Tag: adjustments

  • Why is it so difficult to make reasonable adjustments when assessing disabled PGRs?

    Why is it so difficult to make reasonable adjustments when assessing disabled PGRs?

    Universities are required under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students. While it’s often much clearer how to do this for undergraduate students and postgraduate taught students who have coursework and written exams – for example, by giving them extra time or a scribe – support for postgraduate research (PGR) students is far behind.

    Many universities and staff are less clear how to make adjustments for PGRs during supervision, when reading drafts of thesis chapters, and then for the traditional oral viva, which is problematic for many as it relies on instantaneous cognitive processing, fluency and other skills. The Abrahart vs University of Bristol case, in which a student died by suicide after being refused reasonable adjustments to a mode of assessment, highlighted just how critical this issue has become.

    Some universities and academics have expressed concerns that making adjustments for disabled PGR students will somehow “disadvantage” non-disabled students. This misunderstands the provisions of the Equality Act. Reasonable adjustments are a unique legal duty in relation to disability which go some way towards reducing the barriers that disabled people encounter on a daily basis.

    Cultural barriers

    Cultural beliefs – including that PGR study is “supposed to be difficult”, that overcoming the struggle is part of the achievement of obtaining a doctorate, and that adjustments devalue the doctorate – all contribute to unhelpful attitudes towards disabled PGRs and institutions meeting their legal obligations. The still widely held view that a doctorate is training the next generations of academics, limited oversight on progression, lack of consistent training for examiners and supervisors, and the closed-door nature of the viva indicate the cultural nature of many of the barriers.

    The recent work within universities on research culture, equality, diversity and inclusion, and widening participation has in many cases focused on everything other than disability. Where disability is considered, it’s often in relation to neurodivergence. Neurodivergent people may find themselves objects of fascination or considered difficult and a problem to be solved, rarely simply as human beings trying to navigate their way through a society which seems to have suddenly noticed they exist but is still reluctant to make the necessary changes.

    At the PhD viva, often the centring of the examiners’ experience takes priority – rigid arrangements, and the presumed importance of meeting examiners’ expectations, appear very much as priorities, leaving disabled PhD students without a voice or agency or made to feel demanding for simply suggesting they have legal rights which universities must meet.

    Mode of assessment or competence standard?

    The Disabled Students Commitment Competence Standards Guide clarifies that the Equality Act’s reference to the duty to make reasonable adjustments to any provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which places disabled students at a substantial (i.e. more than minor or trivial) disadvantage applies to modes of assessment. It is an indictment of entrenched cultural attitudes in the sector that it took the death of a student after being denied adjustments she was legally entitled to for this distinction to be clarified.

    Many in HE defend the current approach to PhD assessment as being a necessary way of assessing the types of skills a PGR would need as an academic. However, the QAA level 8 descriptors don’t specify a particular mode of assessment, or that the ability to communicate “ideas and conclusion clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences” relates to academic contexts either solely or primarily, nor do they specify that assessment relates to whether or not examiners believe the candidate is “ready” for employment as a lecturer.

    The purpose of PhD assessment is to assess whether a candidate meets the assessment criteria to be awarded a doctoral degree. While the question as to whether these level 8 descriptors remain appropriate to assess a PhD may be valid, introducing additional unspoken criteria such as assumptions about academic career readiness is unacceptable for all students, but particularly so for disabled PGRs due to the constant demands on them and cognitive load required to navigate an already unclear system.

    Unhelpfully, the QAA characteristics statement for doctoral degrees asserts that “all doctoral candidates experience a similar format – that is, an assessment of the thesis followed by the closed oral examination.” This could conflict with the legal requirement to adjust assessment for disabled and neurodivergent students, and is despite the Quality Code on Assessment reflecting the importance of inclusive assessment which allows every student to demonstrate their achievements, “with no group or individual disadvantaged”.

    Sharing this reasoning and information is fundamental to changing entrenched and often misunderstandings in the sector about what we’re actually assessing in the PhD viva and how to approach that assessment.

    What needs to be done?

    Making adjustments for individual PGR vivas is time consuming when many adjustments could be made as standard (a “universal design” approach), releasing time to focus on making a smaller number of less commonly required adjustments. Many adjustments are easy to make: holding the viva in a ground floor room, linking to already existing accessibility information, limits on the length of the viva with compulsory breaks, ensuring there are toilets nearby, training for examiners, and options about the viva format.

    While many PGRs are content with the traditional oral viva, others would prefer a written option (for many years the standard option in Australasia) or a hybrid option with written questions in advance of a shorter oral viva. Universities often raise AI assistance as being a reason that an oral viva is necessary. However, this is best addressed through policies, training and declarations of authorship, rather than relying solely on an oral viva.

