{"id":638,"date":"2026-05-06T20:55:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T00:55:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/?post_type=chapter&p=638"},"modified":"2026-05-06T23:17:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T03:17:15","slug":"2-1-disability-and-higher-education","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/chapter\/2-1-disability-and-higher-education\/","title":{"raw":"2.1 Disability and Higher Education","rendered":"2.1 Disability and Higher Education"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

2.1 Disability and Higher Education<\/h2>\r\nIn Canada, youth (ages 15-24) with disabilities are less likely than non-disabled youth to be enrolled in school (Presley & Statistics Canada, 2025). According to 2022 data, there were 1,382,140 Canadian students with disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2024b), a 43% rise from 2017 (Statistics Canada, 2017). A 2020 survey of University of British Columbia undergraduate students found that 26% reported having a disability, up from 22% in 2019 (Friesen, 2024). In Ontario for the period 2010-2019, the number of post-secondary students seeking accessibility supports rose from 21,643 to 42,000 (Parsons et al., 2021). The increase in students with disabilities is not unique to Canada.\r\n\r\nThe number of Canadian students reporting disability rose from 7% in 2010 to 22% by 2018, of which 36% received some form of accommodation (Canadian University Survey Consortium [CUSC], 2010; CUSC, 2018). The number of Canadian university students indicating they had at least one disability rose to 31% in 2022 but only 6% of total respondents noted accessing services for students with disabilities (CUSC, 2022). By 2024, the number had risen to 35% with 10% of all students accessing services for students with disabilities (CUSC, 2024). These increases may be attributed to increased awareness of disability; greater access to specialized medical and psychological care; legislation; and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. However, research suggests that less than 50% of Canadian students with disabilities register with disability support services (Fichten et al., 2022). Similarly, McGregor et al. (2016) found that 33% of students with disabilities used accommodations. Relying on the number of students with the proper documentation, self-advocacy skills, and means to apply for disability support is not an accurate reflection of the number of disabled students in Canadian post-secondary. 2014 data found that 94% of high school students with disabilities receive some level of support, but only 17% of post-secondary students with disabilities receive any kind of formal support (Krupnick, 2014). Similarly, 2015 data suggested that 95% of high school students with disabilities received accommodations, but only 23% of post-secondary students with disabilities did (Newman & Madaus, 2015). A 2022 report found that 85% of students with disabilities at four-year colleges received accommodations, while only 57% of students with disabilities at two-year colleges received accommodations (Adam & Warner-Griffin, 2022). These statistics suggest an alarming disparity between the number of disabled students and the number of disabled students registered with disability support services. This disparity, in line with the difference in disability rates and engagement with services, are likely due to disclosure rates. Stigma, barriers to accessing supports and services, and the impediments of bureaucracy (as discussed in later sections) may also significantly impact student\u2019s willingness and capacity to disclose disability and engage with support services.\r\n\r\nA 2015 study found that 35% of students with disabilities informed their college of their disability (Newman & Madaus, 2015). More recently, a 2022 report found that only 37% of American college students with disabilities informed their college (Adam & Warner-Griffin, 2022). Numerous studies find that many students do not report disabilities to support offices or instructors, with potentially as many as 75% of disabled students not disclosing their disability and consequently do not receive support services or accommodations (Jackson, 2023).\u00a0 A 2025 analysis found that only 15% of students with disabilities disclosed at two-year institutions, while 35% of students with disabilities disclosed at four-year institutions. Even with such low rates of engagement with disability support, the same study found that there is only 1 disability office staff member for 200 disclosing students with disabilities at American two-year institutions, with that ratio decreasing to 1 staff member for every 75 disclosing students at four-year institutions (Beck Wells, 2025). Anecdotal evidence suggests 300-400 students per accessibility staff member in Ontario (Lewsen, 2024). With such imbalances between support needed and capacity, better strategies, such as proactive accessibility, are necessary to effectively include disabled students.\r\n

2.1.1 Technology Related Accommodations<\/h3>\r\nNarrowing these statistics, in 2017 26.1% of self-reported disabled Canadian post-secondary students required assistive devices or modification of course curriculum (Furrie, 2017). This figure, while dated, is important as assistive devices and alternate formats are common for the consumption of digital learning material. Of 1,382,140 Canadian students with disabilities in 2024, 34.7% \u201crequire devices, support services or modifications\u201d and 46.3% of those students had unmet needs (Statistics Canada, 2024b). More specific to digital learning material, according to 2023 data, 5.2 million Canadians had difficulty reading print material, with 77.4% of those indicating a difficulty seeing print while 42.2% had difficulty reading or understanding printed words (McDiarmid & Statistics Canada, 2023). Of those 5.2 million Canadians, 85.2% used an assistive aid, device, or technology to assist with viewing or reading printed materials and 51.5% required at least one alternate format. Among users of alternate formats, 26.7% used digital versions including electronic braille, large print digital formats, accessible PDFs, EPUB files, digital audio formats, DAISY books, and descriptive video. Adaptations to reading and writing are the most used assistive technology in post-secondary education, including tools that read text aloud (Fichten et al., 2022). A 2023 study extrapolated data from 2002 to suggest that roughly 8% of Americans have a disability that affects their ability to use computers (Rowland, 2023). Considering CUSC\u2019s findings that 22% of Canadian university students report having a disability and Statistics Canada\u2019s 2024 findings that 34.7% of Canadian disabled students use devices, one could infer that around 7% of disabled Canadian university students have a disability affecting their ability to use a computer. This number is in line with Rowland\u2019s extrapolation. However, that would not account for disabled students that report no difficulty using a computer but require the use of assistive technology to aid with some other factor. The number of disabled students in Canadian post-secondary is not completely clear. Due to important confidentiality considerations, institutions do not report on the number of disabled students and that number would only reflect those self-disclosing to the institution. Regardless of the exact number, it is significant, and ensuring digital learning material is accessible should be a principal concern for post-secondary institutions.\r\n\r\nResearch suggests that academic accommodations are most often related to assessments (Edwards et al., 2022). This reflects an assumption that learning is related to high-stakes tests alone and does not reflect the modern teaching and learning experience (Dolmage, 2017). Determining the number of students that use an alternate format accommodation, in which content is remediated to a more accessible format, and the general accessibility of digital learning material is difficult due to the lack of study on the topic. A 2009 study found inaccessible course materials were a significant concern for both students and faculty (Matthews, 2009). A 2020 study noted that learning materials, amongst other concerns, were significant barriers for disabled students (Bartz, 2020). A 2022 study also noted curriculum design and pedagogy, including format, as barriers reported by disabled students (Edwards et al., 2022). Without mentioning specific formats, a 2025 study involving 50 disabled students found significant barriers in pedagogy and course design (Marom & Hardwick, 2025). However, none of these studies meaningfully address specific inaccessible formats nor do they provide tangible next steps to improve the student experience.\r\n

