Learning and Teaching Committee

 

Subject:        Impaired Performance (IP) claims made by disabled students.

 

Executive Summary

 

Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to consider and endorse proposals relating to procedures for IP claims made by disabled students (on the grounds of their disability).  Programme Quality Team considered the proposals at its meeting on 10 December 2007 and agreed them in principle, subject to minor amendments which have been incorporated into this version.

 

These proposals have been drafted following discussion between colleagues in DANS and the Academic Registry.  The proposals have also been discussed at the November and January Departmental Administrators Liaison Group (DALG) meetings and feedback from this group is reflected in the proposals.

 

The proposals cover two broad areas:

1.      The role of DANS in relation to student IP claims and standardisation of supporting evidence

2.      Retrospective IP claims following diagnosis of a disability

 

Section 1: The Role of DANS in relation to student IP Claims

 

1.1       Contextual Information

 

The University has a duty under the SENDA to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled students are not unfairly disadvantaged because of their disability. There is also a duty to put these measures in place in an anticipatory fashion where possible. This duty extends to the assessment of work in relation to an individual’s impairment. The University’s normal expectation is that students with a disability will not need to make IP claims with respect to the impact of their disability on their studies because reasonable adjustments should be place to create a level playing field with other students. In this context, the current guidance for students on making IP claims says the following claims will not normally be considered:

“Claims referring to a long term illness or disability, where the Department has already made special arrangements for your assessments (or where such arrangements could have been made if the Department had been made aware of the problem at the proper time) except where these arrangements prove inadequate on the day because of unforeseen circumstances.”

 

However, there are a number of factors which may contribute to the arrangements not being adequate and which may result in a student experiencing impairment. These include, but are not limited to:

It is also important to note that an impairment may not necessarily equate to a poor standard of achievement. It is quite possible that a student may achieve satisfactory or even good results, but still feel their performance has been impaired because of a disability related factor. These students should not be discouraged from submitting IP claims.

 

1.2       Current Practice

 

All students submit their IP claim to the Academic Registry and the supporting evidence to their department. Students submitting IP on the grounds of a disability are expected to submit full supporting evidence for consideration by the IP Panel.  This often means lengthy documents are submitted with little or no summary information.  In addition, DANS staff may be asked to comment specifically on a case (by the student or by the Academic Registry).  There are concerns that IP Panel members:

a)      are not receiving comparable information

b)      are expected to decipher complex and lengthy information

c)      may not receive full information regarding support provided

d)      may not be applying judgements consistently

 

1.3       Proposal (for approval)

 

This proposal is based on the assumption that DANS staff are in the best position to offer professional advice regarding the impact of a disability on a particular student’s abilities, taking into account the precise nature of the disability and the level of support already provided. 

 

1.      Students wishing to submit an IP claim on the grounds of a disability (see Note 1) would continue to submit their claim to the Registry and their supporting evidence to the Department. As part of the latter, students would be encouraged to contact DANS formally to review and comment on their claim.  This commentary should be given the same status as other sources of independent supporting evidence, such as a Doctor’s note.  The IP Claim form and related guidance documents will be amended to alert students to the desirability of contacting DANS.  As with the provision of Doctors’ notes, the onus should be on the student to seek information from DANS.  Students who have previously chosen not to disclose details of their disability to the University are not compelled to seek supporting evidence from DANS and in some cases DANS may not be in a position to comment in detail within the timescale available in such cases. Depending on the circumstances, evidence from other professionals who are supporting the individual will continue to be more appropriate.

 

2.      On notification of an IP claim on the grounds of a disability, a relevant member of DANS staff will review the reasons for the claim (including the evidence they have available in relation to a student’s case) and complete the proposed pro-forma (annex 1).  A standard pro-forma will replace the need for IP panels to consider lengthy and complex pieces of evidence (for example medical reports, educational psychologists assessments of dyslexia) without necessarily possessing the expertise to do expediently.  DANS staff will indicate the degree of impairment they feel the student has experienced in the context of the claim, based on the scale below (categories refer to the level of impairment experienced by the student in relation to the assessment context, not the relative ‘severity’ of the disability/impairment):

 

·         Minor (least impairment incurred)

·         Moderate

·         Serious

·        Severe (greatest impairment incurred)

 

Definitions of the above are provided in the annex.

 

3.      It is not anticipated that DANS will recommend the specific level of outcome to an IP claim. For example, suggestions as to percentage level of adjustment would not be given. However, as part of the information supplied, there may be occasions where DANS knowledge of the student’s case could inform a recommendation to the IP Panel. For example, should a student indicate a specific disability related difficulty with a particular assessment methodology (for example a student with high anxiety in a exam situation related to a mental health problem), DANS may then recommend an alternative method of assessment as part of the claim.

