“Sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast”
I now invite you on a very different journey, a journey to a world that could be, a future that is sustainable and addresses our concern – through the looking glass …
This section will now examine concrete and pressing changes Accessibility services need to tackle in order to remain pertinent. We will, in particular, tackle the following issues: (i) shifting services towards faculty support, (ii) reframing the image of Accessibility services, (iii) rationalizing exam services, (iv) removing barriers from student interface, (v) redefining sustainable development of Accessibility service, and (vi) shifting permanently away from the medical model.
Shifting services towards faculty support
One suggestion to tackle the inherent tensions which we have highlighted in the modus operandi of Disability Services, is a reorientation towards faculty support. Clearly these units will need to continue supporting students, but if they are to start translating the social model into practices, they also need to refocus some of their energy and resources towards supporting faculty in the redesign of instruction and assessment.
This will realign them with the fundamental concepts of the social model: that it is the environment which creates barriers for learners, that these barriers in pedagogical format need to be tackled proactively, and that educators – not students – bear the onus for this transformation.
This will not be an easy shift in mindset as the staff in these units often feel their commitment and vocation lie in student support. They may feel they lack the skills, status and motivation to support faculty, and will need a fair amount of leadership and accompaniment as they seek to gain confidence in this area and to redesign a role for themselves in this new direction.
Reframing the image of Accessibility services
As we have seen, there is an inherent tension in the way Disability Services brand themselves. They rely heavily on a medical model lens when creating outreach to students across campuses. There will need to be a thorough reflection that takes place within these services as to how best break this pattern and redesign their image and branding in a way that succeeds in embedding the core notions of the social model of disability: the focus should be the learning environment, not the diagnostic label (Beck et al., 2014).
This will prove to be much more difficult than may appear at first. Rethinking the outreach of these units also means eliminating the role of gatekeeper they have come to adopt as theirs. If the focus is on transforming the pedagogical landscape and the design of the learning experience, then diagnostic labels no longer matter and Disability Services must be prepared to serve the needs of any student who identifies as requiring these services, irrespective of whether they have supporting documentation or not.
A point of particular tension is often the very name of the unit. Many Disability Services have begun engaging in a reflection around their name, wondering if the presence of the word “Disability” in their branding was a positive thing, or instead detrimental to this wider appeal they need to have to any learner requiring services. It is a complex decision that will involve a thorough reflection within each institution’s specific parameters and variables. Obviously Disability Services play a role in raising awareness around Disability, and they are key in developing the reliance on Disability Studies scholarship on campuses. At the same time, the image they choose and develop has a direct impact on the willingness or reticence of service users to come forward for support. Many students may need services but will not identify with the term ‘Disability’, or the medical model lens it implies. Deciding to retain the word ‘Disability’ within their name and their branding may therefore cause these units a great disservice at a time when they are trying to ensure they reach all diverse learners efficiently. Terminology and branding focused on the redesign of the environment and the learning experience, possibly including the term “access”, seem more likely to align Disability Services with social model practices and UDL (Fovet & Giles, 2015).
This reflection is also likely to lead these units to engage more widely with the notion of Intersectionality. Learners may be experiencing marginalization on many different levels and Disability may not be the identity which is most pressing to them if they are also feeling out of place and ostracized on our campuses in terms of race, indigeneity or ethnicity, income, gender, or sexual orientation. While a categorization of student support services in rigid compartments/ units makes sense to us as service providers, it often seems random and frustrating to students who identify with different support services fluidly in different ways at different times. Student services must begin the work of breaking the silos they have created and must seek to acknowledge and recognize the whole of the student they purport to support. This must mean that a student should be able to access support services irrespective of the ‘door’ they choose for first contact. If Disability Services begin acknowledging the concept of Intersectionality as important, it will encourage them to devise multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approaches to student support (Bailey, 2017; Stienstra & Nyerere, 2016).
Rationalizing exam services
The provision of accommodations in exam services and the management of exams is an area of particular concern within the current format of service provision. It can easily be identified as the area where students with Disabilities are facing the greatest numbers of administrative challenges and the most onerous processes – barriers their peers are not experiencing. Depending on the campus, this may mean burdensome requirements to register for exams, to notify the unit of exams, to check-in about exams, to confirm their wish to use their accommodations, etc. Most of these processes and steps need to be performed under tight deadlines, generally under the threat of seeing these services suspended if deadlines are not respected. Units must design ways to guarantee access to accommodations in exams that do not create superfluous or overly burdensome processes for their service users. They will not be able to claim they are aligned with the social model of Disability or implementing UDL until they find creative solutions to this complex issue (Beck, et al., 2014).
