Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training

As the interviews with academic staff progressed, a number of important issues emerged that had broader implications than the daily strategies that staff were employing to support students with a disability. These must be considered if wholesale progress is to be made towards achieving a representation in universities of students with a disability which is a true reflection of their presence in the wider community.

The issues and observations are listed below in the hope that they will stimulate thought and discussion about some of the more serious obstacles to full participation of students with a disability in tertiary education.

People with disabilities, like other minority groups, are subject to prejudices and stereotyping. It was clear from the interviews that academic staff are no less prone to being influenced by common myths about disability than is the general public.

Gender issues are also a factor. Some argue that women with a disability are more acceptable to society than men with a disability because this complies with the stereotype of the ‘weaker’ sex. (Implicit in this, also, is the false notion that disability equates to weakness.) Others claim that traditional power relationships hold and women with a disability are doubly disadvantaged.

The interviews revealed that, on the basis of a student's disability, some staff unwittingly make an instant subjective assessment of that student's capacity to complete their course. This can apply particularly when the disability is a visible one or one with a ‘bad’ image. (Some disabilities are more acceptable than others). Forming an initial perception that a student will find a course difficult is likely to determine how much effort the staff member puts into accommodating the student's needs and may make the expected failure of the student a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A further issue regarding stereotyping occurs when staff members assume that certain behaviours and preferences apply to a particular student because they were applicable in the case of a previous student they had taught with the same disability. This overlooks the individuality of students and the fact that no manifestations of a disability are

All students have different personalities and behavioural preferences. This does not usually greatly influence how teaching staff interact with them. However, in the case of students with a disability the personality factor is magnified because of the closer contact that these students have with staff and their greater dependence on staff for assistance. A staff member's attitude towards a student with a disability has greater potential for affecting the academic outcome for that student than in the case of other students. It is therefore important for staff to be alert to the problem of forming negative perceptions about students with a disability, for whatever reason.

Personality characteristics of a student with a disability may be more noticeable and have a greater impact on the way their studies progress. For example, while a student without a disability may have little initiative or determination, they may well be able to scrape a pass through a course, whereas this is less likely for a student with a disability.

Two issues emerged regarding curriculum modification for students with a disability.

With curriculum defined as course content, delivery modes and assessment, it emerged that at some universities, particularly the ‘sandstone’ universities, modification of curriculum had not emerged as a significant issue. This appeared to be due to the lack of flexibility in entry procedures, resulting in the fact that students who gain enrolment are, overwhelmingly, high achievers who have met the standard tertiary entry criteria, and who usually have their own established support systems which they have developed during their prior negotiation of the education system. These students are well-prepared for coping with regular curricula at university.

This situation conceals the fact that many students with a disability who are not high achievers and who have not been able to establish strong, extensive support systems for themselves, are not making it into the tertiary system, even though their peers without a disability, of equivalent intellectual capacity, are able to do so. This is supported by the present survey, a disturbing aspect of which is the preponderance of high intellectual capacity amongst the students whom staff have described (almost 70% of the students in the case studies were described by staff as of above-average intellectual capacity).

Where ‘curriculum modification’ did occur on a wider scale (largely in the newer or recently amalgamated universities which offer a diverse range of courses and some TAFE components), the main issue that emerged was not the thorny one of modification of content, but of delivery and assessment.

While much staff concern about universities enrolling greater numbers of students with a disability is based on the belief that this will necessitate modifying course content and compromising educational standards, it was apparent from the interviews that modification of course content was not the issue. In all interviews, staff pointed out that students with a disability had covered the standard course content as written; where modifications were necessary was in the modes of delivery of the material and the modes of assessment.

Many of the staff interviewed noted that specific strategies and modifications that they instituted for the benefit of students with a disability benefited all students in their classes and came under the rubric of good teaching practice. It may therefore be more valid to shift the focus from ‘reasonable accommodations’ to one of flexible, quality teaching that takes into account the different needs and circumstances of a wide range of students, some of whom have disabilities and some of whom might be facing other obstacles to learning such as living under the threat of violence or of being a recent arrival in Australia. This would remove the ‘deficit’ flavour that is implicit in ‘special’ solutions.

