Accessibility checklists are increasingly becoming offered as ways to improve inclusivity in Higher Education. However, they rely on the presumption that those delivering education and thus using them have no accessibility needs of their own. Moreover, in seeking to codify what counts as inclusivity, many students’ requirements get overlooked. In this post, Dr Kelsie Acton and Dr Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg outline the problems with accessibility checklists and propose a praxis of ‘relaxed pedagogy’ in their place

Acton, Kelsie

Dyi Huijg, Dieuwertje

English

LSE Research Online

The	problem	with	accessibility	checklistsAccessibility	checklists	are	increasingly	becoming	offered	as	ways	to	improve	inclusivity	in	Higher	Education.However,	they	rely	on	the	presumption	that	those	delivering	education	and	thus	using	them	have	no	accessibilityneeds	of	their	own.	Moreover,	in	seeking	to	codify	what	counts	as	inclusivity,	many	students’	requirements	getoverlooked.	In	this	post,	Dr	Kelsie	Acton	and	Dr	Dieuwertje	Dyi	Huijg	outline	the	problems	with	accessibilitychecklists	and	propose	a	praxis	of	‘relaxed	pedagogy’	in	their	place.Higher	education	institutions	(HEIs)	have	a	history	of	inaccessibility	–	marginalising,	among	others,	disabled	andneurodivergent	(people	whose	bodies	and	minds	process	and	experience	stimuli	and	information	differently	fromwhat	is	deemed	‘(neuro)typical’	in	society)	students	and	teachers.A	specific	manifestation	of	inaccessibility	has	been	the	unwillingness	of	HEIs	to	offer	disabled	students	digitalaccess	to	learning,	whether	through	distance	learning	or	using	digital	devices	in	the	classroom.	As	the	world	hasrapidly	shifted	in	2020	due	to	the	pandemic,	HEIs	have	taken	much	of	teaching	online.	Digital	teaching,	however,does	not	guarantee	accessibility.	To	welcome	a	wider	range	of	students	and	teachers	and	to	make	our	teachingand	learning	more	welcoming,	we	advocate	for	using	this	moment	as	an	opportunity	to	radically	shift	how	we	thinkand	go	about	creating	more	accessible	classroom	environments.The	problem	with	accessibility	checklistsWhile	we	favour	accessibility,	we	argue	against	‘accessibility	checklists’.	Accessibility	checklists	seek	to	provide	atick	list	for	practitioners	to	complete	before	delivering	sessions.	Sure,	such	checklists	have	an	allure.	After	all,	theyare	concrete	ways	to	start	learning	about	and	increasing	access.	Just	completing	a	checklist,	however,	“is	likely	tohave	little	impact	on	the	development	of	in-house	practices.”	Checklists	themselves,	then,	can	become	a	barrier	tocreating	radical	access	–	and	we	are	not	even	referring	here	to	(the	irony	of)	the	inaccessible	accessibility	checklist–	unless	they	are	understood	as	a	starting	place	for	an	ever	evolving,	relational	and	contextual	approach	to	access.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: The problem with accessibility checklists Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-19Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/19/the-problem-with-accessibility-checklists/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Universities	often	rely	on	checklists	for	accessibility,	in	particular	on	checklists	drawing	on	Universal	Design	forLearning	(UDL)	as	the	go-to	method	for	accessible	learning.	Although	UDL	is	not	intended	as	a	checklist	–	after	all,it	seeks	to	be	a	“framework	to	improve	and	optimize	teaching	and	learning	for	all	people”	–	HEIs	often	employ	UDLby	placing	an	accessibility	checklist	somewhere	on	their	website	(see	this	example).	When	a	university	publishesan	accessibility	checklist	on	their	website	they	can	actually	remove	the	possibility	of	a	meaningful	dialogue	betweenstudent	and	teacher	about	access	beyond	UDL.	This	practice	furthermore	ignores	off-checklist	situations.	Forinstance,	UDL	checklists	call	for	multi-sensory	engagement,	meaning	that	both	visual	and	auditory	material,	modesof	teaching,	and	evaluation	need	to	be	offered;	however,	since	not	everyone	can	function	multi-sensorily,	thisapproach	lacks	situational	nuance.	Some	students	have	needs	that	are	not	supported	by	the	specific	examplesmentioned	on	the	checklist	and	can	end	up	without	meaningful	support	and	access	to	learning.An	accessible	classroom	cannot	be	reduced	to	an	accessibility	checklistUDL	checklists	also	do	not	consider	that	teaching	staff	might	have	access	needs	too:	whether	this	is	teaching	insign	language;	to	sit	or	lie	down	while	teaching;	to	teach	without	visual	means;	or	needing	to	make	a	choicebetween	assigning	energy	(‘spoons’)	to	preparing	a	class,	captioning	a	video,	or	perhaps	offering	pastoral	care.And	since	UDL	checklists	ignore	disabled	teaching	staff,	they	also	ignore	possible	conflicts	between	students’	andteachers’	access	needs:	think	of	a	student	needing	lecture	slides	a	week	before	the	lecture	and	a	neurodivergentteacher	needing	the	time	up	until	the	lecture	to	make	the	lecture	slides;	a	dyslexic	student	needing	slides	in	aspecific	colour	scheme	and	a	colour-blind	teacher	not	seeing	these	colours;	or	a	student	with	vision	impairmentsneeding	a	lot	of	light	and	a	teacher	with	other	vision	impairments	needing	low	light.	