As a disabled academic I frequently hear complaints from other academics about disabled students and access plans.
These complaints are often about students who say they are organising a plan but still don’t have one, or who look like they need a plan but don’t have one, or who don’t look like they need a plan but miraculously produce one when an assignment is overdue. Central to all of these conclusions is the assumption that getting a plan is a straightforward process. However, there are several links in the plan implementation chain, each of which has their own complexity.
The first link in that chain is you, the lecturer.
Do you assume that including the standard paragraph about plans in your course outline should be enough for students to feel comfortable disclosing such personal information to you? Do you require a plan to be in place before you will even discuss adjustments with students? Do you ask students if they really need the adjustments that they have requested, or expect them to provide you with their entire medical history before you will consider accommodating them? Even if you ensure that you do none of these, it’s very likely that your disabled students have already experienced this from other lecturers, or know someone who has. By regularly talking in class about your openness to accommodate plans you will reassure students that it will be okay to discuss them with you.
The second link in the chain is the disability service.
Early in each teaching period, disability services are inundated with plan requests from students from across the whole university. It seems as though there is an easy solution here – completing plans before classes start. However, a number of factors mean that is rarely possible in practice. First, most university disability services won’t meet with students to discuss their needs until they are enrolled. There is of course logic to this, in that disability services have limited time and resources – they can’t afford to use them on students who might not enrol, or might not have their enrolment approved. Simultaneously, however, this requirement shortens the amount of time between when the student first meets with the disability service and when classes begin.
Second, many access requirements are created by the environment. For example, if the university has lifts with braille buttons and destination announcements, then I, as a blind person, as well as anyone using a mobility aid, and anyone with an energy-limiting condition, can access more of the university easily, and might not need to ask to be in a specific room or building. When rooms have a microphone and recording capabilities, then the sound is louder and more consistent, lectures can be recorded and transcripts can be generated. It is then easier for anyone who is deaf or anyone who has difficulty taking notes, and they might not need to ask for adjustments. As such, until a student is familiar with an environment, it can be difficult to know which adjustments they need. A more accessible environment might mean they don’t need a plan at all.
The third link in the chain is the medical professionals. Plans aren’t just provided to anyone who asks for them; they are dependent on medical evidence. And though obtaining the evidence for a university is not as onerous as obtaining evidence for the National Disability Insurance Agency, it still requires a long consultation with a GP, and sometimes also with a specialist.
Finally, there is the student themselves, who is not only another link, but also has to coordinate the whole chain. They are expected to negotiate with each link and interface between them. And they may well be doing the same with the NDIA, Centrelink, their state department of Transport, etc, since each of them have their own forms and standards for evidence.
All of this requires time, money, energy, and strong advocacy skills.
Academics with lived experience of the challenges in self-identification, plan development and the practical issues that arise from systemic limitations and timing of the academic year can be an invaluable guide in prising open the doors of academia just that little bit wider. When we work together, the 20% of Australians who are disabled have a better chance of being allowed to get in and stay in.
Dr Amanda Tink is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at UniSA. The views expressed are her own.
