In the context of wider financial pressures on providers, universities can be a challenging environment to work in at present.
So, a crackdown on ensuring all disabled student support plans are both in place and implemented may have fallen to the bottom of the to-do list. Couple that with delays in the Disabled Students’ Allowance system and it’s a pretty bleak picture for disabled students.
The findings of this year’s Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) annual report echo these concerns.
Like last year’s report, self-identified disabled students were over-represented in complaints, with the proportion rising for 2024 from a third to just over 40 per cent. Of those who did disclose details of their disability, mental health issues were the largest category selected by students (46 per cent), and specific learning differences accounted for a third.
A bulk of complaints from students who self-identified as disabled related to support and reasonable adjustments to teaching and assessment not being implemented promptly or at all. This correlates to national trends as shown in Disabled Student UK’s annual survey of 1,200 disabled students across eight UK institutions, where only 39 per cent said they had their support needs implemented.
Delayed
OIA make it clear that delays to student support do happen and are not always a serious cause for concern. As they suggest, sometimes it may take a long time to identify what support works best for the student for their course of study, or the process is at a halt because a student’s application for DSA is significantly delayed.
However, as the annual report highlights:
there is no culture of accountability in place to ensure that disabled students receive the support that is necessary to place them on an equal footing for success with their peers.
Additionally, the OIA recommends that providers train and support academic staff in meeting the requirements of the Equality Act, as too often academic staff have not fully understood what is required and, instead, “default to standard [teaching] practices that do not meet disabled students’ needs. As a result disabled students are often left to muddle through at a significant disadvantage to their non-disabled peers.
Let’s recap
Last week, the Disabled Students Commission published guidance clarifying the legal responsibilities of providers when it comes to competence standards and reasonable adjustments. Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are accountable for their acts and omissions in relation to disabled students. This includes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled applicants and students do not experience substantial disadvantages in comparison to non-disabled people.
As the guidance explains, two considerations that should be used in decision-making as to what constitutes reasonable are whether the adjustment is possible and if there is a reasonable assumption that the adjustment might be effective in reducing substantial disadvantage for a disabled student.
One of these considerations is whether a reasonable adjustment is financially viable. But while institutions must consider the total resource cost, this factor alone, according to the guidance, rarely automatically precludes an adjustment from being reasonable.
It’s a squeeze
A real risk here, given current financial circumstances, is that resources for disabled students continue to be squeezed, potentially making it harder to access adequate support.
While financial strain alone is not a good enough reason not to implement a lawful duty, there is already significant evidence that disabled students’ needs are not currently being met. With a move towards self-service across student-facing roles, it paints an unpromising picture for future support for disabled students, unless something changes sharpish.
Both the DSC and the OIA urge further signposting around competence standards for students and staff. The annual report suggests that they still instances where there is no clarity for students or staff within course documents about what competence standards will be assessed.
If a competence standard is not defined, given that they are exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments, it is difficult for a provider to decide if a reasonable adjustment requested by a disabled student is, in fact, reasonable.
Get it right
Providers need to ensure that accurate information about competence standards and the possibility of reasonable adjustments is made available to both students and staff, including prospective students.
Providers and individual staff are operating under strain at the moment, but it’s crucial to remember that supporting disabled students is not optional – it is a legal requirement. These aren’t practices and processes that can be prioritised based on finances, it’s a baseline, legal requirement disabled students are entitled to.
Understandably in the current climate, some may feel resistant to adding additional responsibilities to an already heavy workload, especially as the number of students declaring a disability in recent years has increased. But addressing students’ needs proactively avoids the much greater financial and reputational costs associated with complaints and compensation. If institutions feel they don’t have the time or capacity to prioritise inclusive practices now, they risk spending a greater amount of time, money and resources later managing avoidable grievances.
And if that isn’t enough, surely disabled students deserve better than having their legal rights to equity perpetually sidelined or ignored.
