Teaching

While the university has systems in place for requesting individual accommodations, this strategy requires disabled students to repeatedly make such requests and faculty to retroactively modify their courses. Where faculty members proactively incorporate UDL principles into their teaching, accommodations may be needed less frequently. This minimizes the burden on disabled students, faculty members, and SSD. One effective strategy for disseminating information regarding UDL and encouraging its use is to hire or appoint embedded unit or department support, in the form of UDL Coordinators, who can assist faculty members with incorporating and applying UDL principles into their teaching and materials. UDL resources and tools should also be developed and widely shared with faculty members. It is noted that trainings are currently offered through CRLT; however, these courses could be further developed, publicized, and promoted to faculty members (including Graduate Student Instructors (“GSIs”)).

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 1, Appendix 3. See also Culture Report, Recommendation 10, Appendix 7.

Syllabus statements are often one of the primary communications regarding student accommodations. Although SSD provides recommended syllabus statement language, and encourages faculty members to use appropriate syllabus statements, the use and appropriateness of syllabus statements remains inconsistent. To ensure students receive inclusive and supportive communications about their right to accommodations, the university should develop more inclusive template syllabus language that can be modified as appropriate depending on the specifics of a course. Units and departments should encourage faculty members and GSIs to include these statements in their syllabi.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 4, Appendix 3.

Recently, faculty members have begun banning the use of laptops in classrooms based on research suggesting that such technologies may be a distraction. However, students with disabilities may use laptops as an accommodation. By being the only student using a laptop in classes where a ban is in place, disabled students may unwillingly disclose their disability status to their classmates. Rather than imposing blanket bans, faculty members should be encouraged to explore alternate arrangements, such as allowing all students to use laptops, designating “laptop” and “laptop-free” zones in a classroom, or requiring students to sign a laptop policy in order to address inappropriate use during class time.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 5, Appendix 3.

Within the Big Ten Academic Alliance, the university’s SSD Office serves the fourth highest number of students (2,929); however, this office only employs five (5) full-time coordinator staff positions, one of those including the Director position as well, for registering students seeking accommodations, with an average ratio of 550 students per coordinator. This is one of the highest ratios among Big Ten institutions. In order to ensure timely and effective student services, SSD should be given the resources needed to decrease this overall ratio, including creating three or more additional coordinator positions. In addition, SSD currently uses external contractors and vendors to provide certain types of accommodations, such as American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpretation or real-time speech-to-text translation (“CART”). To minimize delays or uncertainty in providing these services, SSD should be provided with the necessary funds to hire full-time staff ASL and CART interpreters.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 6, Appendix 3.

Presently, when students request accommodations, they must approach each faculty member and present their SSD-provided Verified Individualized Services and Accommodations (“VISA”) form. These interactions might require that students share highly personal information and potentially face negative reactions to that information, including denial of accommodations, conscious or unconscious bias, or other stigma. It is noted that SSD is currently working to procure technology that will limit a student’s need to personally approach and request accommodations from faculty. The system (Accessible Information Management (“AIM”)) will allow students to tailor their accommodation requests to each of their classes and send an electronic communication to their faculty members. It is recommended that the university continue to provide SSD with any needed support in procuring and launching this system. See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 7, Appendix 3.

In addition to procuring AIM, it is recommended that the university implement additional measures such as training faculty on appropriate responses to student accommodations requests. Further, it is recommended that the university make it clear to students that they are not required to disclose details about their disability to faculty. This may not be clear as existing language in the Disability Verification Forms mentions the university’s right to share information and the SSD website warns students that choosing not to disclose may perpetuate faculty resistance.

Another means of curtailing faculty member challenges to specific accommodation requests would be to create and publish a list of frequently-granted accommodations, including explanations of how these accommodations are helpful. This list would emphasize faculty members’ legal and institutional responsibilities to provide accommodations while addressing any potential questions that the faculty member may raise. See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 10, Appendix 3.

Prior to the Fall 2019 term, SSD reviewed and revised its registration forms. It is recommended, and has been initiated, that these forms be immediately reviewed further and systematically by appropriate university entities and disabled stakeholders for additional feedback on usability, language, flexibility, and overall impact. Specifically, it is recommended that future iterations of the SSD forms minimize the gathering of unnecessary medical or personal information, require minimally sufficient documentation, provide flexibility to capture students’ unique needs, and simplify use. Further, in order to remain current and responsive to student needs, these forms should be subject to regular review and feedback by SSD staff, appropriate university entities, and disabled stakeholders.

In addition, it is further recommended that this type of deliberate review also be applied to other areas where documentation is required for accommodations, including housing, parking, etc.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 8, Appendix 3.

In order to ensure that students with disabilities continue to receive the support and access required, it is recommended that students be able to provide anonymous feedback regarding their experiences with the University’s accommodation and implementations processes. This would allow SSD and other entities (e.g., the Office for Institutional Equity (“OIE”)) to continue providing effective and responsive service. One mechanism (previously described in Section II (R2.1)) would be an accessible website reporting form. Additionally, the University is encouraged to invest in conducting a survey every two (2) to three (3) years regarding disabled student experiences. As an alternative, the University could conduct exit interviews with disabled students who were registered with SSD. To ensure anonymity and full disclosure, an employee from another office (such as the University Audits Office) could be charged with conducting these interviews and providing SSD with any resultant recommendations.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 9, Appendix 3.

SSD’s current coordinator model assigns coordinators based on a student’s disability or disabilities. Due to recent modifications in its practice, SSD now assigns one coordinator per student. Dual coordinators may work on reviewing documentation submitted by a student, given each coordinator’s expertise, before the student’s registration appointment with their sole SSD-appointed coordinator. Nevertheless, it is recommended that SSD explore and consider alternate models (including those used in peer institutions). Examples of such models include strategies where students are assigned a single coordinator based on other considerations, such as program (e.g., music performance), school (e.g., College of Engineering), or student status (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, professional, etc.).

Furthermore, there is no transparent process that indicates to a student on how they may change SSD coordinators in the case of a conflict. Given the highly dependent nature of the relationship between student and SSD coordinator, trust is paramount. Therefore, it is recommended that SSD consider implementing a clear and visible process allowing students to change coordinators in the case of legitimate and irreconcilable conflict.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 11, Appendix 3.

Graduate and professional students, particularly those who are also GSIs or GSRAs, have particular difficulty navigating the multiple accommodation processes that they must follow to seek student- and employee-specific accommodations. Graduate and professional students have reported confusion and frustration with the processes and supports available to them. To ensure graduate and professional students are able to seek accommodations and support, a working group should examine and recommend a standardized process for all Schools and Colleges to follow. These processes and other relevant resources should be disseminated during all graduate and professional student orientations and made available on a regular and ongoing basis. In addition, any resultant processes should be communicated to all relevant entities working with graduate and professional students.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 12, Appendix 3.

Despite the many supports and resources offered to students with disabilities, the physical environment and architecture continues to pose significant barriers to access. Accordingly, it is recommended that the university invest the needed resources to design and prototype a dedicated space (potentially to be housed within a disability culture center) on campus that demonstrates how radical accessibility and inclusion can be fully supported through a deliberately designed space. Further, this space could serve as a model for designers and future construction projects.

See Pedagogy Report, Recommendation 14, Appendix 3.