No conclusion can be drawn regarding discriminatory treatment on the basis of disability against a female student with a severe visual impairment, during her participation in the University of Cyprus’s Preschool Teacher School Experience Program, according to a report by the Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human Rights, Maria Stylianou-Lottidi, in her report. Consequently, she notes that a binding recommendation to the University of Cyprus on the grounds of discriminatory treatment due to disability is not warranted.
The Commissioner makes a series of recommendations to the University, noting that doubts remain as to whether the student was permitted to receive personalized support from her companion.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Among other things, she recommends that efforts be made to reassess the student’s grades, where feasible and to the extent possible, as well as mandatory training for supervisors and mentors on issues of equal treatment of people with disabilities and personalized reasonable accommodations.
SEE ALSO: “Since You Have a Vision Problem, Find Another Job”: Serious Complaint by the Father of a Student with a Disability, the University’s Response
The report concerns a complaint filed by a student in the Department of Educational Sciences, specializing in Preschool Education, who has a severe visual impairment.
The student claimed that the reasonable accommodations provided to her by the University during her participation in the Preschool Teachers’ School Experience Program were not tailored to her individual needs.
She also claimed that the support she was allowed to receive from her assistant was inadequate, as the assistant’s interventions were interrupted, which, in her view, affected her smooth participation in the practicum and her final evaluation.
According to the complainant, the accommodations provided were generic and standardized rather than personalized.
She further argued that the difficulties she encountered in fulfilling her obligations were directly related to the nature of her disability, and noted that, prior to the completion of her internship and evaluation, she was informed that she might not be awarded a degree.
As part of the investigation, the Commissioner took into account the student’s allegations, the approved reasonable accommodations that had been provided to her, the University’s response letters, as well as the testimonies that were collected.
An analysis of 24 teaching feedback forms across eight academic subjects revealed that, in a number of cases, shortcomings were noted regarding knowledge of the daily lesson, lesson planning and implementation, providing feedback to the children, and time management.
A positive aspect noted was the student’s approach to and communication with the children.
According to the Report, the feedback forms make no mention of instances in which the teaching assistants attempted to provide assistance but were interrupted, nor do they mention whether this assistance exceeded the limits of support within the framework of reasonable accommodations.
Consequently, the Commissioner states that it is not possible to draw a definitive conclusion as to whether these incidents were taken into account or influenced the student’s grading.
She further notes that the content of the feedback does not establish a causal link between the teaching assistant’s behavior and the negative comments, which related to her knowledge of the course content and her lesson preparation.
At the same time, the Commissioner notes contradictions in the in-person testimonies taken as part of the investigation.
Specifically, she notes that the testimony of the mentor at the Tseri Public Kindergarten did not align, in terms of the facts, with the other testimonies—particularly those of the supervisors who observed the student teacher.
According to the Report, the two supervisors admitted that they made comments to the companion, as, in their view, she had exceeded the limits of her role as a companion to a person with a disability.
In contrast, the mentor denied that there had been any interference by a supervisor, maintaining that everything was proceeding smoothly.
The Commissioner further notes that the mentor concealed the fact that there were two other children with disabilities in the classroom accompanied by support staff, a fact which, according to the Report, was reported by another supervisor and confirmed by the complainant.
It also notes that although the mentor had graded the student and her grade was factored into the final evaluation, she could not recall the grade she had given.
Regarding whether the student had expressed to the supervisors the difficulties she faced in carrying out activities due to her visual impairment, the Report states that no definitive conclusions can be drawn. The complainant maintained that she had expressed her difficulties, while the supervisors reported the opposite.
However, the fact that the issue of the course timeline had been discussed—with the student requesting an extension—supports, according to the Commissioner, in favor of her claim that she had expressed the difficulties she faced as a person with a disability.
Notwithstanding the above findings, the Commissioner notes that neither the mentor’s lack of reliability nor the supervisors’ blocking of the assistant’s interventions can lead to a definitive conclusion that the student’s final evaluationwould have been different had the assistant been allowed to operate freely within the framework of her collaboration with the complainant.
For this reason, it concludes that there is no basis for a finding of discriminatory treatment on the basis of disability.
As she explains, the comments in the feedback concerned knowledge of the course content and lesson preparation, rather than the practical delivery of the course, where the teaching assistant’s role could be instrumental.
Therefore, according to the Report, a binding recommendation to the University of Cyprus on the basis of reasonable accommodation for the student due to her disability is not warranted.
The Commissioner notes that the differing claims and perspectives of the complainant and the supervisors regarding the scope and limits of the necessary intervention by the support staff, as well as the lack of trust she attributes to the mentor, raise reasonable doubts as to whether the support provider was ultimately permitted to provide personalized support that fully accommodated the student’s visual impairment.
The Commissioner recommends that the University of Cyprus give due consideration to the practical difficulties the student faced due to her visual impairment, with the aim of providing her with further support during the repeat of the internship and, in particular, finding a solution for managing the predetermined timeframe for completing the course.
It also recommends implementing procedures for the mandatory training of supervisors at the University of Cyprus and of preschool staff serving as mentors on issues of equal treatment of persons withand, in particular, regarding the individualized reasonable accommodations that must be provided.
Finally, given the remaining uncertainties regarding the extent of individualized assistance that can be provided by support staff depending on the type of disability, the Commissioner recommends that an effort be made to have the student’s grades in all academic subjects reevaluated by the supervisors, where feasible and to the extent possible.
Source: KYPE
