Unfortunately discrimination and unfair treatment is a common experience for disabled students in Higher Education. In the first instance denial of entry is frequently based on assumptions of deficit, ie that disabled students cannot cope, their impairment prevents them from achieving. These attitudes insist that disabled students must assimilate into university life, they must learn in the same way as everyone else, they must be tested in the same way as their peers.
The notion of equality here is that everyone should be treated in the same way, this has damaged the lived experience of Deaf students in higher education. In our opinion it is discriminatory to expect Deaf students to learn in the same manner as hearing students and it follows that ‘difference’ needs to be recognised in institutional behaviours and procedures.
Hearing students are clearly advantaged when teaching and learning methods concentrate on the aural/oral media. In order to integrate hearing and Deaf students in the curriculum it may be necessary to change teaching methods and assessment procedures.
This article focuses on the attempts of one university social work teaching team to recognise the unfairness of the assessment procedures for Deaf students and to rectify this by introducing the option for students to submit work in other formats.
In this work we acknowledge the central role which the Social Model of Disability has had on our thinking and actions but also how this creates a dilemma for Deaf students. The social model names the attitudes, behaviours and practices of non disabled people and institutions that ‘disable’ people rather than the physical or sensory impairment as preventing full participation. With this definition of Disability it becomes clear that universities publicise their policies of ‘support’ for disabled students as if they, the disabled students, have the problem and require support in ‘coping’ with university requirements. These policies again ‘name’ the disabled student as needy, needy of help, needy of equipment, needy of professional advice. This may relieve the institution of the responsibility of examining it’s own daily practices that may present unfair advantage to the majority and disadvantage to a minority.
Accepting that one’s teaching methods or examination procedures may be discriminatory may be quite difficult for many of us, it can cause us to be quite defensive. It is simple to fall into the trap of pathologising the disabled student, or blaming the ‘victim’ of oppression for their own experience of unfairness. Disabled students have reported that they are seen as problems, as presenting extra workloads, as being demanding and not being able to cope.
Recognising that institutions unwittingly prevent the integration of disabled students is one step towards rectifying institutional discrimination, it firmly places the ‘problem’ with the University and staff. Changing habitual behaviour and daily activities requires some forethought and consultation with disabled students. It also requires that extra monies and resources be committed to remove the barriers to full participation and create alternate systems that include disabled people.
Universities are currently revisiting their equal opportunity policies with regard to disabled students in the light of the recently implemented Human Rights Act (2000), Equal Status Act (2000) and in England and Wales the Disability Discrimination Act (1995). It seems like a good time to introduce alternate means of examination for people for whom sign language is their first and preferred language. Usually (but not exclusively) this means Deaf * student’s use of written English is grammatically different following the syntax of British Sign Language. This type of expression is generally seen by marking tutors as inferior and consequently Deaf students receive low or fail grades. Three factors need to be considered here. Firstly, the mean reading age of a Deaf school leaver, aged sixteen, is seven and three-quarters. Secondly students’ access to academic texts is severely restricted because of this. Thirdly no amount of additional support will remedy this during a three year undergraduate programme.
Any consideration of ‘equity’ in assessment systems must take account of this. Our strategy has been to use the ‘social model’ of disability and deal with the institutional barriers that create the difficulties fbr Deaf students.
At the Manchester Metropolitan University two principles have been established both to accommodate those for whom English is not a first language and for disabled students. In the first instance students may present one out of five assignments (20%) in their first language. This enables them to demonstrate their abilities unhindered by any complications of expression caused by the translation into English. Secondly disabled students may present three out of five assignments (60%) in a mode preferable to them, for example audio or video taped, with the bibliography and appendices in the usual written form. Clearly Deaf students can choose between these two variations as both are relevant, but they may choose only one.
Whilst these variations are an attempt at equity we would argue that they are not value free nor do they necessarily make assignments easier for Deaf students to complete. Although they may ultimately receive a fairer grade the effort needed to use appropriate
equipment and deal with the technicalities of recording are considerable. Deaf students and blind students also need to develop skills of holding onto academic knowledge and expression whilst recording so that their presentations appear as smooth and coherent as a textual script. One only has to think about presenting an academic paper without recourse to the text to realise the inherent difficulties in this.
In addition to the assessment issues using BSL there are dilemmas raised by Deaf students’ access to the curriculum. One already alluded to is the difficulty of accessing academic texts whilst having a low reading age. Deaf students in full-time education receive both human support and equipment grants via their local authority. Human support usually comes in the form of interpreters and notetakers but grants are rarely used to purchase acadernic support workers who would facilitate the students’ understanding of texts. Equipment may include computers with grammar and spelling checks, but these are not 100% reliable when using subject specific terminology. Student support workers may offer additional support in academic writing, yet their time can be quite limited student’s resources are frequently extinguished in buying interpreter time. There is also the whole area of how Deaf students learn how to be an employer and understand which would be the best equipment to purchase and from where.
The quality of interpreting and length of time for which a Deaf student can concentrate will affect the absorption of curriculum material. Lecturers can help to optimise this by their management of time and environment in the teaching situation but they need to receive training in this area. Prior sight of any teaching materials including lecture notes will also help the Deaf student to identify with the themes of the lecture. Student feedback from group activities can be given using OHP acetates which benefits all students and gives the Deaf students equal access to the information. Deaf students need to undertake considerably more work to stay ahead but also tutors must be proactive in our support for deaf students.
In our efforts to promote equality in the assessment procedure we often become ‘hung up’ on the importance of the use and understanding of English. For example where an interpreter has reverse interpreted a BSL assignment into English they will use words which may be unfamiliar to the student. It is tempting to say that this is no longer the student’s work but that of the interpreter. One way round this is to employ an assignment marker who is familiar with the subject matter and BSL so that written translation is redundant. Finding such people is extremely problematic but the successful attempt to remove barriers in learning and assessment clearly needs to encompass a change to the Social Model of practice in University procedures.
* The term Deaf with a capital D is used to denote a political affiliation with a shared community, culture, language, education and experience of disadvantaged resulting from interaction with a majority hearing society. The use of the lower case deaf denotes a mainly audiological condition where individuals use aids to hearing and lipreading skills.
Dianne Keetch and Sue Jones, Senior Lecturers, Manchester Metropolitan University
Northern Ireland Department, Equal Status Act (2000)
Conrad. R, (1976), in Lee R, Deaf Liberation, National Union of the Deaf
Department of Health, Disability Discrimination Act (1995), HMSO
Department of Health, Human Rights Act (1998) HMSO
Johnson. R, et al (1994) in Erting. C, The Deaf Way, Gallaudet University Press.
Table of Contents of Newsletter 10