Removing barriers from student interface
Ironically Disability Services can often be seen to create barriers for students with Disabilities while purporting to be removing them. This can be all the more heart wrenching because it is done unwittingly with the best of intentions. A historical culture, anchored in a funding model that is deeply embedded in a medical model view of Disability, has led to the development of practices that add obstacles and challenges while advocating their removal. In this sense the current format of service provision is deeply conflicting with the principles of UDL. While Disability Services preach the use of design thinking and the development of UDL, they are themselves often reluctant to use this same design thinking to examine their own practices and their inherent contradictions. As an illustration, we see many of these services insist on physical meetings with an adviser when the majority of their users have either mobility issues that render these appointments troublesome, or attention issues that make the scheduling tricky, or mental health issues that make such meetings stress inducing. Similarly, many of these units are still using paper forms that must be completed by hand, a practice that creates barriers for students with visual impairment, students with learning disabilities, as well as students with a plethora of possible medical conditions that make handwriting painful. Disability Services must begin engaging with design thinking and must be willing to radically modify their current practices if these do not align with the core principles of UDL (Beck et al., 2014). They must also be willing to explore the potential of ethnographic means in their steps to adopt inclusive design. This presumes a willingness and an ability to slip into the shoes of their service users in order to carry out authentic enquiries into students’ preferences and perspectives.
Redefining what sustainable development means for Disability Services
As these services move away from a funding model which prioritizes achieving optimal numbers of registrations, they need to take time to consider what ‘sustainable development’ really means for them. Clearly under this new lens, success and quality of service provision are no longer assessed in terms of volume. Instead they need to be assessed in terms of these units’ ability to (i) shift their attention towards faculty, (ii) to remove as many procedural barriers as possible for their users, and (iii) support systemic changes within their organization towards genuine inclusion. These are not goals which will lead to expansion; on the contrary, they are very much values that will encourage Disability Services to be nimble, multidisciplinary and to ensure just-in time adaptation to a quickly changing landscape. These objectives run contrary to the current agenda of most Disability Services, in a landscape that has prioritized growth. A significant shift in culture will therefore be required (Fovet, 2017). ¶
This section will now examine concrete and pressing changes Accessibility services need to tackle in order to remain pertinent. We will, in particular, tackle the following issues: (i) shifting services towards faculty support, (ii) reframing the image of Accessibility services, (iii) rationalizing exam services, (iv) removing barriers from student interface, (v) redefining sustainable development of Accessibility service, and (vi) shifting permanently away from the medical model.
Shifting services towards faculty support
One suggestion to tackle the inherent tensions which we have highlighted in the modus operandi of Disability Services, is a reorientation towards faculty support. Clearly these units will need to continue supporting students, but if they are to start translating the social model into practices, they also need to refocus some of their energy and resources towards supporting faculty in the redesign of instruction and assessment.
This will realign them with the fundamental concepts of the social model: that it is the environment which creates barriers for learners, that these barriers in pedagogical format need to be tackled proactively, and that educators – not students – bear the onus for this transformation.
This will not be an easy shift in mindset as the staff in these units often feel their commitment and vocation lie in student support. They may feel they lack the skills, status and motivation to support faculty, and will need a fair amount of leadership and accompaniment as they seek to gain confidence in this area and to redesign a role for themselves in this new direction.
Reframing the image of Accessibility services
As we have seen, there is an inherent tension in the way Disability Services brand themselves. They rely heavily on a medical model lens when creating outreach to students across campuses. There will need to be a thorough reflection that takes place within these services as to how best break this pattern and redesign their image and branding in a way that succeeds in embedding the core notions of the social model of disability: the focus should be the learning environment, not the diagnostic label (Beck et al., 2014).
This will prove to be much more difficult than may appear at first. Rethinking the outreach of these units also means eliminating the role of gatekeeper they have come to adopt as theirs. If the focus is on transforming the pedagogical landscape and the design of the learning experience, then diagnostic labels no longer matter and Disability Services must be prepared to serve the needs of any student who identifies as requiring these services, irrespective of whether they have supporting documentation or not.
