Mental health of students in higher education

College Report CR166and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, supporting and encouraging studentsfrom underrepresented groups to be admitted to higher education through awide variety of means and incentives. The challenge of widening participationhas included an aim of the government to recruit half of the 18–30 agegroup into higher education by 2010. Through promoting the mental healthof all students there is an ethos that higher education should be able toprovide a healthy environment that is supportive of its most vulnerablemembers.One result of widening participation is that there is evidence to suggestthat non-traditional entrants to higher education may make greater demandson support services. Meltzer et al (2000) showed an increased incidence ofmental disorders among children from working class families, those withless educated parents, larger families, lone parents and those experiencingpoverty. Additionally, Smith & Naylor (2001) made a clear link between lowersocioeconomic status and dropping out.Legislative developmentsThe legislative and governmental policy drivers for widening access fromthe 1990s to date included the DDA 1995 (followed by linked legislation),various equality legislation, NHS strategies for mental health, and fundingcouncil disability initiatives, especially the Higher Education Founding Councilfor England (HEFCE) from the mid-1990s. Key guidance and strategies,responding to governmental directives, emerged in higher education. Anumber of reports were published by various bodies within higher educationinstitutions in response to the widening access and its consequences, lookingat the challenges that they were facing and suggestions of how to addressthem.Disability Discrimination Act 1995The DDA 1995, a civil rights law, is an Act of Parliament of the UK. It usheredin major changes for higher education, among which was a requirementto respond to mental health problems in students, for example by makingadjustments in the study environment to compensate for disabilities. TheAct laid down that there is a duty of care incumbent on higher education,with the potential for legal redress if ‘reasonable adjustments’ are notactually made. In addition to reasonable adjustments, the DDA stipulatesthat there is a positive duty to promote the equality of students and staffwith disabilities. However, there was a lack of indicative funding allocated tohigher education from the government to meet the new requirements.The DDA provided an impetus for positive changes of policy. Before itcame into force, institutions could, and did, choose not to recruit or retainstudents (and staff) with mental health problems. The DDA required thatuniversities must develop a comprehensive programme to meet the needsof people who have a disability. In chapter 2 of the Act it is clearly set outthat it is unlawful for the body responsible for a higher education institutionto discriminate against a person with a disability, in terms of admissions,the terms of any offers of admission, or by refusing or deliberately omittingto accept an application for admission. The ethos of the DDA departed froma passive approach enshrined in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and theRace Relations Act 1976. These two acts were based on the concepts ofdirect and indirect discrimination, whereas DDA used the tenet of ‘reasonable36 http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk