1. Inclusive Assessment Dr Helen May Higher Education Academy Academic Registrars Council Assessment Practitioners Working Group 11.02.11

2. Objectives of the session  Changing context of HE.  Disability equality legislation.  Institutional responses to disability.  Analysis of common adjustments.  Key concerns arising.  Characteristics of different responses.  Getting the balance right.

3. Changing context of HE  Increasingly diverse student population.  Rising numbers of students entering HE with a disability and/or disclosing a disability.  Rising student fees.  Reduced overall government funding and implications for the resourcing of learning and teaching quality in HE.  Changing student expectations and pressure to evidence value for money.  Manifesto for change in assessment policy and practice.  Higher Education Achievement Record, linked to a focus on employability.

4. Disability Equality Legislation Duty to make anticipatory adjustments to HE system (i.e. policy, procedures and practice) Duty to make reasonable adjustments for individuals Underpinned by the social model of disability, and student entitlement.

5. What are we aiming for? Shifting institutional responses to disability equality….. Alternative provision Separate policies and practices for disabled individuals or groups. Inclusive provision Inclusive & flexible policies, procedures and practices focus on success for all. Adapted from Waterfield and West (2006); Fuller et al (2009); May and Bridger (2010)

6. Common adjustments in HE  Additional writing time.  Anonymous marking.  Rest breaks.  Scribe or reader.  Use of PC.  Separate room.  Coloured paper/overlays.  Coloured stickers.  Provision of alternative formats.  Specialist software/ equipment.  Special timetabling arrangements.  To what extent are such adjustments standardised by impairment?  How are adjustments negotiated?  What is the potential impact of these adjustments on disabled students?  In what ways can such adjustments support all students?

7. Key concerns  A system focused on reasonable adjustments for particular individuals can mean that anticipatory adjustments (also required by the equality legislation) remain overlooked.  Leads to pressure on resources e.g. 1500 students reportedly require an exam adjustment at De Montfort University.  Efforts to maintain standards and promote the consistency of practice has led to the use of standardised adjustments for particular impairments.  Leads to discriminatory practice.

8. Characteristics of assessment provision Alternative provision for individuals Standardised adjustments by impairment. Adjustments made on behalf of (not with) disabled students. Large number of adjustments to co- ordinate. Adjustments made within confines of current assessment policy/ practice. Inclusive provision for all Focus on improving the quality of assessment. Use of a range of forms of assessment. Match of assessment to learning outcomes. Work in collaboration with students. Impact of adjustments routinely assessed. Reasonable adjustments minimised.

9. Getting the Right Balance Anticipatory Adjustments Reasonable Adjustments Do impact assessments Lecture notes Extra time in exams Modify practice Change policy

10. Analysing the balance  In what ways are your assessment and feedback approaches designed, implemented and managed to enable all students to demonstrate their potential?  What evidence would you draw on to demonstrate as a HEI that you are meeting the anticipatory duty, in working towards inclusive provision?

11. Things to take away…..  Enhance assessment policy, processes & practice.  Promote the use of impact assessments to think through the consequences of particular decisions.  Ensure a range of assessment methods (both summative and formative) in each programme to enable students to demonstrate their capabilities.  Encourage flexibility of assessment design and delivery.  Promote collaboration with disabled students to ensure practices are relevant, and between departments to ensure approaches are complimentary & consistent.

12. References  May, H and Bridger, K (2010) Developing and Embedding Inclusive Policy and Practice in Higher Education. York: Higher Education Academy  QAA Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. Section 3: Disabled students (2010).  Waterfield and West (2006) SPACE project ‘Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: A resource for change’ University of Plymouth.

13. Relevant Resources  Self-review: May, H. and Thomas, L. (2010) Self- evaluation Framework: Embedding Equality and Diversity in the Curriculum. York: HEA http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwor k/inclusion/embedding_eandd_self_evaluation_frame work http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwor k/inclusion/embedding_eandd_self_evaluation_frame work  Waterfield, J. and West, (2008) Inclusive Assessment in May, H. (ed.) Inclusive Practice Series. Higher Education Academy

14. Other resources  Simpson, A (2004) TeachAbility series: ‘Creating Accessible Examinations and assessments for disabled students’ University of Strathclyde.  Inclusive assessment www.monash.edu.au/lls/inclusivity/assessment/ [accessed 29.10.09] www.monash.edu.au/lls/inclusivity/assessment/  Making your teaching inclusive www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching [accessed 4.2.10] www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching

15. Contact details: Dr Helen May Senior Adviser Higher Education Academy helen.may@heacademy.ac.uk helen.may@heacademy.ac.uk