Gutting the DSA with dodgy statistics
A couple of days ago the Rt Hon. David Willetts
MP (Minister for Universities and Science) announced his changes to the Disabled Students’ Allowance. The DSA is a grant given to disabled students to help cover costs that arise as a direct result of their disability. It's an excellent scheme and for many it can, and has, make the difference between success and failure. These 'changes', more accurately termed 'cuts', are far-reaching and devastating.
In his Statement to Parliament Mr Willetts described his changes as an attempt to "modernise" the DSA. They come hot on the heels of a freeze to the maximum grant available which was announced last year. The most noticeable change is in the burden of responsibility. In the preamble of his statement Mr Willetts announced that from now on the burden is moving from the government to the universities themselves. That's the same universities that have faced years of cuts in budgets. At a time when they're struggling to pay for teaching and research now they're being asked to shoulder additional costs. This is, to my mind, insane.
A PDF by Student Finance England gives a more detailed explanation of the cuts. I am going to take them in reverse order as I want to leave the best (or, more accurately, worst) to last. The changes are, in reverse order:
The accommodation, again, may seem like a sensible thing to cut. Why should disabled students get more help with accommodation than non-disabled students? Well, if they have a round-the-clock carer, that carer needs somewhere to sleep and that is an additional cost of accommodation. They are putting the burden of this additional cost onto HEIs yet in the explanatory paragraph they state:
The next one, scrapping non-specialist, non-medical help, is another case that, to an outsider, seems a sensible cut. What sort of non-specialist, non-medical help can there be anyway? Well, this document explains. The cuts appear to be applicable to bands One and Two which covers:
Finally we get to the last three which I'm grouping as one as they all cover computers. This is where I really want to focus my attention and ire. The government has decided to stop covering computers. Fair enough, I hear you cry, everyone's got a bloody laptop, and a tablet, and a smartphone these days. Why should the government pay for them? The government agrees with you. In their explanatory paragraph:
But let's look more closely at that statistic. The first thing to note is that it's not 100%. There are still 4% of students whose only access to the internet and to word processing software is via campus computers. Personally I find that quite surprising that in a population that must regularly write word-processed essays and assignments there are still some that don't have their own means of producing these documents.
Anyway, moving on. The next thing to notice is that this statistic is not a government statistic, it's from Endsleigh. For those of you who don't know, Endsleigh are a student insurance company established by the National Union of Students (NUS) in the 1960s. I contacted Endsleigh to ask about this statistic and how it was derived. A spokesperson promptly replied with the following message:
First we see the survey is of students from "major universities". The DSA covers all universities including the Open University and distance-learning courses so already a potentially large number of institutions have been excluded from the survey. As the "major' universities are also the ones with generally higher entry requirements, this may also mean that poorer students (unable to go to good schools and obtain good grades) may be being preferentially excluded from the survey and our survey figure of 96% may therefore be optimistic.
Next we see that the survey was designed to "gauge and track patterns in possessions" which is used to help the PR and marketing departments. This makes sense and is a perfectly valid use of the survey. However, this isn't the use the government is making of the survey (a point I will be getting back to).
Next we see that the survey was conducted online. Remember that 4% of students without computers? Well, that's the percentage of students who were willing to use their time on campus computers to fill out a survey. Campus computers are notorious for being old and slow. How many other people started taking the survey and gave up half way through when it was taking too long to load, or who didn't start at all because they weren't interested in wasting the small amount of time they had to use the computer taking silly surveys? That 4% is a minimum.
Finally, the "sample was drawn from the NUS' database". It may come as a surprise to some, but not all universities are members of the NUS. Also, just because you are at a university that is affiliated with the NUS it does not mean you are automatically a member. You have to join and while there are incentives to do so (the most notable being discounts offered by shops) not everyone does. So the NUS database is a subset of the student population and there is no way to know whether or not this subset is representative or unbiased.
Now we get on to my biggest problem with this survey. The problem is it is being used completely out of context. This survey was designed by Endsleigh to ask a specific set of questions so that they could more efficiently market their products to students. The government is using this survey to say "almost every student has a laptop so we should stop paying for them". Yet the survey doesn't say this at all. It says, "of a subset of the student population who self-selected to become members of the NUS (by being at institutions which were affiliated and who then took the time and money to join) who were then selected at random (once filtered for membership of a 'major' university) to participate in a survey who then self-selected to complete the survey, of these people, 96% own a laptop or a netbook".