    Feedback from delegates at a webinar on the topic of inclusive viva which we delivered – hosted by UKCGE – underlined the need for clarity of expectations, standard approaches to adjustments, and training for everyone involved in the PGR journey to understand what the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 are. Adjustments for “visible” disabilities are often easier to understand and make – it would be difficult to deny a deaf PGR a British Sign Language interpreter.

    Where disabilities are less visible, cultural attitudes seem more difficult to shift to make these needed adjustments. Revisions to sector documents, such as the doctoral degrees characteristics statement are also overdue.

    Put simply, it’s not reasonable to deny a student the award of a degree that their research warrants due to an inappropriate mode of assessment.

    The authors would like to thank Charlotte Round, Head of Service for Disability Support at the University of Nottingham, for her involvement.

    Source link

  • The importance of reasonable adjustments

    The importance of reasonable adjustments

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the regulator for equality and human rights issues. We intervened in the case of The University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart to provide guidance to the court about the Equality Act 2010. The Act has been in force for over 10 years, so the legal duties contained within it are not new. However, we were concerned that there was confusion about how those duties are interpreted in the higher education sector.

    Natasha Abrahart was 20 years old when she took her own life in April 2018. Her lecturers were aware that she was not well, noting that she did seem to have ‘a genuine case of some form of social anxiety’. However, no reasonable adjustments were made to how she was assessed, and she was still expected to attend oral interviews and participate in a group presentation. The University argued that oral communication was a ‘competence standard’, which is specifically excluded from the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act.

    The definition of disability is broad. Under Section 7 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act, disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to complete daily activities. ‘Long-term’ includes likely to last for more than 12 months. Although Natasha Abrahart suffered from a mental illness, physical conditions are also covered by the Act.

    The court found that the University had indirectly discriminated against Natasha, discriminated against her as a consequence of her disability, and failed to make reasonable adjustments for her. The court also gave guidance to the sector, which we have distilled into our Advice Note.

    The duties on universities are set out in law, which has been in force for approaching 15 years. Further, the duties apply to all students (and staff members) whether they attend university for a single term or for the rest of their student career.

    Three of the key takeaways from the judgment relate to knowledge, evidence and competence standards.

    In relation to knowledge, if one member of staff at a university knows about a student’s disability, then the whole university knows, and the duties not to discriminate take effect. So, if a student only tells the most junior administrator about their disability, and that staff member doesn’t pass the information on, the university is nonetheless bound by the Equality Act.

    With regard to evidence, the judge in the Abrahart case said:

    ‘…what a disabled person says and does is evidence. There may be circumstances, such as urgency or the severity of their condition, in which a court will be prepared to conclude that it is sufficient evidence for an educational institution to be required to take action.’

    This makes clear that it is not appropriate for a university to insist that a disabled student provide a doctor’s letter when the student is clearly severely ill. The duty on the university is to act, even where there is no formal medical diagnosis or evidence. There is no reciprocal duty on the student.

    Competence standards are academic, medical or other standards applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a student has reached a particular level of competence or ability. A student has to reach the standard to show that they have attained the necessary level to pass or proceed on their course of studies. However, the way in which a competence standard is measured is still subject to the reasonable adjustments duty, so adjustments must be made to the method of assessment. The court found that the way in which a student’s level of knowledge or understanding, or the way their ability to actually complete the task is measured, is the method of assessment. It said this is rarely, if ever, a competence standard.

    Our Advice Note provides some guidance on steps universities can take to ensure that they are complying with the Equality Act.

    In addition to complying with the law, there are other potential benefits for institutions in taking those steps. These include providing a better student experience by prioritising student welfare, and reducing pressures on staff. It also allows students to gain valuable experience which will benefit them in working alongside disabled colleagues when they enter the workforce.

    However, alongside the benefits to staff and student wellbeing, there are consequences for failing to comply with Equality Act duties.

    Higher education students may complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIAHE) in England and Wales, or to the Ombudsman in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Complaints can result in financial redress and recommendations for improvement. The OIA also publishes annual statements setting out each institution’s performance.

    Students may also bring litigation in the County Court under the Equality Act. This is what Dr and Mrs Abrahart did, and it resulted in the payment of considerable damages to them by the University of Bristol, not to mention the additional costs to the University of defending complex litigation. We anticipate that the spotlight currently shining on this issue may well see an increase in these cases. Litigation can also be reputationally damaging.

