Some students live through a game of ping-pong every day just to get their disability access plan (DAP) followed. So, what is happening?
NOTE TO READERS: This article was written during the 2024/25 academic year. Amber Snary no longer holds the role of SU Education Officer.
In the Olympics, athletes in ping-pong go all out with their paddles, rallying the ball to each other throughout the game. Yet, these games go on every day at the University. Some students live through a game of ping-pong every day just to get their disability access plan (DAP) followed. So, what is happening?
Back and forth in the court
Student X and their struggles
This was first brought to light by Student X, whom I talked to in February. X is disabled and requires significant accessibility arrangements to effectively access teaching. As a result, some lecture theatres are harder for them to access, if they could even access it at all. X has also cited that gender-based violence is a sensitive topic for them. Hence, they require lecture recordings to engage with the material to the same degree as others. However, after thorough deliberation and back-and-forth emails with their criminology lecturer, the lecturer has consistently backed away from their request for a recording, citing concerns of self-censorship and the issue of informed consent from students. The lecturer has instead offered to provide narrated PowerPoints from previous years and one-to-one essay guidance, which did not cover the full range of the course of study, however, the narrated PowerPoints are out-of-date and did not account for changes made to the course since the recordings were created.
The policy of the university is currently that lecturers may provide recordings at their own discretion, and they may pause at any time.
X went to one of the lectures with difficulty and says that the PowerPoint slides were insufficient as a substitute for lectures because the lecturer frequently references important details that are not included on the substitutive PowerPoints.
X then went to their Director of Studies and finally escalated to the Head of Department. The resolution that X and the Head of Department have arrived at is a note-taker who will attend lectures in place of X, as lecture recordings cannot be provided. Although X has accepted this proposal, they have reported feelings of abnormal stress and struggle as a result of this resolution.
Barriers X had to cross
X initially was unsure of the next appropriate step following their consultation with their Director of Studies. They went to relevant Societies for advice, one of which referred them to the SU.
However, X is one of the many students facing issues related to DAPs. Students who require DAPs are more likely to require additional support to access societies, and as such not everyone will be successful in finding people who can signpost them to appropriate sources of support. This raises the question of whether similar accessibility issues are more likely to be underreported.
X had been in a game of bureaucratic ping-pong – they have been bounced back and forth between different parties: the lecturer, the Director of Studies, the Head of Department, and Disability Services. Not everyone can withstand the rallies these key points of contact play with the issue at hand for so long.
Accessibility seems to be suffering from systemic failures, so I then went to talk to a person most apt to answer my queries.
Systemic problems
I sat down with Amber Snary, the outgoing SU Education Officer, to discuss accessibility around campus. We have summarised that there were three main issues with accessibility.
1. Too much responsibility is placed on the student
The current system relies on students at almost all stages. To get a specific DAP that is tailored for them, students have to self-report what they need and communicate that need clearly, more so if they were not already given appropriate adjustments at previous stages of education. DAP adherence is also up to the student: students report whether the DAPs have been followed, and if not, there is no clear ladder of escalation. Furthermore, there is also no oversight system for whether staff have adhered to DAPs. X was successful in reporting their DAP issue because they had a sufficiently strong support network to help them navigate the process. Not everyone has access to these networks. This shows how DAP non-adherence could be underreported, and X is one of the few lucky ones that made it.
2. Disability service is overstretched
Amber said that the average wait time for an appointment with Disability Service is 10 weeks – close to a full semester around exam season. This could be attributed to the fact that 87% of DAPs, according to the SU’s TWST (Together We Shape Tomorrow) report, consists of these three suggestions: (1) provide access to lecture material in advance; (2) provide access to lecture recordings; and (3) ability to self-record by the student, meaning that most disability service appointments result in the same outcome. Amber estimated that a quarter of DAPs would not be required if these teaching practices were made universal. This in turn means that these disability service appointments may not be required in the first place, if these practices are undertaken university-wide, and so would free up the time and capacity of disability services. Of course, some of these may not always be available as an option, for instance, seminars may not allow for recording due to their nature of being student-led discussions, sometimes on controversial topics, and if it is recorded, students might not be as open with their opinions, stifling critical discussion. Some lecturers also believe that providing access to lecture recordings might disincentivise attendance and so are reluctant to provide universal access to recordings.
3. DAPS cannot cover student needs
DAPs are currently generic, with recommendations chosen from a pre-prepared list. For example, DAPs often cover the three arrangements listed above. This means that a DAP could be inadequate for the student, preventing them from accessing material to the same extent others do.
Moving forward
X’s story is not an isolated case; Amber has reported more cases from other departments as well. With X used as a ping-pong ball of responsibility and the unreliable process through which DAP non-adherence is currently reported, a lot is left to be desired from the university and lecturers.
If more inclusive teaching practices like ones mentioned in most DAPs are adopted, a quarter of DAPs would become obsolete. This would help the already stretched disability service, working students, caring students and those with clashes, who could all benefit from more inclusive teaching practices.
The process for escalation and signposting for support requires improvement. A lot of the current system relies on the student’s initiative, which requires them to know their rights and the right points of contact.
The red tape is excessive, but is there nothing we can do? Not really. That is why I also contacted the upcoming education and community officers, Helen Slater and Izzy Downer, for their comments and outlook for the future.
They think that the current system rests too much responsibility onto the student’s shoulders, adding onto the burdens that students that require DAPs already have to go through. However, they have also said that inclusive education is one of the university’s top priorities for student experience, with work underway to make teaching and learning more accessible for students. They are hopeful that the strong SU-University relationship will enable them to bring about meaningful change in this academic year.
There should not be a ping-pong match at all.
Further sources of support
If you feel you need reasonable adjustments to be made, please contact student support studentsupport@bath.ac.uk or disability advice Disabilityadvice@bath.ac.uk.
If you’d like to share feedback that can help the SU continue pushing for improvements, you can contact Helen at sueducation@bath.ac.uk or Izzy at sucommunity@bath.ac.uk.