2.1.2 Retention and Completion<\/h3>\r\nIn discussing disability and higher education, retention and program completion rates must also be considered. In 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that 10% of Canadians with disabilities stopped their education due to their disability (2017). The same report found that 20% of Canadian disabled students altered their course of study due to their disability and that Canadian students with disabilities take fewer courses and take longer to complete their educational targets (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2017). A 2013 study found that 14% of Ontario students with disabilities withdrew from their studies within 1-3 years, compared to 8% for students without disabilities (McCloy & DeClou, 2013). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that students with disabilities are less likely to complete post-secondary education and if they do complete their studies, they take longer than non-disabled peers (OECD, 2011). Students with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled peers to fail courses in their first year and have lower GPAs (Parsons et al., 2021). Disabled students that complete their studies have more student debt than non-disabled students (Dolmage, 2017). When considering retention, program completion rates and duration, overall \u2018success\u2019, and other factors such as debt, a rift between non-disabled and disabled students grows.\r\n\r\nThe evidence clearly shows that the number of students documented and self-reported disabilities in post-secondary education is significant. Given the number of people with disabilities, and in turn disabled students, significant work is needed to ensure education is available to all. Employing inclusive design principles and preferring more accessible formats for learning material can be one element of broader strategies to mitigate barriers to education.\r\n\r\nAccommodating students with disabilities is the current best practice to \u2018deal\u2019 with these rising numbers. Students with disabilities are required to navigate a complex bureaucracy of medical documentation, forms, assessments, and consultations to be entitled to, for example, additional time for regurgitation of rote memorization, the \u2018right\u2019 to record a lecture (even in one party consent jurisdictions), or access to readings in formats that work with their assistive technology. The formal academic accommodation system is not an attempt to include, but to temporarily endure disabled students\u2019 existence. Accommodations do little to change the existing system but rather create separate lanes for those that don\u2019t fit. As Jay Timothy Dolmage notes in Academic Ableism, \u201c<\/em>the demand is that that one body be adapted to a curriculum . . . that is otherwise unwelcoming, inaccessible, inhospitable to that body and mind\u201d (2017, p. 72). Given these attitudes, it is not surprising to find a 2011 study that found disabled students \u201cperceive their disability to have a negative impact on their ability to succeed\u201d (Roberts et al., 2011, p. 242). This should not be the case, particularly as post-secondary institutions self-proclaim themselves as inclusive and forward-thinking environments. Understanding accommodations and academic ableism are significant tasks; creating and choosing more accessible, digital learning materials is a low-effort, high-return strategy to improve access for disabled students.\r\n

2.1.3 Academic Accommodations<\/h3>\r\nWhile the focus of this project is digital learning material, academic accommodations are often required for disabled students to be allowed access to digital learning material. Academic accommodations may cause significant delays to access; create a spectrum of responses from administrators, faculty, and students; and require excess work that would be less frequently needed if digital learning materials were accessible by design.\r\n\r\nAccommodations are adjustments (such as extra time, use of technology, or lecture recordings) provided to students with disabilities. Accommodations are often temporary changes to curriculum and procedure allowed to meet legal standards. As such, accommodations do little to make positive, lasting changes to the institutional practices that forced the need for accommodation (Dolmage, 2017). At most post-secondary institutions, students are required to submit specific medical documentation of their disabilities to be considered for accommodations (Alyass, 2024). In Canada, the extent and range of academic accommodations are decided by legal considerations which, as critics argue, are a careful bureaucratic calculation of what an institution can get away with not providing under definitions of \u2018undue hardship\u2019 or \u2018unreasonable burden\u2019 on the providing institution (Titchkosky, 2011; Dolmage, 2017; Alyass, 2024). Undue hardship is calculated by cost (space, staff, and expenses), the student\u2019s access to outside funding, and health and safety requirements (Titchkosky, 2011; Alyass, 2024). This defense has been used by institutions to claim that allowing disabled students to participate would be too expensive. The existence of disabled students is, some egregiously argue, an unreasonable burden.\r\n\r\nThe concept of accommodation is rooted in a deeply ableist belief that only certain types of assistance are unique and require special treatment. Disability justice scholar Daniel Freeman writes:\r\n