    There may be issues about breaches of contract where universities fail to make reasonable adjustments when these have been recommended by the Disability Service. From our perspective, the outcome of any such dispute does not detract from a separate and distinct obligation to comply with the Equality Act 2010, which is a distinct cause of action.

    Of interest to the higher education sector, the Equality and Human Rights Commission may take regulatory action if institutions fail to comply with the Equality Act. We have a range of legal powers, including investigating organisations where we suspect a breach of the Act. As an alternative to an investigation, the Commission can enter into agreements and action plans with organisations to achieve compliance with the law.

    We know that there is a great deal of excellent work taking place across the sector. For example, Oxford University is working on incorporating inclusivity into its teaching practices, with the joint benefits of making the environment more welcoming for disabled students and allowing its Disability Service to act as consultants on the most complex cases. The University of Bristol recently updated its regulations, is undertaking staff training, and continues with its programme of improvement to its wellbeing services. And the Open University has completed a mapping exercise to identify the key ‘crunch points’ faced by disabled students in their education journey and is working to embed robust escalation processes to ensure that adjustments are made when needed.

    Reasonable adjustments could help hundreds of thousands of disabled students across the country reach their potential, and we have to make sure those students can access them. We know that the higher education sector is working hard, with limited resources, to address the issue. As Britain’s equality regulator, we will continue to support the sector as universities adapt to meet their legal duties to disabled students.

    Source link

  • When will the reasonable adjustments merry-go-round get fixed?

    When will the reasonable adjustments merry-go-round get fixed?

    You may have missed it, but just before Christmas some new survey results emerged on the experience of disabled students that ought to be the subject of several sector-wide new year’s resolutions.

    Only 39 per cent of those who had support agreed reported having all of it implemented. 62 per cent said they had gone without some adjustments because the process of chasing them up consumed too much time and energy. And 43 per cent of disabled students reported that a staff member had treated their agreed support as a mere suggestion.

    Almost half – 48 per cent – of disabled students believed they have received lower marks on their course because an assessment was not accessible, 73 per cent had to repeatedly explain the same aspects of their disability or access needs to different staff members, and 59 per cent needed to chase up support that has already been agreed.

    And meanwhile if they’re trying to access Disabled Students Allowance(s), email turnaround times are now down to 37 days – or half a semester, as it’s more commonly known.

    It’s just not worth it

    In theory, Disabled Students UK’s now annual survey – which this year gathered 1,200 self-selecting responses from disabled students across over 80 UK higher education institutions (weighted for gender) – ought to represent a national scandal.

    While there were some small signs of improvement over issues like lecture capture, as well as the reasonable adjustments issues above, only 21 per cent of disabled students felt that their modules had been designed with accessibility in mind – a key “anticipatory” duty.

    Of those who encountered access issues, only a quarter reported having raised all of them – three in four hold back from raising because they don’t want to be seen as difficult, don’t think it will help, fear not being understood or believed by staff, or are concerned about taking resources away from other students.

    Half reported that the adjustments provided were insufficient to put them on an equal footing with peers, 43 per cent experienced staff treating agreed support as optional, and a third felt pushed from one person to the next because it was unclear who was responsible for addressing their access needs. And only 40 per cent agree that the “majority” of staff outside of Disability Services understood their legal responsibility to make reasonable adjustments.

    And over 6 in 10 of those who had adjustments agreed reported having gone without some of those adjustments because it takes too much time and energy to chase them up.

    As well as the teaching and learning experience, just 38 per cent of in-person students with physical or sensory needs found their campus environment accessible, and some 44 per cent reported having been unable to attend a teaching session or supervision in person due to an inaccessible location.

    And nearly half (46 per cent) of disabled students needing accessible student housing reported having had to pay extra to do so.

    That all takes its toll. As well as the 48 per cent that believe they received a lower mark on their course due to an assessment not being accessible, 53 per cent reported their physical health suffering at some point during their degree, and 78 per cent reported their mental health suffering.

    Maximums and minimums

    So what is to be done, and who by? One option is aspirational charter marks of the sort embodied in the Disabled Students’ Commitment – but my guess is that will never catch on as an optional because of the lack of commercial benefit to having the gong.

    Or we default back to the idea that this isn’t an aspiration, it’s a minimum – but in a fiscally tight environment characterised partly by culture wars over equality and partly over shedding already stretched staff, just as local authorities ration Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) for children with parents that can take them to court, it has to be at least possible that higher education providers are doing something similar.

    That’s a situation designed for regulators – but in reality, if UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) was on the phone about to put a provider into special measures over immigration compliance, I know the panic and urgency with which previously seemingly intractable problems either in a central service or across academic departments can be fixed.

