Last week we looked at flexibility in attendance.  This week, we’ll apply the same analysis to flexibility in assignment deadlines.

Again, we start with determining whether there is an access issue.  We often give extended time during tests due to the functional limitations of a disability.  Why not the same for longer assignments outside of class time?  The answer is that tests are given during a relatively short, fixed block of time where it is expected that non-disabled students will use that entire amount of time.  Hence in order to provide access, we accommodate students with disabilities through extended time.  Longer term assignments are not expected to be done during every minute of the student’s non-class time – students plan and manage their assignments in order to complete them on time and the expectation is that there is sufficient time for students, including students with disabilities, to get that work done by the deadline.  Again, could there be an access issue?  Sure, but the bar is high, so the finding of access issues regarding this request would be infrequent.

If it is determined there is an access issue, we also have a set of questions to determine the reasonableness of extending deadlines:

• Do assignments regularly build on one another?  Is it necessary to complete one assignment in order to be able to begin the next, or are the assignments relatively discrete in nature?
• Is class discussion of completed assignments a significant component of the classroom interaction? Would a student being present for such discussions and able to complete an assignment afterward put the student at an advantage over the students who completed the assignment on time?
• Do completed assignments become part of the curriculum of the class (for example, the presentation of speeches in a speech class, or small group critiques of student work during class time)?
• When assignments are given to be completed by the next class session, how much time do you estimate the typical student spends completing those assignments?
• Are long-term assignment deadlines indicated on the class syllabus?

Based on a review of these questions, it is often unreasonable to provide an extension of deadlines as an accommodation because it is substantially compromising essential elements or standards of the course.  When it is reasonable, the reasonableness should add a day or so, not weeks.  A more appropriate accommodation for a student who consistently struggles meeting deadlines due to a disability would be a reduced course load because that does not compromise essential elements/standards of a course.

There is another rationale I find compelling for not overusing this accommodation and certainly for limiting the deadline extension when permitted.  Often students ask for this accommodation when they’ve already missed several deadlines.  The rule is that accommodations are not retroactive, period.  So, it won’t undo what has been done.  Furthermore, often allowing students who struggle with deadlines to begin with, the flexibility in putting them off even longer, only serves to dig them deeper into a hole with more piling up on top of them.  This in turn exacerbates stress and anxiety.

Remember the access vs. success distinction. When students request flexibility in deadlines, they are often really asking because permitting flexibility is needed for success, not access.  This is why these considerations are usually not appropriate as accommodations.  Add on the reasonableness test, and we see that it is a rare instance where this accommodation should be awarded.  This doesn’t mean that flexibility cannot be given (with limits), but that is typically more appropriately a discussion between student and professor (or class dean and professor) because it does not fall within the parameters of an accommodation.

We’ve focused on accommodations (access) quite a bit.  Next week, we’ll shift topics to ones involving success — what we can do to help students with disabilities.

Q & A:

Given what has been discussed this week and last, why do our faculty members see flexibility in attendance and/or deadlines as an accommodation (as often as they do) on the Accommodations Memo they receive from students?

The short answer is that our college’s policies and procedures regarding these two accommodations have recently been revised to be in line with best practices.  However, Student Accessibility Services will not revoke accommodations that have already been awarded to students prior to these updates.  Given the new policies and procedures, these two accommodations will not be issued with the same frequency as has been in the past.

Last week I described how we accommodate to provide for access, not success.  I also explained that even if there is an access issue, an accommodation must be “reasonable.”  We evaluate reasonableness through an “unreasonable” test (i.e., what isn’t unreasonable, is reasonable).  One prong of this test is that if an accommodation would substantially change an essential element of the student’s curriculum or academic standards, then it is unreasonable.

I realize there is too much to say about flexibility in attendance and deadlines for one post, so I will discuss attendance this week, and deadlines next week.  After that, we’ll be moving on to a topic other than accommodations for a change of pace.

Let’s look at the accommodation of flexibility in attendance in the context of what has been discussed so far regarding accommodations – whether there an access issue and whether it is reasonable.

What do other students have access to regarding attendance?  The opportunity to attend class and experience whatever it is that happens in that class.  The bar for assessing whether there is an access issue is whether the impact of the student’s disability makes it not possible to attend class. This is a high bar.  It is not whether it is difficult for the student to go to class.  If a student is hospitalized for a week due to his disability, we’ve clearly got an access issue.  If a student is in his or her dorm room and would prefer not to go to class because they aren’t feeling well, this isn’t, in the context of the law, an access issue.  We may feel bad for the student – as we would any student who doesn’t feel well.  That is usually why professors allow a limited number of absences without penalty.  Students with disabilities can use those as do all other students.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the determination is that there is an access issue.  We still need to look at the reasonableness of not being in class.  The Office of Civil Rights has given us a set of questions to consider regarding whether attendance is an essential element of a class:

• Is there regular classroom interaction between the instructor and students and among the students themselves?
• Do student contributions in class constitute a significant component of the learning process?
• Does the fundamental nature of the course rely upon student participation as an essential method of learning?
• To what degree does a student’s failure to attend class constitute a significant loss of the educational experience of other students in class?
• What does the course description and syllabus say regarding attendance?
• What is the method by which the final course grade is calculated?

In order to determine the answers to these questions, the disability services provider needs to have a discussion with each of the student’s professors.  Upon review of these questions, it’s pretty clear that for a student at a large university in a lecture class of 400, attendance may not be essential, however in a small liberal arts college such as ours, it is almost always an essential element of the class.  The question to the professor is then whether any additional absences beyond what they already allow would compromise the integrity of the course.  It may be that one or two additional absences are reasonable, or it might not.  This accommodation is not intended to permit a large number of absences.  A student who is not able to attend classes within the given parameters of “reasonableness,” may not be what is considered under the law to be “otherwise qualified” to attend school at this time.