Able-bodied people all have things that they fall short with, skills or tasks that they will never master. But when disabled folk say, \u2018These are the things I need in order to do my very best,\u2019 it is labeled as an \u2018accommodation.\u2019 . . . The language itself is ableist in nature, bringing into focus the reality of how disabled bodies are seen as barriers to able-bodied life. (2015)<\/p>\r\nIndependence is a myth, but academia has decided certain existences must be accommodated, that the need for certain kinds of help must be proven, documented, and segregated (Alyass, 2024). Accommodations are an indirect acknowledgement \u201cthat dominant pedagogies privilege those who can most easily ignore their bodies, and those whose minds work the most like the minds of their teachers\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 80).\r\n\r\nThe use of assistive technology is not only a common accommodation, but also closely tied to the consumption of digital learning material. Assistive technology is consistently noted as a beneficial accommodation (Kettler, 2012; Courtad & Bakken, 2020; Fichten et al., 2022; Walz, 2024). Some studies suggest that assistive technology may be difficult to use for some students and unexpected behaviour may create barriers to success (Parsons et al., 2021). For assistive technology to be of benefit to students, digital learning material must be compatible with common assistive technology. Depending on the technology and the format of the material, a base minimum level of accessibility is required. Regardless, as Fichten et al. report, various studies find that assistive technology accommodations improve performance on assessments as well as benefits students\u2019 reading, writing, note-taking, and studying (2022). Research often defines the effectiveness of assistive technology related accommodations as increased test scores for accommodated disabled students (McGregor et al., 2016; Parsons et al., 2021; Lin, 2025). Unfortunately, research on how assistive technology works for students consuming general digital learning material is scarce. Understanding how effective accessible digital learning material and relevant accommodations are for disabled students requires considering the experience of disabled students.\r\n

Perceptions of Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\r\nThe perception of disability and accommodation in post-secondary education studied significantly. Lyman et al. (2016) note that while accommodations contribute to higher graduation rates for students with disabilities, there are numerous potential downsides to accommodations including ineffective application, irrelevancy, negative social reactions, fear of future ramifications, and negative experiences with instructors. Mamboleo et al. (2020) found that instructor care and understanding, support from disability support offices, and student self-advocacy facilitated accommodation use and effectiveness while perception of accommodation as unfair advantage, lack of information about accommodations, student anxiety, and instructor desire to maintain uniformity were listed as challenges to accommodations. A 2019 study found numerous barriers to accommodations, including the lack of student awareness of disability resources, inability to provide specific documentation of disability, negative reactions of peers and instructors to accommodation requests, and lack of perceived usefulness of accommodations (Toutain, 2019). Additionally, accommodations may reduce a student\u2019s sense of autonomy, decrease feelings of self-efficacy, and increase anxiety (Reyes et al., 2022). Accommodations may create as many problems as they intend to solve, particularly as disclosure can upset the budding relationship between student and instructor. For a marginalized student disclosing personal information that may be perceived as a weakness, flaw, or request for \u2018special treatment\u2019 to the \u201cmost powerful actor in [their] academic environment\u201d may cause scores of unintended negative consequences (Trammell, 2009, p. 26). Significant research suggests this fear is not unfounded.\r\n\r\nA powerful factor impacting the usage of accommodations are bias and the perceptions of bias from peers and instructors (McGregor et al., 2016; Mamboleo et al., 2020; Edwards et al., 2022). A 2016 study found that only a minority of disabled students had accommodations, but those who did reported increased contact with faculty and decreased difficulty with assignments (McGregor et al., 2016). This suggests positive perceptions and engagement. However, the difference between students reporting disability and using support services or receiving accommodations suggests that some students are reluctant to seek out and use academic accommodations for fear of being negatively perceived. A 2025 study suggests positive perceptions (92.8% of professors and 93.3% of students) toward academic accommodations (Lefler et al., 2025). While Lefler et al.\u2019s findings suggest general positivity, many others find much lower rates of acceptance and willingness to fulfill legal accommodations. An early study of accommodations and disability on campus found that only one-quarter of disabled students felt supported by others and one-half believed their disability was not viewed as difference (Denny & Carson, 1994). A 2020 study of students with disabilities found that only 38% of instructors were supportive of required accommodations and helped in facilitating the accommodations (Mamboleo et al., 2020). A 2022 study found that students\u2019 peers often questioned why accommodated students did not write exams with the class, potentially impacting student\u2019s willingness to seek and use accommodations (Slaughter et al., 2022).\r\n

