Date of Assessment

June 2008

Service

Admissions

Name of Policy

Admissions Policy

Lead Responsibility

Anne Wilson, Head of Admissions

Committee Responsibility

EOSSC

Date of Policy

Approved Academic Board

Equality and Diversity strands

Which of the following equality and diversity strands or other groups does this document incorporate?

Could this document have a positive or negative impact?

yes

no

n/a

positive

negative

1. Age

Implied

positive

2. Belief / Faith

Implied

positive

3. Disability

See this separate impact assessment

4. Gender

implied

positive

5. Race

implied

positive

6. Sexual orientation

implied

positive

Are any inequalities identified? There are no inequalities for Age, Belief/Faith, Gender, Race or Sexual orientation. See comments below for disabilities.

As the University aims to be an inclusive Institution the tone could be construed as “exclusive” rather than “inclusive” eg. singling out disabled people and having the section on the admission of disabled students in the same section as those with Criminal Convictions. (This feedback came from a disabled member of staff involved in the EIA process.) Therefore the first point to raise is whether it is even necessary to have a separate Appendix.

Feedback from members of the Inclusion Team and disabled members of staff feel that by using Students with Disabilities (Medical Model of Disability) as opposed to disabled students (Social model which is part of the foreword on our Disability Equality Scheme) does not reflect EH's inclusive mission statement.

The Admissions policy is still quoting SENDA rather than the DED and the Disability Equality Scheme and/or Single Equality Scheme.

Recommendations

We would also query statement in (Page 1 Paragraph 2 last sentence) “However the admission of individual applicants is at the discretion of the Institution with due regard to the health, safety and welfare of EH's communities”

We question whether or not we have phrased this right.

Page 1, Paragraph 5. Use of term students with disabilities - rewording to social model ,i.e disabled students and rather than use SpLD and Mental Health just have a list in the glossary stating the types of impairment that come under the disability umbrella.

The admission of disabled students is based on academic criteria as laid down by the course specifications including any other relevant, individual information. (This is where a separate policy can give the impression that there is less favourable treatment - in essence the policy is the same for all students; do we need to refer rather to `more favourable treatment or `reasonable adjustments?)

A glossary of terms could be added - NMAS, GTTR, UCAS

As disclosure of a person's disability is optional, the Admissions Policy could also more positively encourage disclosure .

If yes, please state

E & D

strands

Yes

No

1. Is the purpose of the policy clear and still relevant?

Yes

2. Is it clear in the policy statement who is intended to benefit from the policy?

Yes

No

Yes

3. Does the policy contain any statements which may exclude people from using the service?

E & D

strands

Yes

The policy could be written in a more simplified form; especially page 4, Appendix 1, paragraph 2. It was suggested that this be moved into the main body of the text and not as an appendix to make it more inclusive. (again, do we need a separate policy re disabled students?)

4. Does the document contain any conditions which are applied to everyone, but disadvantage particular persons' because they cannot comply due to one of the equality and diversity strands?

E & D

strands

Yes

Is there any indication that the policy could have a differential impact on any of the strands:

E & D Strands

Yes

Decision

We recommend a full EIA once the new policy is drafted.

If no to all 4 questions, there is no requirement for a full EIA