It emerged from the interviews that staff who have not had broad experience of working with students with a disability tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to determining how to react to certain situations, particularly when they fear criticism about not being accommodating. While it is clear that staff are expected to be flexible in accepting certain alternative ways of behaving by students, well-intentioned staff were sometimes unsure about where and how to draw the line between what was an acceptable accommodation for a disability and what was not. This problem emerged on several occasions, examples being responses to behaviour that constituted sexual harassment and behaviour that was unacceptably intrusive, such as prolonged home visits to staff by a student.

A further issue relating to accommodations is that of deciding when it is not reasonable to make an accommodation, such as when a student's disability directly affects their capacity to complete the central and essential components of a course. An example given by a staff member was the case of a student whose capacity to speak was severely curtailed by a respiratory disability but who wished to enrol in a counselling course. She was advised that it was unlikely she would be able to comply with the essential requirements of the course, which included simulated crisis counselling, and that it would not be in her interests, or those of the qualification, if she were to be exempted from these.

Some of the discussion with staff indicated the need for reviews of courses to establish whether all compulsory activities and components are really essential to the particular qualifications. Situations have arisen where a student is unable to comply with a specific compulsory aspect of a course due to a disability, but the student has argued that this aspect is not one which will hinder them from working in that field after graduation. However, because this component is a mandatory requirement, the student is counselled against enrolling in the course and informed they will not pass if they do so.

While, clearly, there are times when this is justified, there are also instances when the decision is not so clear cut. For example, a student who fainted in chemistry laboratories due to an allergy wanted to enrol in agricultural science and applied for an exemption from the chemistry laboratory component of the course on the grounds that he did not intend to work in that kind of environment when he completed his course. His request was denied. (See also Issue 3)

Some of the case studies showed very clearly just how dependent some students with a disability are on the goodwill of staff and on their preparedness to pursue strategies to enable the students to achieve their learning goals. Case studies reveal just how fine the line is for some students between succeeding and failing, and how important a particular staff member can be in determining where that line is. Some case studies also make it clear that a student's results can be just as much a reflection of the attitude of the staff who taught her/him as they are of the student's ability and knowledge. When a student's results in a course show a high degree of fluctuation between subjects this may be the operating factor.

The case studies revealed also that there is considerable variation in approaches and commitment to the task of teaching. Some staff have a deep love of the processes of teaching and learning and they find students with a disability provide welcome opportunities for them to exercise their skills and to explore new teaching methods and strategies. The students of these staff achieve significant successes. However, academic staff in universities today have a number of pressing responsibilities apart from teaching, and not all students with a disability can expect to find staff with such high levels of commitment to teaching. It is true that all students suffer from poor teaching, but students with a disability are particularly vulnerable to this.

A further issue is that because staff across universities are not uniformly supportive, staff who are supportive can become important to a student and he/she can become quite dependent on them. This puts pressure on the staff member and causes anxiety to the student. The situation can also apply with regard to helpful peer students in a class.

The profile of the faculties and departments covered by the case studies indicates that students with a disability are not evenly distributed throughout universities, but are clustered in certain areas. If this patterning is not a true reflection of the interests and capacities of students with a disability then this should be investigated. It is certainly desirable that universities, faculties and departments should aspire to developing good reputations for flexibility and accessibility regarding students with a disability, but this becomes problematic when students are making choices of courses on the basis of the way they wish to be treated by the institution rather than on their real interests and career aspirations.

The staff nominated by students with a disability as being particularly helpful and supportive were overwhelmingly female. The gender ratio of the nominated staff was 5:1.