Faculty Attitudes Toward Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\r\nStudents note instructor resistance and lack of familiarity with how to provide accommodations as significant barriers to receiving or using accommodations (Slaughter et al., 2022). Edwards et al. (2022) also found stigma related to disability and administrative processes as significant factors negatively influencing the use of accommodations. Perceptions of instructors\u2019 negative attitudes toward accommodations are further documented in a study that found instructors could not understand accommodating \u201csomeone who appeared young and healthy\u201d while one instructor claimed to have written a more difficult exam to negate the \u2018advantage\u2019 of a student\u2019s extra time accommodation (Sheets, 2019, p. 80). Faculty perceptions of accommodations and disability are powerful factors in the use of accommodations. Nieminen & Eaton (2024) found that students may avoid applying for accommodations for fear of being considered cheaters because, as the authors note, Canadian universities dedicate considerable resources to prevent cheating during accommodated assessments. This conflates accommodations with cheating and disabled students as cheaters. While \u201cthe academy is part of a neo-liberal context where it is generally assumed that \u2018we all\u2019 value access and desire inclusion\u201d disability is often treated as transitory, rare, and undesired by post-secondary institutions (Titchkosky, 2011, p. x). Ideally, accessibility would be used to recruit new students and satisfy existing students; however, it is not and thus legislation is required to make efforts toward accessibility compulsory (Ly et al., 2025). Faculty concerns about accommodations often cite unfair advantage or lowering standards (Maurya et al., 2025) and concerns about interference with their academic freedom (Lewsen, 2024; Gelber, 2025). Some instructors expressed concerns about the feasibility of accommodations, despite eagerness to enhance the accessibility of their classrooms (Norris & Wood, 2023).\r\n\r\nA common refrain in popular articles about education is that any accommodation of difference is \u201cquickly inflated into a \u2018state of the kids these days\u2019 fictionalization\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 69) where educators claim, \u201cI had to walk five miles barefoot up a snow-covered hill, so you should suffer too!\u201d (Grant, 2023). These non-academic pieces often quote unnamed professors, rarely talk to any students, and argue that the rise in the number of accommodations is not due to the rise in number of disabled people and increasing equitable access to education, but to people exploiting support systems for disabled students through fake diagnoses as argued by Lewsen (2024) and Horowitch (2025). These articles posit that accommodations are no longer for students with disabilities, but for \u201crich kids getting extra time on tests\u201d (Horowitch, 2025). Horowitch claims that a professor feels sorry \u201cfor the students not taking advantage of\u201d the accommodations system. This \u201cfear of the disability con\u201d is a \u201cmoral panic that individuals fake disabilities to take advantage of rights, accommodations, or benefits\u201d (Dorfman, 2019, p. 1053). These attitudes are not new. A 1997 New York Times<\/em> opinion piece positioned accommodations as \u201csubvert[ing] the goal of education\u201d (Sternberg, 1997). The author makes outlandish claims about parents seeking disability diagnoses so their children will be eligible for the benefits, that the number of truly disabled students is impossible to quantify due to this fraud, and that \u201ceven students with genuine disabilities should not use [accommodations] as an excuse for not learning.\u201d In 1999, Washington Monthly<\/em> published an article suggesting that the American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act inflated the definition of disability and encourages wealthy families \u201cto capitalize on their weaknesses at the expense of their peers\u201d (Worth). Unfortunately, these attitudes persist. A 2017 article portrays a faculty member who \u2018dreads\u2019 the accommodations talk, stating faculty should guide students to understand \u201cwhen it\u2019s best to try to cope on one\u2019s own\u201d (Hornstein). Rarely do these articles offer grace to students; nor do they offer solutions, only complaints.\r\n\r\nOthers worry that equitable access to education contributes to \u201ca generalized culture of leniency\u201d (Lewsen, 2024). This dangerous rhetoric contradicts most serious research and perpetuates the academic ableism that pervades education, reaffirming the misguided belief that only certain bodies and minds have the right to pass through the hallowed halls of academia. In fact, disability advocates note that disabled people don\u2019t abuse accommodations but regularly ask for fewer than they need or would benefit from; \u201cdisabled people are less likely to ask for what we need, not the other way around\u201d (Withers, 2012, p. 115). Gelber (2025) reviews the history of learning disabilities in American higher education and notes that the overreaction to accommodations and modified teaching practices is not new. In fact, Gelber notes that \u201cin retrospect these concerns appear overblown because so many of the early accommodations for students with [disabilities] are now regarded as practices that benefit all students\u201d (p. 28). Gelber goes on to argue that as practices developed to assist disabled students often become mainstream best practice, some\r\n

Recommended supports [for disabled students] can even seem like an indictment of the overall quality of college instruction because they continue to include basic practices such as stating the goal for the class session, highlighting key points, and providing clear written directions. (p. 28)<\/p>\r\nRegardless of instructor perceptions of fairness, accommodations are needed to create equitable access for disabled students. Accessible experiences, specifically more accessible digital learning material, would reduce the need for accommodations and create inclusive educational experiences for all. While that would not eliminate the ableism that pervades academia, it would reduce the burden on students to seek the assistance of those who may not want them present.\r\n

Efficacy of Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\r\nBroken bureaucracy, communications, and the use of \u201cone shoe fits all approach\u201d to accommodations are significant impediments to the efficacy of accommodations (Low, 2019, p. 76). Accommodations should be individually tailored as part of a comprehensive plan, as generic accommodations might be counterproductive if applied based solely on diagnosis rather than individual needs (Baeyens, 2021). Students are generally not informed of all the available accommodations, only given a narrow set of possible accommodations based on the functional limitations imposed by their disabilities. A more student-focused and impactful approach would be a \u201cseries of individualised support accommodations that take into account [the student\u2019s] personal and emotional characteristics, as well as their own symptomatology due to the disorder\u201d (\u00c1lvarez-Godos et al., 2023, p. 10). Dolmage (2017) cites a student who described the accommodations process:\r\n

