1. If you’re gonna’ do it, do it right. Two processes for managing “modified attendance” accommodations. Jamie Axelrod-Director Disability Resources Northern Arizona University Adam Meyer-Director Student Disability Services University of Central Florida

2. Disclaimer This session is designed to talk about a process for managing “modified attendance” accommodations, if you are approving them. The focus is not intended to be a discussion of if and when to approve this accommodation. It is intended to discuss how you put this accommodation in place

3. A little history from N.A.U. The D.R. office at NAU had a practice of providing a “recommendation” on student accommodation letters for students whose disability might impact attendance and attendance related requirements. That statement read; “Recommendation: The student’s disability may impact attendance. It is recommended that the instructor collaborate with the student early in the semester to determine the best way to accommodate.”

4. A little history from N.A.U. In 2005-6 a student who had this “recommendation” on their accommodation letter filed a complaint with O.C.R. The student’s expectation was that they could enroll in in person classes, not attend and have the attendance requirements waived. That expectation was not met.

5. A little history from N.A.U. O.C.R. did open a case. At the conclusion of that process they indicated to us that they did not see the student’s request to “not attend” as reasonable. However, they did indicate to us that they agreed to open the case because of the “recommendation” language in the accommodation letter. Their main focus in resolving the case was to have us understand that, in making our determination we needed to decide if this was an accommodation or not and be clear about that. They felt that making a recommendation on the accommodation letter and then letting the professor decide if they would honor that recommendation was not in compliance.

6. A little about UCF Approximately 100 of 1200 students in 2013-2014 Approximately 400 total classes! The old process (leave it to students and to faculty to figure out) was not working A different way needed As a side reason, the new approach falls in line with social model thinking

7. N.A.U. original process Accommodation letter included a statement indicating this was an approved accommodation. Included an explanation of the accommodation and what it entailed Included a form for the documentation of an agreement between the faculty member and student

8. N.A.U. original process required the student and faculty member to meet and outline a modification to the attendance requirements set out in the course syllabus. required the student to return the agreement to us within a week. had a place where the student and faculty member could indicate they wanted D.R.s assistance in crafting the agreement. required the student and faculty member to sign that they both agreed to the listed modifications

9. What we found The agreements were often incomplete The agreements were not reasonable Students reported that they just agreed with whatever the professor suggested Students had a hard time getting a meeting with the professor within a week Students did not complete the process because they were fearful or had a bad experience

10. “Examples” “Student will comply with the attendance policy written in the syllabus” “Not a problem, whatever the student misses we will find a way to make up” “Student will be provided time and a half on exams and quizzes” “There is an attendance policy because I have to have one but I don’t enforce it” “If the student is doing well in the course I will excuse absences when the student provides a doctor’s note”

11. Why we changed Our experience with the process we had set out OCR letter to Metropolitan State College of Denver (now Metropolitan State University of Denver) Letter had one section related to a modified attendance process which was very similar to ours. Letter indicated “Based on the evidence obtained, we found that the College’s requirement that students requesting accommodations meet with their professors to negotiable over the substance of accommodations is unreasonable and therefore in violation of Section 504 and Title II. Although a professor may be an integral part of the interactive process, he or she is not qualified to solely determine what the requesting student may be entitled to under Section 504 and Title Il. Including whether the requested accommodation constitutes a fundamental alteration of the course. Also. The professor may not know the nature of the student's disability and the disclosure of such information to the professor may raise student privacy concerns.”

12. Laney College 2014; Different accommodation…similar guidance? OCR provides the following technical assistance to the College. OCR strongly cautions the College against continuing this practice of approving accommodations subject to instructor approval. It is DSPS’s function to approve accommodations with certainty, based on documentation submitted by the student. When DSPS conditions an accommodation “per instructor approval,” it places the student in a difficult and unfair position of having to negotiate his/her accommodation with individual instructors, who are ultimately in the position of evaluating and rating the student’s academic performance. An important function of DSPS is to serve as an intermediary between the student and faculty so that students do not have to be in the uncomfortable position of having to reveal the nature or extent of their disability and to discuss/negotiate their accommodations with their instructors.

13. N.A.U. new process D.R. staff member contacts Faculty prior to the start of the semester by email “Prof. X, (Student Name), a student in your (course)class, is eligible for a Modified Attendance Policy accommodation through Disability Resources. This accommodation is given when the nature of a student’s disability includes symptoms which could exacerbate unexpectedly causing them to miss class. This accommodation is intended to create a reasonable modification to the classroom attendance policy which is stated in the course syllabus. It is not intended to serve as an attendance waiver. I would like to speak with you so that we can discuss an Attendance Accommodation Agreement which will serve to outline what the reasonable modification will be for this student. Having a written agreement helps all parties understand what the limits will be to the accommodation. Please let me know a good time and manner in which to contact you. If you believe that this accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of this course, I will be happy to discuss that with you when we speak. Thank you for your assistance,

14. N.A.U new process 1.What does the course description and syllabus say about attendance? 2.Is attendance factored in as part of the final course grade? 3.What are classroom practices and policies regarding attendance? 4.Is the attendance policy consistently applied? 5.Is there classroom interaction between the instructor and students, among students? 6.Do student contributions constitute a significant component of the learning process? 7.Does the course rely on student participation as a method for learning? 8.What is the impact on the educational experience of other students in the class? 9.Is there content only offered in class? 10.Are assignments used as class content when they are due? (e.g. problem sets reviewed as the first lecture on that content)

15. N.A.U. New Process After the discussion with the Faculty member, the agreement form is completed and emailed to the Faculty member with a request that they confirm this was the agreement as it was discussed. When the Faculty member confirms we send a copy of the agreement to the student. If the student has any concerns with the agreement they can bring that to our attention. If the agreement needs to be renegotiated we will do that.

16. What we have found Faculty have a lot of legitimate questions. Faculty often need help in thinking through the course design and how attendance could be modified. Some Faculty have a good deal of resistance to this and it takes patience and some persistence to work through this with them. It can be an arduous process. After taking over the negotiation as a D.R. function, I would not want to put a student in this position again.

17. How it has helped Better agreements More timely Everyone is aware of the extent of the modification When students of faculty have not followed the agreement it is easier to point out, and we have it in writing. If a student is approaching the limits of the accommodation we can get back together and consider other potential options. Over time you begin to establish a “library” of examples that can be used to facilitate process.