Instead of designing a building with steps and then providing a long looping ramp for those who can’t get up them, don’t put the steps there in the first place...
The problem here is not the disability, but the assessment method. I’d challenge that first.
I’d also question the ethics of differentiation of disabled from non disabled and the danger of one solution for all situations. I remember twenty years ago someone at the college I worked at reading that dyslexia was supported by printing things on cream coloured paper and using sans serif typeface. Subsequently all the dyslexic students got given very visibly different treatment which not only negatively discriminated but also failed to acknowledge that dyslexia is a spectrum and for most students the mandated solution was ineffective. (I just gave everyone the cream printouts in helvetica - life’s too short to do two sets of everything).
I believe given the choice most students would opt not to do something different from their peers having spent most of their lives insisting on equal treatment.
At one university I worked at we had a standard extra x% of time on exams and essays. At the next there was no additional time because it was felt the support on offer to students, which was highly personalised, removed the need for it. It’s anecdotal only, but it was the latter approach that was far more effective, and far more student-friendly.
My final (for now!) comment would be that the best place to take in to account a student’s circumstances might be at a mitigating circumstances panel, using overall performance on the course as a guide along with any medical evidence. As someone with a hidden disability that flares up without much warning, I know that I couldn’t predict if I needed a take away exam, but I would know afterwards if my performance in the standard assessment had been affected, and how. So I’d argue for individual support before and during, and individual mitigation afterwards.
But more than that I’d say ‘why exams’?
Jonathan
|