As being like the game Battleship\u2014you can\u2019t perceive what\u2019s on the other side of the board, because there is a barrier there, and so you have to just keep trying to guess where the other player\u2019s ships are\u2014or where the relevant accommodations are, if they exist. (p. 90)<\/p>\r\nDolmage argues that students are encouraged to graciously accept what they get with no opportunity for feedback about the fit or efficacy of an accommodation. This universal approach to accommodations may be the only method many disability support offices have capacity to offer given the increased numbers of students with disabilities and extremely high number of disabled students per disability support staff member (Lewsen, 2024; Beck Wells, 2025). As Dolmage describes, seeking accommodations \u201cis to identify your needs within a framework in which everyone (from teachers to administrators to pundits) seems to know what college students need, and who they are, better than they do themselves\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 69). Additionally, \u201cuncanny accommodations\u201d that may be well-intentioned but simply do not improve the student experience, are simply as waste of everyone\u2019s time and resources (Ireland, 2017). The lack of student input on accommodation type and efficacy is important and while this study does not focus specifically on accommodations, increasing the overall accessibility of digital learning material would reduce the number of accommodations and increase access for all students. Engaging disabled students in meaningful discussion about what digital formats work best for them can also function as a model for future research focused on soliciting disabled students\u2019 feedback on what accommodations work best for them. Unfortunately, disabled students\u2019 perspectives are often overlooked or ignored when it comes to making decisions about their education (May, 2024). Students are rarely considered by post-secondary education as knowledge holders and legitimate sources of information to improve the student experience (Marom & Hardwick, 2025). Numerous studies explicitly call for the consultation and inclusion of disabled students in improving the accommodations system (Trybus et al., 2019; Alyass, 2024; May, 2024; Marom & Hardwick, 2025). People are the experts on their own lived experience.\r\n\r\nAccommodations seek to temporarily amend the status quo to allow<\/em> disabled students to participate; accommodations are a form of consumptive access where a student is allowed access on a narrow set of terms (Dolmage, 2017). Once accommodated, these \u2018special cases\u2019 are filed away and repeated term by term, ensuring minimal access for disabled students and no significant change to the dominant practices, pedagogies, and prejudices of the academy. Accommodations are considered an expense, \u201can ad hoc process of retrofitting, repeated . . . for each individual student making a request\u201d (Fovet & Mole, 2013, p. 124). Accommodations are non-renewable, consumable costs that disabled students, in the eyes of some, burden their chosen institutions with (Dolmage, 2017; Fichten et al., 2022). The disposable, retrofitted accommodation ensures no lasting changes are made to standard operating procedures, pedagogy, or culture; like a game of Whack-a-Mole, just whack difference whenever it pops up (Dolmage, 2017, p. 91). This logic, according to Dolmage, allows singular, slight modification for one student once without any pressure to change, learn, or adapt from that modification to create more inclusive and pedagogically sound practice going forward. Much like a ramp added to the side of a building, accommodations are added to the side of curriculum; as Dolmage notes \u201cdisability can never come in the front entrance\u201d (p. 42). By emphasizing disposable accommodations, institutions minimize opportunities for expanding inclusive and diverse modes of learning while ensuring the burden of creating an inclusive educational experience sits with disabled students\u2019 ability to self-advocate, understand their rights, and complete paperwork (Bereza, 2019; Bruce & Aylward, 2021).\r\n\r\nHowever, the singular, disposable accommodation is not bespoke. As students are not informed of their options, accommodations are rarely reviewed for effectiveness or fit, and accommodations do little to change the culture and practice of an institution. Alyass (2024) argues that:\r\n

\u201cCurrent definitions of meaningful access and reasonable accommodations serve the institution<\/em> [emphasis added] by taking power over students, controlling what accommodations they have access to, and determining the quality of education these students receive.\u201d (p. 60)<\/p>\r\nGiven that, it is reasonable to question if the current accommodation serves students or the institution. Some argue that accommodation systems need to transform into equity culture (Cook-Sather & Cook-Sather, 2023) while others posit that inequitable institutions, not disabled students, should be centred as the problems in need of fixing (Titchkosky & Michalko, 2012). Others place accommodations in opposition to accessibility as accommodations burden students and force disclosure while making little tangible improvement (Sheets, 2019). Each term accommodations temporarily, but in perpetuity (via their own isolated implementation) delay the creation and implementation of accessible content and experiences.\r\n

Accommodations and Accessibility<\/h4>\r\nIf a greater amount of digital learning material were accessible, there would be significantly reduced numbers of accommodations. Students would not need to be accommodated in accessible digital spaces. Fewer accommodations would reduce administrative, time, and financial pressures on post-secondary institutions; mitigate faculty concerns regarding fairness; and create a vastly superior student experience by eliminating potential stigma, administrative burdens, and excess time and labour demanded of disabled students. Exploring the technical elements of digital accessibility and the specific formats that are most beneficial to students are keys to greater student access and success. It is difficult to envision a world so accessible there are no accommodations. However, inclusive design, particularly its focus on the broader beneficial impact of design interventions, could better inform accommodation practice to create meaningful, lasting change as opposed to ad hoc, disposable accommodation. Accommodations approached in this manner could transform from an administrative burden into learning experiences that could be incorporated into curriculum going forward. For example, if a student is approved for alternate format textbooks (e.g., an accessible digital copy of course readings), instead of repeatedly requiring students to request an accessible copy and, if one does not exist, offloading the process to a remediation service which delays the student\u2019s access to learning material, the instructor could seek out (via a librarian or publisher) or create (with open educational resources) accessible digital versions. This approach would avoid the repetitive whack-a-mole accommodation system that constantly addresses the same issues in ways that satisfy few, if any, of the relevant parties. Inclusive design can be employed to improve education in meaningful ways. Of greatest concern to this work is the timely and equitable access to digital learning material that works for all students, which once realized will reduce the number of less-than-optimal accommodations.\r\n\r\nAdministrators, instructors, and students are not pleased with the accommodations system. Accessible digital learning material will not remove the need for all accommodations, but alleviate the strain on institutions, reduce the number of requests going to instructors, and increase student autonomy and reduce the ostracization forced upon students by having to ask to be allowed to participate.\r\n

