All wise words. Addressing the specifc issues Clare raised.
An applicant can be rejected because of their disability, if the
student wuold nopt be able to meet the academic satndards set for
the course because of the disability. What universitiies cannot do
is have a blanket policy on any specific disability being a bar to
any particular course, every case has to be considered on its own
merits. As has been memtioned applicants mus also be able to
meet other expected standards of a particular course, e.g. playing
a musical instrument.
What you need is an addmission procedure that will pick up on
applications from disabled students / students with disabilities so
that proper consideration can be given to each case. I.e. the
Disability Officer should be included in the decision, who would
base that on follow up with the student and where necessary
course tutors.
However, this shuoldn;t be seen as a vetting process to weed out
the problem applicants, rather being a process to ensure that the
student has the fundning, support, adaptations in place for the start
of the course. Invloveing the applicant also allows them to make
an more informed decision about whether to persue a parictular
course. few will wantr to be placed in a difficult and intractable
situation. As for reasonable adjustments, for the most part these
will be cost free (teaching properly) or low cost. Also access
problems can still be a consideration up until 2005.
On 3 Apr 03, at 14:45, Bernard Doherty wrote:
> 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]
Bryan Jones
Disability Support Services Manager
Tel: 020 8411 5367
|