You might try referring to the QAA precepts for accommodating students
with disabilities (although these lean heavily towards teaching and
learning concerns and have little to say about capital
expenditure on structural changes). If you are compliant in this area,
you could argue that it was a professional code of practice that peers
and those with oversight would consider reasonable. Naturally, since
we've all been compliant since 2000, there should be no problem.

The other word to ponder (apart from 'reasonable') is 'substantially',
as in 'not be substantially disadvantaged'. I take this mean that
arrangements do not have to meet the specifications set by an
individual student, simply that they have to be in place and
functional.

I think it unlikely that any court will expect an institution to go
bankrupt in directing funds into the area of disability. Evidence of
goodwill, planning and a willingness to take responsibility should go a
long way to persuading a court that you are reasonable. Just my
thoughts, of course, but I see no reason why SENDA should produce any
more extreme judicial decisions than have been generated by the DDA in
general.

Regards, Bernard

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:12:56 +0100 Elaine Shillcock
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The only guidance that we have again is the Post-16 CoP. It lists the
> factors against which the concept of 'reasonable' will be judged:-
>
> Section 6.2 Under the Act, responsible bodies must have regard to relevant
> provisions of this Code. [s 28T(2)] Without attempting to be exhaustive, the
> following are some of the factors that might be taken into account when
> considering what is reasonable:
>
> · the need to maintain academic and other prescribed standards
> · the financial resources available to the responsible body
> · grants or loans likely to be available to disabled students (and only
> disabled students) for the purpose of enabling them to receive student
> services, such as Disabled Students’ Allowances
> · the cost of taking a particular step
> · the extent to which it is practicable to take a particular step
> · the extent to which aids or services will otherwise be provided to
> disabled people or students
> · health and safety requirements
> · the relevant interests of other people including other students.
>
> Looking at this list, I would imagine that most of the adjustments likely to
> be asked for would be reasonable for a large institution with a huge annual
> turnover. However, until we have any case law it is difficult to be
> specific. The main thing is to make sure that all students are treated
> individually and if it is deemed 'unreasonable' to make an adjustment, you
> will need evidence to show why, that will fit into these criteria. Even
> then, a judge might not agree with you!
>
> Elaine Shillcock
> Head, Disability Support Office
>
> email [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Conway
> Sent: 03 April 2003 13:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DDA Part 4 and Admissions
>
>
> Could anyone hazard a guess as to what "reasonable" means - apart from a fat
> fee to a lawyer if one gets it wrong?
>
> Dr. John S Conway
> Disability Officer
> Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, Glos. GL7 6JS
> Phone +44 (0) 1285 652531 ext 2234
> Fax +44 (0) 1285 650219
> http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/
> <http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~john_conway/>
>
> Declaration : CONFIDENTIALITY: The contents of this message are the views of
> the author, not necessarily the views of the Royal Agricultural College.
> This is a private message intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its
> contents may be confidential. If you have received this message in error
> please reply to say so and then delete the message. Any use, copying,
> disclosure or distribution by other than the addressee is forbidden.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stuartlinden.research
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DDA Part 4 and Admissions
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know this helps but I would have thought that as long as
> your open,
> honest and don't promise the student in question anything that you
> can't
> deliver. Then you should be okay, if when all worked out you can't
> provide
> what they need. But be honest right from the start! As I was
> turned down
> by one of the Universities on my UCAS form (luckily not my top
> choice) When
> I contacted them they said the couldn't provide adequate support for
> me, but
> when I went for the interview/visit they said I was a sure thing and
> there
> wasn't any problems.
>
> As for the information handling I would say that you should only get
> the
> information to the people that need this information!
>
> And if in don't keep the student unformed and ask them if it is
> okay to
> pass this information on.
>
> Good luck I hope this helps you
>
> Stuart
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clare Davies" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:49 PM
> Subject: DDA Part 4 and Admissions
>
>
> > I have been asked to brief our Admissions Committee about the
> implications
> > of DDA Part 4, so would appreciate examples of good practice from
> other
> > HEIs.
> >
> > I would particularly welcome guidance on:
> >
> > a) can an applicant be rejected on the basis that their
> disability-related
> > needs cannot be met by 'reasonable adjustments'? If not, how
> would this
> > situation be dealt with?
> >
> > b) disseminating information about individual disabled students
> and their
> > needs, eg informing relevant tutors about new disabled students.
> >
> > many thanks,
> > Clare Davies

----------------------
Bernard Doherty
Student Adviser
ACCESS Centre
Anglia Polytechnic University

Tel: 01223 363271 x2534
Fax: 01223 417730
Minicom: 01223 576155
[log in to unmask]