Checklists	ignore	thesesituations	and	they	do	not	offer	a	way	to	navigate	them.Accessibility,	Mingus	argues,	is	about	the	“concrete	resistance	to	the	isolation	of	disabled	people”	Access,	sheadds,	should	fundamentally	be	about	the	connection	between	and	interdependence	of	people,	and	about	bringingdisabled	people	into	society.	For	this	to	happen,	access	cannot	be	reduced	to	a	prescriptive	checklist.	Moving	awayfrom	prescriptive,	and	reductionist,	checklists	opens	up	the	possibility	of	flexible,	relational	access	–	one	thatacknowledges	and	accommodates	the	specifics	of	everyone’s	needs	when	and	where	they	arise.	An	accessibleclassroom	cannot	be	reduced	to	an	accessibility	checklist;	rather,	it	should	revolve	around	the	connection	betweenand	interdependence	of	people,	needs	and	environment.	To	achieve	this,	we	should	not	only	transforminaccessibility,	but	also	the	‘uptightness’	of	the	classroom	environment.	This	cannot	be	addressed	by	accessibilitychecklists	alone.Relaxed	pedagogyWe	propose	to	relax	our	pedagogy,	so	that	both	students	and	teachers	can,	in	disability	arts	activist	Jess	Thom’swords,	“relax	and	react	naturally”	in	their	learning	and	teaching.	We	have	called	this	‘Relaxed	Pedagogy’drawing	offthe	practice	of	relaxed	performances	and	of,	among	others,	critical	liberatory	and	disability	pedagogiesrules	andnorms	around	when	and	how	behaviour	and	relationships	convey,	‘respect’,	‘attention’	and	‘engagement’	in	theclassroom	environment:	think	of	the	student	staying	still,	eyes	fixed	forward,	upright	in	their	seats	and	utterly	silent;think	of	the	teacher	standing,	animated	and	perfect	in	their	delivery	of	the	material;	or	think	of	student	and	teachercommunicating	in	‘finished	and	linear	lines	of	thought’.	These	and	other	uptight	norms	and	rules	excludeneurodivergent	and	disabled	students	and	teachers,	along	with	students	and	instructors	who	are	(also)	otherwisemarginalized.Digital	teaching,	does	not	guarantee	accessibility.	To	welcome	a	wider	range	of	students	and	teachersand	to	make	our	teaching	and	learning	more	welcoming,	we	advocate	for	using	this	moment	as	anopportunity	to	radically	shift	how	we	think	and	go	about	creating	more	accessible	classroomenvironments.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: The problem with accessibility checklists Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-19Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/19/the-problem-with-accessibility-checklists/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/We	suggest	that	a	relaxed	classroom	is	a	space	where	teachers	and	students	can	respond	and	react	naturally	toeach	other	and,	in	doing	so,	find	new,	mutually	sustaining	ways	of	being	together	and	learning	alone	and	together.This	might	include	(but	is	not	limited	to)	students	or	teachers	lying	down	or	moving	during	classes;	vocalising	ortaking	breaks	as	they	need	to;	or	communicating	in	non-linear	and	associative	ways,	perhaps	with	‘half’	or‘unfinished	thoughts’.	Rather	than	ticking	a	number	of	boxes,	then,	this	requires	that	we	fundamentally	rethink	howwe	understand	the	roles	of	teacher	and	student;	the	ways	that	we	convey	respect,	and	attend	to	and	engage	witheach	other;	and	the	uptightness	that	characterises	abled	and	neurotypical	norms	and	rules	in	the	classroom.	Wepropose	to	relax,	and	find	new	ways	of	relating	and	responding	that	will	bring	us	into	interdependent	relationships	inthe	classroom.	Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	comments	policy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	comment	belowImage	credit:	MissLunaRose12	via	Wikimedia	commons	Impact of Social Sciences Blog: The problem with accessibility checklists Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-19Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/19/the-problem-with-accessibility-checklists/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

The problem with accessibility checklists

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107702/1/impactofsocialsciences_2020_11_19_the_problem_with_accessibility_1_.pdf

The problem with accessibility checklists

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online