Inclusion (18/10/2017, my 33rd birthday)

I've listened to an inclusion testimony from a blind PhD candidate. She has had mixed reviews of how the school has allowed her to feel not only included but safe and able to work. She has always had to work extra to make room for herself in the able-centric world, and it would be nice sometimes to not have to expend so much energy fighting for simple accommodations to be made for her--not least because we do have laws in this country that require reasonable adjustments to be made to ensure disabled people have access to similar opportunities and facilities as everyone else. She was saddened and disappointed to note that her Collisions piece was the only one that made it explicit that disabled people were welcome and that accommodations would be made for them to enjoy the performance in a way that suited them. The fact that disabled people were only accommodated for in a piece that was developed by a disabled person was very telling.

Knee-jerk reaction (Reflexive reflection): We could be doing more, but what is reasonably practicable? This student deserves and is entitled to a learning environment that is ready for her, particularly when it comes to adaptive software, safe access and movement, planned egress routes and course design that allows her to participate fully. But I'm sympathetic to the staff members who were unprepared to assist her:  to the best of my knowledge blind students are vanishingly rare at Central. It is not surprising or really disappointing to me that well-established teaching systems, licenses to software and advice for visiting lecturers were not in place before the student asked for them. While we should be ready and willing to leap into action to provide the support each disabled student needs, it is frankly wasteful to (for instance) pay to maintain a license to software to assist the blind when we don't have a blind student in the building, and won't know until we have one if the software we have is actually any good.

While yes it is best to have ramps, lifts and trained staff to ensure people of all mobility levels can get where they need to go and get out safely in an emergency, we must acknowledge that the oldest sections of the school were built long before the Disabilities Act, and it would require knocking down significant portions of a historic, listed building to make some of these areas accessible. Indeed, the changes that were made to the Embassy seating rake to make it handicapped-accessible have impeded the function of the seating rake. It is arguable that the rebuild caused new problems while it solved others. Once the building itself is approved as safe by the fire department, making unique plans for unique disabilities must be handled on a case-by-case basis in order to be useful.

Yes, it was unacceptable that IT forgot to reinstall the useful software on the designated blind-accessible library computer after the update--but if you know our IT department, you know that that is par for the course with them. It was not a deliberate attempt to harm or get away with neglecting a disabled student, as they are just as likely to forget her software as the principal's. Yes, it was pretty shitty that a VL came in and made no adjustments to allow her participate in his or her class--but if it was the first (and probably last) time we saw that VL, how can we expect to improve them? VLs are transient by their very nature. We continue to try again. Sometimes we strike gold. Most of the time we don't.

Yes we have room to improve. But when do we have opportunities to practice? We can take classes and watch slide shows for months and have no more readiness than if we were merely reminded of the law once a year and only hired decent, well-meaning people.

Response to my initial response: Physically disabled students may be vanishingly rare at Central because we suck at accommodating them. We might be more popular among disabled people if we were more ready to begin with, if we made it clear that every show is disabled-friendly, or ready to be disabled-friendly with a little bit of notice. I don't know how practicable it is to, for instance, have a described service, or super-titles or BSL interpretation for at least some performances. I don't know what would be desirable for or most useful to students and members of the public, but I'm sure there are ways of finding out. I know that we can do more, but it would be helpful to understand if there is a compelling reason to do more.

Like in the workshop. Is it reasonable to accept a student into the class who is physically or intellectually incapable of using industry-standard workshop equipment safely? While it might be possible for a big institution to purchase or make adaptive tools and train everyone to work with and around a disabled person, are we really doing the student any favours in the long run? How likely is this person going to be to find a job out in the industry with the funding, time and people to help them work? Would training a student in this manner be disingenuous? Would we be giving them false hope that there is a place for them in the industry? Do we have a real chance of changing the industry from beneath or within to make room for disabled people? If it can be argued that industry-readiness isn't the point of education, how does that impact our relationship with ability-typical BATP students?


I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who struggles with mental health issues. I agree that we have no excuse for allowing teachers to judge students' appearances against one another. That's not just mean-spirited, it is academically useless. I'm a bit baffled as to what the teacher was trying to do in this instance. Odd.