2.1.4 Digital Accessibility in Education<\/h2>\r\nAccommodations are necessary where accessibility is missing. Those who choose and create digital learning material have an excellent opportunity to create more inclusive student experiences by ensuring content is accessible by design (Briggs et al., 2024). However, the persistence of inaccessible content suggests significant barriers to achieving accessible and inclusive education. Kent (2016) surveyed and interviewed hundreds of students across 15 Australian institutions and found consistent accessibility issues including selective availability of materials, variable content quality and readability, and the use of third-party products with low accessibility. Behling (2017) found consistent issues with instructor-generated content, textbook publisher platforms and material, Word documents, PDFs, PowerPoints, and audio-visual material.\r\n\r\nOne of the most substantial barriers to creating accessible learning material is faculty awareness of, and attitudes toward, digital accessibility. Briggs et al. (2024) note that even when faculty consider accessibility as an important piece of course design, they also report hesitancy due to a lack of time, willingness, motivation, and ability to create and choose accessible material. Guilbaud et al. (2021) and Read (2024) found employees\u2019 schedules and existing heavy workloads made additional professional development difficult to manage and schedule. Read also noted that some faculty believe their course material is not compatible with accessibility requirements. This belief could be intimately tied with a lack of understanding about how to create accessible content. Academic ableism may also influence this preconception. Other work notes how a lack of understanding about how assistive technology works, what makes content accessible, and how to make accessible content restricts post-secondary employees from choosing and creating accessible content (Sanderson et al., 2022; Walz, 2024).\r\n\r\nPerhaps due to prior experiences with remediations, accommodations, and modifications some faculty view accessibility as a reactive practice rather than a proactive operation and do not understand their role in crafting accessible learning experiences that could reduce reliance on prior reactive accommodations (Briggs et al., 2024). However, Dolmage (2017) argues that accommodations are necessary because post-secondary as a sector is \u201cnowhere close\u201d to offering inclusive and accessible experiences (p. 144). Advocating for more accessibility does not mean less support for disabled students. More accessible content would help most disabled students access the content they need at the same time as their peers. This would reduce the need for remediation (and associated time and bureaucracy) allowing disability support services to focus on more complex and labour-intensive tasks.\r\n\r\nSciarretta (2025) notes a lack of awareness about the legal aspects of accessibility, including the responsibility of faculty, staff, and those that create educational web content and applications. Others argue that even an organization that adheres to basic legal requirements may not provide accessible experiences for students especially when enforcement is not consistent (Sanderson et al., 2022; Briggs et al., 2024; \u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024).\r\n\r\nNumerous studies note that lack of training has a significant impact on accessibility (Sanderson et al., 2022; Briggs et al., 2024; Walz, 2024). While professional development training for post-secondary employees has a positive impact on accessibility best practices, there are significant barriers to consistent and effective training (Guilbaud et al., 2021). In addition to the attitudes discussed above, other impediments to training may include difficulties presented by the rapid changes to technology, software, and platforms (\u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024).\r\n\r\nFinally, the decentralization of post-secondary institutions\u2014including within departments and divisions\u2014may make management of digital accessibility more difficult, contributing to persistent inaccessible content (Walz, 2024). Briggs et al. (2024) note that some faculty may consider accessibility the responsibility of the institution. Even when accessibility is a priority for institutions, financial and temporal constraints may make significant improvements to accessibility difficult to realize (\u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024). Regardless of awareness, perceptions, or questions of responsibility, many students face significant barriers to access. Currently, those barriers may be mitigated by accommodations. Accessible learning material would enhance inclusion and reduce the number of accommodations needed.\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

2.1 Disability and Higher Education<\/h2>\n

In Canada, youth (ages 15-24) with disabilities are less likely than non-disabled youth to be enrolled in school (Presley & Statistics Canada, 2025). According to 2022 data, there were 1,382,140 Canadian students with disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2024b), a 43% rise from 2017 (Statistics Canada, 2017). A 2020 survey of University of British Columbia undergraduate students found that 26% reported having a disability, up from 22% in 2019 (Friesen, 2024). In Ontario for the period 2010-2019, the number of post-secondary students seeking accessibility supports rose from 21,643 to 42,000 (Parsons et al., 2021). The increase in students with disabilities is not unique to Canada.<\/p>\n

The number of Canadian students reporting disability rose from 7% in 2010 to 22% by 2018, of which 36% received some form of accommodation (Canadian University Survey Consortium [CUSC], 2010; CUSC, 2018). The number of Canadian university students indicating they had at least one disability rose to 31% in 2022 but only 6% of total respondents noted accessing services for students with disabilities (CUSC, 2022). By 2024, the number had risen to 35% with 10% of all students accessing services for students with disabilities (CUSC, 2024). These increases may be attributed to increased awareness of disability; greater access to specialized medical and psychological care; legislation; and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. However, research suggests that less than 50% of Canadian students with disabilities register with disability support services (Fichten et al., 2022). Similarly, McGregor et al. (2016) found that 33% of students with disabilities used accommodations. Relying on the number of students with the proper documentation, self-advocacy skills, and means to apply for disability support is not an accurate reflection of the number of disabled students in Canadian post-secondary. 2014 data found that 94% of high school students with disabilities receive some level of support, but only 17% of post-secondary students with disabilities receive any kind of formal support (Krupnick, 2014). Similarly, 2015 data suggested that 95% of high school students with disabilities received accommodations, but only 23% of post-secondary students with disabilities did (Newman & Madaus, 2015). A 2022 report found that 85% of students with disabilities at four-year colleges received accommodations, while only 57% of students with disabilities at two-year colleges received accommodations (Adam & Warner-Griffin, 2022). These statistics suggest an alarming disparity between the number of disabled students and the number of disabled students registered with disability support services. This disparity, in line with the difference in disability rates and engagement with services, are likely due to disclosure rates. Stigma, barriers to accessing supports and services, and the impediments of bureaucracy (as discussed in later sections) may also significantly impact student\u2019s willingness and capacity to disclose disability and engage with support services.<\/p>\n

A 2015 study found that 35% of students with disabilities informed their college of their disability (Newman & Madaus, 2015). More recently, a 2022 report found that only 37% of American college students with disabilities informed their college (Adam & Warner-Griffin, 2022). Numerous studies find that many students do not report disabilities to support offices or instructors, with potentially as many as 75% of disabled students not disclosing their disability and consequently do not receive support services or accommodations (Jackson, 2023).\u00a0 A 2025 analysis found that only 15% of students with disabilities disclosed at two-year institutions, while 35% of students with disabilities disclosed at four-year institutions. Even with such low rates of engagement with disability support, the same study found that there is only 1 disability office staff member for 200 disclosing students with disabilities at American two-year institutions, with that ratio decreasing to 1 staff member for every 75 disclosing students at four-year institutions (Beck Wells, 2025). Anecdotal evidence suggests 300-400 students per accessibility staff member in Ontario (Lewsen, 2024). With such imbalances between support needed and capacity, better strategies, such as proactive accessibility, are necessary to effectively include disabled students.<\/p>\n