As you may have noticed, neither phrasing mentions disabled students at all. The government is taking 96% of students to also mean 96% of disabled students without having anything to back that up. And even if the proportions of ownership were the same for disabled and non-disabled students that still tells us nothing, because those students have been in receipt of DSA which enabled them to purchase laptops. The question the government should have asked, the only question that is relevant to their decision to stop providing financial assistance to disabled students to purchase computers, is:
The government did not ask this question. They didn't ask anything even close to this question. They took a statistic from a marketing survey and twisted it to fit their own ends. Given the other cuts they've made to DSA, their motives are clear. The government does not want disabled students to go to university.
In his Statement to Parliament Mr Willetts described his changes as an attempt to "modernise" the DSA. They come hot on the heels of a freeze to the maximum grant available which was announced last year. The most noticeable change is in the burden of responsibility. In the preamble of his statement Mr Willetts announced that from now on the burden is moving from the government to the universities themselves. That's the same universities that have faced years of cuts in budgets. At a time when they're struggling to pay for teaching and research now they're being asked to shoulder additional costs. This is, to my mind, insane.
A PDF by Student Finance England gives a more detailed explanation of the cuts. I am going to take them in reverse order as I want to leave the best (or, more accurately, worst) to last. The changes are, in reverse order:
- Funding will no longer be provided for general consumable items
- Funding will no longer be provided for additional costs of accommodation where the accommodation is provided by the HEI or an agent of the HEI
- Funding will no longer be provided for non-specialist non-medical (NHM) support
- Funding will continue for support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties that are more complex
- Funding will no longer be provided for higher specification/higher cost computers where they are required solely because of the mode of delivery of the course
- Funding will no longer be provided for warranties and insurance associated with standard specification computers
- Funding will no longer be provided for standard specification computers, software, and associated peripherals
The accommodation, again, may seem like a sensible thing to cut. Why should disabled students get more help with accommodation than non-disabled students? Well, if they have a round-the-clock carer, that carer needs somewhere to sleep and that is an additional cost of accommodation. They are putting the burden of this additional cost onto HEIs yet in the explanatory paragraph they state:
Institutions should be able to meet the needs of the vast majority of students with disabilities.Notice that phrase "vast majority"? That means they know not all students can be covered by their institutions. They go on to say that:
In exceptional circumstances DSA will meet the additional costs of specialist accommodation.That may sound like a good caveat. Those students who aren't in the 'vast majority' will be covered by the DSA. Somehow I doubt it will be as easy as just asking. Would you like to start your first year at university while simultaneously trying to fight the government to get them to cover your accommodation costs? I know I wouldn't. How many would, if they can afford it, just decide to cover the costs themselves (a cost they shouldn't have to bear)? How many would, if they can't afford it, just decide to give up their dreams of a higher education?
The next one, scrapping non-specialist, non-medical help, is another case that, to an outsider, seems a sensible cut. What sort of non-specialist, non-medical help can there be anyway? Well, this document explains. The cuts appear to be applicable to bands One and Two which covers:
- practical support assistant (someone who, for example, helps you get around campus)
- library support assistant (someone who, for example, gets books on shelves to high to reach from a wheelchair)
- reader (someone who reads to you if you're unable to due to vision impairment or other problems)
- scribe
- workshop/laboratory assistant
- sighted guide
- proof reader
- study assistant
- examination support worker
- manual notetaker
Finally we get to the last three which I'm grouping as one as they all cover computers. This is where I really want to focus my attention and ire. The government has decided to stop covering computers. Fair enough, I hear you cry, everyone's got a bloody laptop, and a tablet, and a smartphone these days. Why should the government pay for them? The government agrees with you. In their explanatory paragraph:
Almost all students now own or have access to a computer (96% of students own a laptop or net book – Endsleigh, August 2013). Standard specification computers will no longer be provided via DSA.That statistic says it all, doesn't it? 96% of students have a laptop. If they can afford it without DSA then we should no longer provide DSA to buy it. They'll only spend the money they saved on booze or drugs or that awful 'rap' music they play nowadays.
But let's look more closely at that statistic. The first thing to note is that it's not 100%. There are still 4% of students whose only access to the internet and to word processing software is via campus computers. Personally I find that quite surprising that in a population that must regularly write word-processed essays and assignments there are still some that don't have their own means of producing these documents.