I've read inclusion testimonies from two MA students who struggle with learning disabilities. Students C and D. Both of these women have difficulty with cognition and found classes frustrating, as they went too fast and seemed to plough through ideas with reckless abandon. Student C had a hard time paying attention to a lecture for more than an hour and believes all students benefit from repetition and simplicity in lessons. Student D found question-based teaching frustrating, and would prefer for the right answer to be provided clearly and succinctly if there is a right answer to be had.

An important takeaway from Student C:
"Most students in a room will appreciate clear signposting and structure. Start there first.

Two important takeaways from Student D:
"Intellectual frustration at not being able to grasp an academic concept, knowing that I don't know how to do it, but not being told how to do it, as if in being told it would somehow remove part of the attainment I would feel by finally achieving. . . . It's as if the feeling of being unable to understand academic expectation is compounded by course information/learning support/staff being unclear and hard to understand, a paranoid conspiracy of not telling! . . . The frustration of lack of explanation [outweighs] the perceived tarnished attainment of the journey."
(Many students tune out and do not intellectually engage in the content if they believe the 'right answer' will eventually be given to them. Many tutors have found that asking students to volunteer some of the course content keeps them awake and attentive, and indeed old style teaching which did just hand out answers and expect students to regurgitate them later for the test has been repeatedly found to have a dulling effect on enthusiasm and enquiry. I disagree fully with Student D's suggestion.)

"[I perceive a] lack of understanding about what it actually feels like to take on academia/study when you have an SpLD. Sometimes, help is given from outside the understanding of what an SpLD is. E.g. it's as if the help being offered has been designed by someone who does not have an SpLD, so the information is not quite on the money, not quite helpful enough, just missing the mark."
(To what extent do people with learning disabilities help other people with learning disabilities? Do dyslexic people need non-dyslexics to help them, or could a network of dyslexics be self-supporting? Is there research on this subject?)

I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who is transgendered and struggles with her emotional health. She had a fairly positive experience at our school, which surprised her. She had one significant issue where external support was erroneously withdrawn, but her tutors were helpful during this period and she was able to continue to study. She did well in classes that focussed on the individual.

Issues that all of the testimonies seem to share:
-each disabled student feels it is appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater to their disability.
-each student who by their declaration struggles with emotional and mental health expresses that they need and deserve dedicated, regular care from the school.

I must wonder. Is it appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater towards intellectually disabled students? Should teachers adjust classes only when disabled students are known to be present, or change their teaching styles full-stop regardless of the student cohort? How will this impact neuro-typical students? How many students at our school could be described as neurologically typical? Emotionally typical? 

A neuro-typical, emotionally "well-balanced" student would likely also benefit from the support that students with learning difficulties or mental health issues receive to bring them up to speed. What is the cut-off point for, for example, a dyslexic student, before one might question if the student is being unfairly advantaged? To what extent does our system of assessing new students unfairly advantage those who have managed to secure a diagnosis of a learning disability (usually at significant cost) over those who either have an undiagnosed or un-diagnosable learning disability, or are just not clever?

Is it appropriate to start with the assumption that all students, with suitable support, are equally capable of learning? Of high academic achievement? Is it ever fair for a student to fail because they didn't grasp the concept? Is it fair to slow down or belabour the point for an entire class for the sake of one student? Is it fair to leave a student behind on the classroom floor (metaphorically speaking) if they are able to record the session and have a private tutor? Who's responsibility is the private tutor? Why?

Where is the line when it comes to challenging a class to engage actively with the subject versus "spoon-feeding" them the right answers? We work in the arts--there rarely are right answers. Much of arts academia is exploration of questions and finding ways to site them within your own thinking. When your task is navel-gazing, who's belly button is the default?

Student C advises would-be lecturers to keep it simple and repeat themselves to reinforce concepts. This behaviour among lecturers would bore me to tears and probably push me out of the class. The whole point of higher education is to engage deeply, think critically, ask questions and expand not only your comprehension but the parameters of what you appreciate that you do not know. To what extent is accommodating for disabled people actively harmful to the able-bodied and able-minded?