2.1.1 Technology Related Accommodations<\/h3>\n

Narrowing these statistics, in 2017 26.1% of self-reported disabled Canadian post-secondary students required assistive devices or modification of course curriculum (Furrie, 2017). This figure, while dated, is important as assistive devices and alternate formats are common for the consumption of digital learning material. Of 1,382,140 Canadian students with disabilities in 2024, 34.7% \u201crequire devices, support services or modifications\u201d and 46.3% of those students had unmet needs (Statistics Canada, 2024b). More specific to digital learning material, according to 2023 data, 5.2 million Canadians had difficulty reading print material, with 77.4% of those indicating a difficulty seeing print while 42.2% had difficulty reading or understanding printed words (McDiarmid & Statistics Canada, 2023). Of those 5.2 million Canadians, 85.2% used an assistive aid, device, or technology to assist with viewing or reading printed materials and 51.5% required at least one alternate format. Among users of alternate formats, 26.7% used digital versions including electronic braille, large print digital formats, accessible PDFs, EPUB files, digital audio formats, DAISY books, and descriptive video. Adaptations to reading and writing are the most used assistive technology in post-secondary education, including tools that read text aloud (Fichten et al., 2022). A 2023 study extrapolated data from 2002 to suggest that roughly 8% of Americans have a disability that affects their ability to use computers (Rowland, 2023). Considering CUSC\u2019s findings that 22% of Canadian university students report having a disability and Statistics Canada\u2019s 2024 findings that 34.7% of Canadian disabled students use devices, one could infer that around 7% of disabled Canadian university students have a disability affecting their ability to use a computer. This number is in line with Rowland\u2019s extrapolation. However, that would not account for disabled students that report no difficulty using a computer but require the use of assistive technology to aid with some other factor. The number of disabled students in Canadian post-secondary is not completely clear. Due to important confidentiality considerations, institutions do not report on the number of disabled students and that number would only reflect those self-disclosing to the institution. Regardless of the exact number, it is significant, and ensuring digital learning material is accessible should be a principal concern for post-secondary institutions.<\/p>\n

Research suggests that academic accommodations are most often related to assessments (Edwards et al., 2022). This reflects an assumption that learning is related to high-stakes tests alone and does not reflect the modern teaching and learning experience (Dolmage, 2017). Determining the number of students that use an alternate format accommodation, in which content is remediated to a more accessible format, and the general accessibility of digital learning material is difficult due to the lack of study on the topic. A 2009 study found inaccessible course materials were a significant concern for both students and faculty (Matthews, 2009). A 2020 study noted that learning materials, amongst other concerns, were significant barriers for disabled students (Bartz, 2020). A 2022 study also noted curriculum design and pedagogy, including format, as barriers reported by disabled students (Edwards et al., 2022). Without mentioning specific formats, a 2025 study involving 50 disabled students found significant barriers in pedagogy and course design (Marom & Hardwick, 2025). However, none of these studies meaningfully address specific inaccessible formats nor do they provide tangible next steps to improve the student experience.<\/p>\n

2.1.2 Retention and Completion<\/h3>\n

In discussing disability and higher education, retention and program completion rates must also be considered. In 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that 10% of Canadians with disabilities stopped their education due to their disability (2017). The same report found that 20% of Canadian disabled students altered their course of study due to their disability and that Canadian students with disabilities take fewer courses and take longer to complete their educational targets (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2017). A 2013 study found that 14% of Ontario students with disabilities withdrew from their studies within 1-3 years, compared to 8% for students without disabilities (McCloy & DeClou, 2013). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that students with disabilities are less likely to complete post-secondary education and if they do complete their studies, they take longer than non-disabled peers (OECD, 2011). Students with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled peers to fail courses in their first year and have lower GPAs (Parsons et al., 2021). Disabled students that complete their studies have more student debt than non-disabled students (Dolmage, 2017). When considering retention, program completion rates and duration, overall \u2018success\u2019, and other factors such as debt, a rift between non-disabled and disabled students grows.<\/p>\n

The evidence clearly shows that the number of students documented and self-reported disabilities in post-secondary education is significant. Given the number of people with disabilities, and in turn disabled students, significant work is needed to ensure education is available to all. Employing inclusive design principles and preferring more accessible formats for learning material can be one element of broader strategies to mitigate barriers to education.<\/p>\n

Accommodating students with disabilities is the current best practice to \u2018deal\u2019 with these rising numbers. Students with disabilities are required to navigate a complex bureaucracy of medical documentation, forms, assessments, and consultations to be entitled to, for example, additional time for regurgitation of rote memorization, the \u2018right\u2019 to record a lecture (even in one party consent jurisdictions), or access to readings in formats that work with their assistive technology. The formal academic accommodation system is not an attempt to include, but to temporarily endure disabled students\u2019 existence. Accommodations do little to change the existing system but rather create separate lanes for those that don\u2019t fit. As Jay Timothy Dolmage notes in Academic Ableism, \u201c<\/em>the demand is that that one body be adapted to a curriculum . . . that is otherwise unwelcoming, inaccessible, inhospitable to that body and mind\u201d (2017, p. 72). Given these attitudes, it is not surprising to find a 2011 study that found disabled students \u201cperceive their disability to have a negative impact on their ability to succeed\u201d (Roberts et al., 2011, p. 242). This should not be the case, particularly as post-secondary institutions self-proclaim themselves as inclusive and forward-thinking environments. Understanding accommodations and academic ableism are significant tasks; creating and choosing more accessible, digital learning materials is a low-effort, high-return strategy to improve access for disabled students.<\/p>\n

2.1.3 Academic Accommodations<\/h3>\n

While the focus of this project is digital learning material, academic accommodations are often required for disabled students to be allowed access to digital learning material. Academic accommodations may cause significant delays to access; create a spectrum of responses from administrators, faculty, and students; and require excess work that would be less frequently needed if digital learning materials were accessible by design.<\/p>\n