4.      Careful briefing of staff and students will clearly be required to implement the above approach.  In particular, it should be made clear to students that a recommendation from DANS does not oblige the University to act on the IP Claim.  Decisions regarding the outcome of an IP Claim can only be taken by the Programme Board.  If a Programme Board does not accept the recommendation on the pro-forma and students feel they have been unfairly treated they would still have the same right to appeal/complaint as any other student. 

Further consideration should be given to whether there is a need to provide relevant staff in academic departments with further training about disability and the DDA.  It is also desirable to provide opportunities for staff to understand the work of DANS and the methodology used within DANS to investigate students’ needs and claims for support, so that colleagues can feel confident that recommendations made by DANS are done so professionally and based on a consistent, robust methodology. Planned developments to the LUSI system should enhance information sharing between departments and DANS and the requirements specification process could be used to review wider opportunities to enhance communications.

A key risk in the above will be whether DANS has sufficient staff time to provide the proposed reports within the short timescales likely to be required around the deadlines for submission of IP claims. DANS staff will also need to be clear about the nature of the assessment claimed for and the timescale in which it had to be completed (this detail is not always available for coursework on the IP claim form). Students will presumably see the reports from DANS and if they are not as supportive of the claim as the student would like, issue may arise, but this risk is already present in current arrangements.

 

Note 1:

 

DANS will normally only support IP on the grounds of a formally identified disability as per the definitions outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).  In line with this definition, DANS is willing to provide supporting evidence for:

 

The above list is not exhaustive but is intended to provide guidance to departments and students regarding whether or not it would be appropriate to seek DANS support for an IP claim.

 

DANS will NOT substantiate or verify IP claims relating to temporary conditions or illnesses (any form of temporary injury or illness which has not, or is not likely to, last a period of more than 12 months). This should be formally stated in the IP guidance documentation to students and a reminder sent to Academic Departments who occasionally refer such cases to DANS.

 

 

Section 2: Retrospective IP Claims

 

2.1       Contextual Information

 

In 2006/07, Academic Registry reported a significant increase in the number of IP Claims being made retrospectively - following late diagnosis of a disability (most commonly dyslexia).  DANS have been asked to comment on University obligations to students who, having been identified as being disabled late into their programmes, go on to claim IP for assessment marks already obtained prior to the formal identification/disclosure of a disability.

 

SENDA states that the duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled students are not unfairly disadvantaged because of their disability does not apply when the University could not have reasonably known about a person’s disability at the time concerned. In such cases a breach of SENDA (for example in terms of the assessment of work) will not have taken place if no specific reasonable adjustments were made, although the duty to have in place anticipatory measures would still apply.

 

In the case of dyslexic students, it would be unfair to hold the University liable for not identifying dyslexic learners early in their programme. Other educational agencies (including schools and colleges) would have a responsibility in not identifying dyslexia during a student’s academic career.  However, it is reasonable for the University to take responsibility in referring students who are struggling with their studies to the relevant in-house support service (i.e. DANS, mental health support, dyslexia services), although this does rely on students engaging with such suggestions.

 

In some cases, a student may have known about their disability or impairment, but chosen not to reveal this to the University. This includes students with mental health, medical conditions or other such disabilities whereby the student did not feel able to disclose such information.

 

2.2       Current Practice

 

Students seek approval from the Academic Registrar for an IP claim to be considered retrospectively (i.e. after the deadline for IP claims in the relevant semester).  The Academic Registrar considers each case on its on merits and makes a recommendation to the IP Panel regarding the dates to which the claim may be retrospectively applied.  This has included the re-opening of Part B Programme Boards where the disability has been diagnosed in Part C. Late diagnosis of a disability has also been accepted as grounds for appeal in a number of cases where the disability was confirmed after the deadline for IP claims or the date of the relevant Board.

 

2.3       Proposal (for consideration and advice)

 

As described above, there are a variety of complex combinations of circumstances which can lead students to submit a retrospective IP claim in relation to a previously undiagnosed or undisclosed disability.  Failure to sufficiently address such cases through the IP system increases the risk of formal complaints which may end up with the OIA. However, there is also an onus on students to seek appropriate support in good time if they feel they a struggling because of a disability-related issue. Therefore, it is recommended that retrospective IP claims be considered in such cases, with the judgement on each individual case being made on the evidence presented.  DANS should be invited to comment on all cases and the critical deciding factors should be the opportunities the student had to declare a disability and the reason for the non-declaration, alongside the relative severity of impairment.

 

Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to approve the following policy decision to be implemented by the Academic Registrar.

 

To allow retrospective IP claims to be made only for modules predating the formal identification of a disability for a limited time period. The suggestion would be only to allow submission of retrospective IP claims predating the formal identification of a disability during the academic year of the claim.

 

It is anticipated that there may well be exceptional cases on which the Academic Registrar might take a different decision and such decisions would be informed by the advice of the Head of DANS.

 

In considering whether or not to accept a retrospective IP claim in relation to a previously undiagnosed or undisclosed disability, the Academic Registrar will consider whether or not a student could have sought support earlier.