A point of particular tension is often the very name of the unit. Many Disability Services have begun engaging in a reflection around their name, wondering if the presence of the word “Disability” in their branding was a positive thing, or instead detrimental to this wider appeal they need to have to any learner requiring services. It is a complex decision that will involve a thorough reflection within each institution’s specific parameters and variables. Obviously Disability Services play a role in raising awareness around Disability, and they are key in developing the reliance on Disability Studies scholarship on campuses. At the same time, the image they choose and develop has a direct impact on the willingness or reticence of service users to come forward for support. Many students may need services but will not identify with the term ‘Disability’, or the medical model lens it implies. Deciding to retain the word ‘Disability’ within their name and their branding may therefore cause these units a great disservice at a time when they are trying to ensure they reach all diverse learners efficiently. Terminology and branding focused on the redesign of the environment and the learning experience, possibly including the term “access”, seem more likely to align Disability Services with social model practices and UDL (Fovet & Giles, 2015).
This reflection is also likely to lead these units to engage more widely with the notion of Intersectionality. Learners may be experiencing marginalization on many different levels and Disability may not be the identity which is most pressing to them if they are also feeling out of place and ostracized on our campuses in terms of race, indigeneity or ethnicity, income, gender, or sexual orientation. While a categorization of student support services in rigid compartments/ units makes sense to us as service providers, it often seems random and frustrating to students who identify with different support services fluidly in different ways at different times. Student services must begin the work of breaking the silos they have created and must seek to acknowledge and recognize the whole of the student they purport to support. This must mean that a student should be able to access support services irrespective of the ‘door’ they choose for first contact. If Disability Services begin acknowledging the concept of Intersectionality as important, it will encourage them to devise multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approaches to student support (Bailey, 2017; Stienstra & Nyerere, 2016).
Rationalizing exam services
The provision of accommodations in exam services and the management of exams is an area of particular concern within the current format of service provision. It can easily be identified as the area where students with Disabilities are facing the greatest numbers of administrative challenges and the most onerous processes – barriers their peers are not experiencing. Depending on the campus, this may mean burdensome requirements to register for exams, to notify the unit of exams, to check-in about exams, to confirm their wish to use their accommodations, etc. Most of these processes and steps need to be performed under tight deadlines, generally under the threat of seeing these services suspended if deadlines are not respected. Units must design ways to guarantee access to accommodations in exams that do not create superfluous or overly burdensome processes for their service users. They will not be able to claim they are aligned with the social model of Disability or implementing UDL until they find creative solutions to this complex issue (Beck, et al., 2014).
Removing barriers from student interface
Ironically Disability Services can often be seen to create barriers for students with Disabilities while purporting to be removing them. This can be all the more heart wrenching because it is done unwittingly with the best of intentions. A historical culture, anchored in a funding model that is deeply embedded in a medical model view of Disability, has led to the development of practices that add obstacles and challenges while advocating their removal. In this sense the current format of service provision is deeply conflicting with the principles of UDL. While Disability Services preach the use of design thinking and the development of UDL, they are themselves often reluctant to use this same design thinking to examine their own practices and their inherent contradictions. As an illustration, we see many of these services insist on physical meetings with an adviser when the majority of their users have either mobility issues that render these appointments troublesome, or attention issues that make the scheduling tricky, or mental health issues that make such meetings stress inducing. Similarly, many of these units are still using paper forms that must be completed by hand, a practice that creates barriers for students with visual impairment, students with learning disabilities, as well as students with a plethora of possible medical conditions that make handwriting painful. Disability Services must begin engaging with design thinking and must be willing to radically modify their current practices if these do not align with the core principles of UDL (Beck et al., 2014). They must also be willing to explore the potential of ethnographic means in their steps to adopt inclusive design. This presumes a willingness and an ability to slip into the shoes of their service users in order to carry out authentic enquiries into students’ preferences and perspectives.
Redefining what sustainable development means for Disability Services
As these services move away from a funding model which prioritizes achieving optimal numbers of registrations, they need to take time to consider what ‘sustainable development’ really means for them. Clearly under this new lens, success and quality of service provision are no longer assessed in terms of volume. Instead they need to be assessed in terms of these units’ ability to (i) shift their attention towards faculty, (ii) to remove as many procedural barriers as possible for their users, and (iii) support systemic changes within their organization towards genuine inclusion. These are not goals which will lead to expansion; on the contrary, they are very much values that will encourage Disability Services to be nimble, multidisciplinary and to ensure just-in time adaptation to a quickly changing landscape. These objectives run contrary to the current agenda of most Disability Services, in a landscape that has prioritized growth. A significant shift in culture will therefore be required (Fovet, 2017). ¶