This is a troubling statistic if it reflects gender attitudes towards flexibility in educational provision for students with a disability. There are, however, a number of variables which may have skewed this figure to some extent, such as which faculties and courses are the ones where students with a disability are clustered and what the staff gender ratio is in these. The faculties that were prominent in the study were social sciences, fine arts, computer technology, business management and education. The gender ratio of the students with disabilities covered in the interviews was 3:1, with the majority being women; and this may also have been a relevant factor. It is conceivable, too, that there are gender differences in the patterns of responses to questionnaires. Two written requests were involved in this study: the first to students with a disability to nominate supportive staff and the second to those staff to request their participation in an interview.

While there may be some explanations for the overwhelming dominance of women in the nominated supportive staff it does appear that there was a difference between the responses of female and male teaching staff to the needs of the students in this study. This is an issue which should be followed up.

All staff agreed that providing necessary support for students with a disability involved a time commitment. In most instances the staff interviewed did not find this a problem. In some cases this was because they had strong feelings of social responsibility; in others it was because this was the first student with a (or this particular) disability they had taught and they found it interesting and challenging. In yet other cases a staff member had only one student with a disability and the time commitment was not onerous.

The question is, however, when numbers of students with a disability approach the proportion they occupy in the wider population and they are a familiar sight on campus, would staff:

• be able to sustain this commitment, and
• be inclined to sustain it, without some kind of loading that recognised the time and skills involved?

Many staff commented on the wider benefits to all, staff and students alike, from the participation of students with a disability across university courses. All students in classes benefited from teaching strategies that were employed initially for a student with a disability. Other students also benefited from studying alongside people with a disability and observing them achieving in mainstream environments. It was also a learning experience for many students who had not interacted with people with a disability before and sensitised them towards appropriate ways of engaging with people different from themselves, and of meeting their social responsibilities in a society marked by the diversity of its members

Two points arose regarding this.

1. Some of the staff interviewed found themselves considering the possibilities and practicalities of a particular student with a disability finding employment in the field when they completed their course. Even though the student had met the criteria for enrolment, a few staff doubted that there was justification for her/him to be doing the course because they did not think it was realistic that the student would find employment later.
   
   They did not make the same judgements about their students in general, nor note that many students of all kinds never work in the field of their qualification. Attitudes such as this may affect how a staff member interacts with a particular student and how that student may be disadvantaged accordingly.
2. The interviews showed that some staff assume that because a student has a disability, the obvious choice of work for her/him after graduating is in disability services. Hence these staff do not encourage students to consider wider generic opportunities. Some students also make this same assumption.

The interviews showed that most staff recognise the importance of a team approach to teaching students with a disability. Many of the problems identified in the case studies could have been avoided if there had been more coordination across departments and schools between staff teaching students with a disability. High use of hourly paid staff makes a supportive team approach difficult when some staff are only briefly on campus and are therefore not easily accessible to either students or other staff. These staff are often not paid to attend staff meetings or are unable to do so because they also work elsewhere.

A clear issue emerging from the case studies is the pressing need for ongoing education of staff regarding all aspects of disability, from legislative requirements to classroom supports and strategies. While much progress has been made and disability offices and contact officer networks are having noticeable impacts within the system, it was clear from some of the interviews that awareness of disability legislation and university policies is far from universal. There is much remaining to be done to address the large pockets of weakness that continue to result in considerable hardship, and even failure, for some students. The model of dissemination of information and support in the universities surveyed appears to be a suitable one, but it falls down when the individual human elements do not function appropriately.

It was clear from the interviews with academic staff that there has been little or no documentation of the strategies that staff employ in teaching students with a disability. This represents the loss of a valuable resource base and, as such, is a serious problem. Many staff are developing and using flexible and innovative approaches to reduce the impact of a student's disability on her/his academic life, but in only one of the departments which were covered in the case studies has there been any systematic recording of these reasonable accommodations for the benefit of future staff and students.

In some cases staff have been aware of this problem and have identified lack of time and administrative support as the reasons, but in other cases it seems that these measures do not have the status of legitimate, mainstream procedures and are being treated as individual emergency responses to student situations which are a-typical; in other words, students with a disability are still being widely seen as exceptions, as outside the norm.