    But there is no equivalent risk, and so no equivalent urgency. And anyway, in England the Office for Students (OfS) does “minimums” regulation on outcomes – stats on getting in, on and out – and facilitates aspirations on quality experience via the TEF.

    It’s been pretty clear over the past few rounds of announced “boots on the ground” inspections that it’s only red flashing lights on the outcomes dashboard that trigger a look at experience – and even then through the optic of subject and/or partnerships, rather than the obvious differentials in experience between students with different characteristics.

    Notwithstanding some fairly shocking numbers inside some of the disability categories over graduate outcomes, the sector really isn’t too bad on disabled students outcomes.

    And so it does beg the question – what if disabled students aren’t getting the education they deserve (and have paid for), but battle on and get the outcomes anyway?

    Pillar to post

    As DK pointed out on the site back in October, OfS’ 2024 national student survey results split by student characteristics were not even accompanied by a commentary.

    Every year the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIAHE)’s annual report reminds us about the volume of complaints it sees from disabled students – but there’s no evidence at all that there’s a loop back into regulatory action either in England or Wales.

    The courts – including in the Abrahart case – don’t seem to be able to make their mind up about whether a failure to deliver reasonable adjustments represents a consumer protection law issue or an Equality Act 2010 issue.

    If it’s the former, regular readers won’t need a reminder here about how hard it is for students to know their rights and enforce them, in an environment where OfS has been promising improvements since its inception.

    And if it’s the latter, it’s really the Equality and Human Rights Commission that ought to be intervening – or is it?

    When it took the opportunity to clarify its interpretation of the law around reasonable adjustments following the conclusion of the appeal in the Abrahart case, the EHRC said that:

    …regulators like the OIA, and student bodies such as NUS and OfS will benefit from a clear statement of the law.

    But OfS is pretty clear that its key tool is access and participation plans – and that A&P dashboard on its website is all about outcomes, not experience.

    And anyway, the experience data that OfS does have is about disabled students being less satisfied in general – not on specific failures over the legal duties.

    And so the issue feels like it gets passed around without resolution in the same way that disabled students often experience locally, and never with strategic-level resolution or grip, either locally or nationally.

    Yes but sample size

    Of course, a self-selecting sample from a survey explicitly about being a disabled student – and promoted in that way – may not be nationally representative.

    And that’s a potential problem with the local results too. One of the things DSUK attempts to do with the results is to construct league table-able stats by provider – which this year has seen Cambridge University come out as the worst in the country.

    In a statement, a university spokesperson said:

    We take the views of our disabled students seriously. The sample size of 138 people for this survey represents just 2% of Cambridge’s disabled students. We regularly conduct higher-participation surveys and continually review our provision for disabled students.

    I can argue that as it’s a legal duty, one student credibly reporting an issue should be a scandal, but if anything, the Cambridge response highlights the wider problem – of both how much and how little we know about the scale of the issue.

    Over in the Netherlands, NSS results also highlight differentials in disabled student experience in general. But because there’s a set of extra questions that kick in on reasonable adjustments if a student is disabled, there’s also a raft of rich data on that issue too.

    That set of splits and adjustments findings is published by a body that used to just focus on disabled students – but now also works more broadly on inclusivity. With funding from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, ECIO supports universities in a national approach to studying with a disability and support needs and student well-being.

    It also handles what England would still call “premium funding” for disabled students, carries out customised assignments for individual providers, publishes wider research and advice on stuff like Universal Design for Learning, and generally works as an integrated enabler of the accessible education agenda.

    It is still the case that individual disabled students need to know their rights and be able to enforce them. But the emerging question is whether the Office for Students, the OIA and the EHRC are the right bodies to be passing the parcel on reasonable adjustments.

    I don’t know which of sticks, carrots or a mix of the two would be the most effective, and I don’t know whether OfS (and its emerging equivalents in Scotland and Wales) or a separate body is the right one to be driving the agenda.

    Nor do I know enough about why there’s been a sharp increase in disabled students, and the extent to which that is treated as a success inside the culture of HE, or treated with “you wouldn’t get all this in the real world” suspicion. I’ve come across both anecdotally – frequently in the same institution.

    What is clear is that universities are stretched, their staff are stretched and even (in England) OfS is stretched – and is making sure providers survive rather than highlighting the corners being cut to enable that survival.

    What is also clear is that as it stands and without a defendable dataset or a proper plan, it’s not just locally where students are needing to explain the same information about disability over and over again. Disabled students deserve better.

    Source link