The picture that is starting to come together here demonstrates that higher education disability law has limits.  As a college, we go above and beyond that in our efforts to support students and help them be successful.  That is why, even when an accommodation isn’t possible, a professor may be asked by a student or class dean to be more flexible.  Understand though, that is not a legal right.  It is your consideration.

Last week I wrote about why we issue accommodations to college students.  We provide “access” through accommodations when a student with a disability does not have the same opportunity as non-disabled students.  I listed a few examples of what providing access might look like.

Last week I also said that we don’t provide accommodations to college students in order to help them do well.  Of course we want our students to do well, however accommodations stop at access.  If an accommodation goes beyond access – beyond giving a student with a disability an opportunity that everyone else has – and enters the realm of permitting something because it will make the student successful, we’ve gone beyond the scope of the law.  Some people might call this “over accommodation” and others argue that once you’re doing things to make students successful, you are by definition no longer accommodating, period.  [See “More About Success” at bottom]

I just described the first reason issuing an accommodation is not appropriate: there is no access issue, but rather, we’re really talking about making a student more successful.  If we did do that, we in essence would have created an equity issue, an unfair advantage for students with disabilities.  That is not the intent of the disability laws – it’s supposed to be equal opportunity, not better opportunity.

There is a second reason issuing an accommodation is not appropriate – when, even if an access issue exists, the proposed accommodation is “unreasonable.”  The law says we aren’t required to provide something “unreasonable” as an accommodation.  There are several prongs to the “unreasonable” test.  The one that is relevant from a faculty perspective is whether the proposed accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of a program, compromise an essential element of a course or the curriculum, and/or weaken the academic standards or integrity of a course.  If the answer to any of these is yes, then you’ve got an over-accommodation, non-accommodation, bad accommodation – whatever you call it, disability services shouldn’t issue it (there may still be a reasonable alternative that we can issue as an accommodation).

Next week I want to further explore the issue of fundamental alterations and compromising essential elements of a course/curriculum.  And I will do that in the context of the controversial accommodations of flexibility in assignment deadlines and attendance.

More About Success:

Disability service providers can help students be successful.  We can discuss learning strategies, study strategies, time management, note taking, course selection, resources on campus, etc.  In fact, we try to make students with disabilities successful in the exact same ways we try to make all students successful, disability or not.  We just can’t do it through issuing an accommodation.

There are two related topics to mention here.  First, faculty can make adjustments to help students be successful all they want.  Faculty can make an alteration to the norm (for example, allowing more time for a student struggling to meet a deadline on a paper or needing more time to finish a test), for a student that they would make for any student in the same predicament regardless of disability status. What faculty members should not do is alter the norm for a student because he or she is a student with a disability, if they would not do that for a non-disabled student in the same situation.

The other related topic is that college students (and their parents) are almost always unaware of the access vs. success distinction.  In K-12 education, different disability laws apply (IDEA and a different sub-part of 504), and guess what those disability laws are all about?  Making students successful.  While students and parents have usually heard the vague message that “you might not get the same accommodations in college that you had in high school,” they don’t know what that really means or why things are different.  It’s about access vs. success.  This is all the more confusing because while the law puts a brick wall between access and success in higher education, the logical nexus still exists in students’ and parents’ minds – they’re thinking, “The whole reason I want my accommodations is so that I can do well in the class.”

I thought I would start by posting over the next month or so about accommodations since that is something that many faculty members encounter frequently (though by no means am I implying that in working with students with disabilities, accommodations are the be all and end all).  I will do my best to break the topic into manageable chunks.  Feel free to comment and/or ask questions.

This week I’m addressing why we issue accommodations to college students.  The simple answer is anti-discrimination disability laws provide for it, when appropriate.  If you think we issue them because we want to help students do well, we don’t.  Come back next week for the explanation of that one!

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a Civil Rights statute that forbids “denying access” to any program or activity provided by a college or university solely based on disability-status.  From this, we get the idea of providing students with disabilities “equal access” – the same access that students without disabilities have.  For our purposes, when we talk about most academic accommodations, we are talking about program access.  Architectural access is more straight forward (and covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) – if you’re in wheelchair, you can’t get into a building without curb cutouts and ramps; we’re talking about literal, physical access.

But, what do we mean by “access” in the classroom?  In this context, we mean equal access to opportunity.  The opportunity to participate fully in higher education and reap the same benefits as do others by participating in that activity.  Often, the way we allow for this opportunity is through an accommodation.

Accommodations are not issued simply by virtue of having a disability.  There must be an “access issue.”  There must be an opportunity the student with a disability does not have, and an accommodation will allow for that opportunity.  I keep talking about “opportunities,” so what does that mean?  Some examples will explain this best.  Oftentimes, an accommodation is meant to provide a student with the opportunity to demonstrate what they know, as in a test.  Non-disabled students have the opportunity to demonstrate what they know, whereas without an accommodation of extended time, a student with a disability would be demonstrating the impact of their disability rather than what they know.  Apply that same principle to the accommodation of a reduced distraction environment for testing.  In a note taking situation, typical students have the opportunity to take notes, whereas students with certain functional limitations due to a disability don’t have that same opportunity, so they are given an accommodation of the ability to record the class.

Next week, I’ll discuss when and why an accommodation is not appropriate.