Anyway, moving on. The next thing to notice is that this statistic is not a government statistic, it's from Endsleigh. For those of you who don't know, Endsleigh are a student insurance company established by the National Union of Students (NUS) in the 1960s. I contacted Endsleigh to ask about this statistic and how it was derived. A spokesperson promptly replied with the following message:
By way of background, every year Endsleigh conducts an annual survey of students from major universities across the country, in order to gauge and track patterns in the possessions students bring to university.Before I deconstruct this, I want to say that this is not picking on Endsleigh. I'm sure the survey met the purposes of their research and I don't have a problem with them at all. I'll be getting to my problem shortly. So let's go through the email.
The information gathered helps inform Endsleigh's public relations and marketing activity in the run up to each new university year.
Highlights of the 2013 research can be found here: http://hub.endsleigh.co.uk/2013/august/students-take-over-%C2%A32,000-worth-of-gadgets-to-uni/
The 2013 survey included responses from 1704 students and was conducted online by the National Union of Students (NUS) on behalf of Endsleigh. The sample was drawn from NUS' database of UK students.
First we see the survey is of students from "major universities". The DSA covers all universities including the Open University and distance-learning courses so already a potentially large number of institutions have been excluded from the survey. As the "major' universities are also the ones with generally higher entry requirements, this may also mean that poorer students (unable to go to good schools and obtain good grades) may be being preferentially excluded from the survey and our survey figure of 96% may therefore be optimistic.
Next we see that the survey was designed to "gauge and track patterns in possessions" which is used to help the PR and marketing departments. This makes sense and is a perfectly valid use of the survey. However, this isn't the use the government is making of the survey (a point I will be getting back to).
Next we see that the survey was conducted online. Remember that 4% of students without computers? Well, that's the percentage of students who were willing to use their time on campus computers to fill out a survey. Campus computers are notorious for being old and slow. How many other people started taking the survey and gave up half way through when it was taking too long to load, or who didn't start at all because they weren't interested in wasting the small amount of time they had to use the computer taking silly surveys? That 4% is a minimum.
Finally, the "sample was drawn from the NUS' database". It may come as a surprise to some, but not all universities are members of the NUS. Also, just because you are at a university that is affiliated with the NUS it does not mean you are automatically a member. You have to join and while there are incentives to do so (the most notable being discounts offered by shops) not everyone does. So the NUS database is a subset of the student population and there is no way to know whether or not this subset is representative or unbiased.
Now we get on to my biggest problem with this survey. The problem is it is being used completely out of context. This survey was designed by Endsleigh to ask a specific set of questions so that they could more efficiently market their products to students. The government is using this survey to say "almost every student has a laptop so we should stop paying for them". Yet the survey doesn't say this at all. It says, "of a subset of the student population who self-selected to become members of the NUS (by being at institutions which were affiliated and who then took the time and money to join) who were then selected at random (once filtered for membership of a 'major' university) to participate in a survey who then self-selected to complete the survey, of these people, 96% own a laptop or a netbook".
As you may have noticed, neither phrasing mentions disabled students at all. The government is taking 96% of students to also mean 96% of disabled students without having anything to back that up. And even if the proportions of ownership were the same for disabled and non-disabled students that still tells us nothing, because those students have been in receipt of DSA which enabled them to purchase laptops. The question the government should have asked, the only question that is relevant to their decision to stop providing financial assistance to disabled students to purchase computers, is:
Would you have been able to afford a laptop or notebook without the assistance of the DSA?Anything else is irrelevant.
The government did not ask this question. They didn't ask anything even close to this question. They took a statistic from a marketing survey and twisted it to fit their own ends. Given the other cuts they've made to DSA, their motives are clear. The government does not want disabled students to go to university.
Comments
Head*desk
Look at what they did to the Independent Living Fund, this was a fund of £320m to enable people with disabilities live an independent life in the community rather than in residential care. It meant they could live in the communities they grew up in or a place they wanted to live, with friends and family nearby and in an environment they had control over. Something you and I might take for granted and think is a basic human right.
Now the fund has been scrapped and the responsibility passed on to local councils. Councils who aren't going to be able to provide this support as let's remember they have had their funding from central government cut and been told by said government to find billions in savings, whilst at the same time being told to freeze one of their biggest sources of revenue - council tax. Council tax is one of the few means-tested taxes still around, with those in bigger, more valuable properties paying more tax. No wonder the conservatives want it frozen; it doesn't work in their favour.
The longer the conservatives are in power the more they will dismantle anything good and civilised about this society. They don't work for you, they work for themselves.