Accommodations are adjustments (such as extra time, use of technology, or lecture recordings) provided to students with disabilities. Accommodations are often temporary changes to curriculum and procedure allowed to meet legal standards. As such, accommodations do little to make positive, lasting changes to the institutional practices that forced the need for accommodation (Dolmage, 2017). At most post-secondary institutions, students are required to submit specific medical documentation of their disabilities to be considered for accommodations (Alyass, 2024). In Canada, the extent and range of academic accommodations are decided by legal considerations which, as critics argue, are a careful bureaucratic calculation of what an institution can get away with not providing under definitions of \u2018undue hardship\u2019 or \u2018unreasonable burden\u2019 on the providing institution (Titchkosky, 2011; Dolmage, 2017; Alyass, 2024). Undue hardship is calculated by cost (space, staff, and expenses), the student\u2019s access to outside funding, and health and safety requirements (Titchkosky, 2011; Alyass, 2024). This defense has been used by institutions to claim that allowing disabled students to participate would be too expensive. The existence of disabled students is, some egregiously argue, an unreasonable burden.<\/p>\n

The concept of accommodation is rooted in a deeply ableist belief that only certain types of assistance are unique and require special treatment. Disability justice scholar Daniel Freeman writes:<\/p>\n

Able-bodied people all have things that they fall short with, skills or tasks that they will never master. But when disabled folk say, \u2018These are the things I need in order to do my very best,\u2019 it is labeled as an \u2018accommodation.\u2019 . . . The language itself is ableist in nature, bringing into focus the reality of how disabled bodies are seen as barriers to able-bodied life. (2015)<\/p>\n

Independence is a myth, but academia has decided certain existences must be accommodated, that the need for certain kinds of help must be proven, documented, and segregated (Alyass, 2024). Accommodations are an indirect acknowledgement \u201cthat dominant pedagogies privilege those who can most easily ignore their bodies, and those whose minds work the most like the minds of their teachers\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 80).<\/p>\n

The use of assistive technology is not only a common accommodation, but also closely tied to the consumption of digital learning material. Assistive technology is consistently noted as a beneficial accommodation (Kettler, 2012; Courtad & Bakken, 2020; Fichten et al., 2022; Walz, 2024). Some studies suggest that assistive technology may be difficult to use for some students and unexpected behaviour may create barriers to success (Parsons et al., 2021). For assistive technology to be of benefit to students, digital learning material must be compatible with common assistive technology. Depending on the technology and the format of the material, a base minimum level of accessibility is required. Regardless, as Fichten et al. report, various studies find that assistive technology accommodations improve performance on assessments as well as benefits students\u2019 reading, writing, note-taking, and studying (2022). Research often defines the effectiveness of assistive technology related accommodations as increased test scores for accommodated disabled students (McGregor et al., 2016; Parsons et al., 2021; Lin, 2025). Unfortunately, research on how assistive technology works for students consuming general digital learning material is scarce. Understanding how effective accessible digital learning material and relevant accommodations are for disabled students requires considering the experience of disabled students.<\/p>\n

Perceptions of Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\n

The perception of disability and accommodation in post-secondary education studied significantly. Lyman et al. (2016) note that while accommodations contribute to higher graduation rates for students with disabilities, there are numerous potential downsides to accommodations including ineffective application, irrelevancy, negative social reactions, fear of future ramifications, and negative experiences with instructors. Mamboleo et al. (2020) found that instructor care and understanding, support from disability support offices, and student self-advocacy facilitated accommodation use and effectiveness while perception of accommodation as unfair advantage, lack of information about accommodations, student anxiety, and instructor desire to maintain uniformity were listed as challenges to accommodations. A 2019 study found numerous barriers to accommodations, including the lack of student awareness of disability resources, inability to provide specific documentation of disability, negative reactions of peers and instructors to accommodation requests, and lack of perceived usefulness of accommodations (Toutain, 2019). Additionally, accommodations may reduce a student\u2019s sense of autonomy, decrease feelings of self-efficacy, and increase anxiety (Reyes et al., 2022). Accommodations may create as many problems as they intend to solve, particularly as disclosure can upset the budding relationship between student and instructor. For a marginalized student disclosing personal information that may be perceived as a weakness, flaw, or request for \u2018special treatment\u2019 to the \u201cmost powerful actor in [their] academic environment\u201d may cause scores of unintended negative consequences (Trammell, 2009, p. 26). Significant research suggests this fear is not unfounded.<\/p>\n

A powerful factor impacting the usage of accommodations are bias and the perceptions of bias from peers and instructors (McGregor et al., 2016; Mamboleo et al., 2020; Edwards et al., 2022). A 2016 study found that only a minority of disabled students had accommodations, but those who did reported increased contact with faculty and decreased difficulty with assignments (McGregor et al., 2016). This suggests positive perceptions and engagement. However, the difference between students reporting disability and using support services or receiving accommodations suggests that some students are reluctant to seek out and use academic accommodations for fear of being negatively perceived. A 2025 study suggests positive perceptions (92.8% of professors and 93.3% of students) toward academic accommodations (Lefler et al., 2025). While Lefler et al.\u2019s findings suggest general positivity, many others find much lower rates of acceptance and willingness to fulfill legal accommodations. An early study of accommodations and disability on campus found that only one-quarter of disabled students felt supported by others and one-half believed their disability was not viewed as difference (Denny & Carson, 1994). A 2020 study of students with disabilities found that only 38% of instructors were supportive of required accommodations and helped in facilitating the accommodations (Mamboleo et al., 2020). A 2022 study found that students\u2019 peers often questioned why accommodated students did not write exams with the class, potentially impacting student\u2019s willingness to seek and use accommodations (Slaughter et al., 2022).<\/p>\n

Faculty Attitudes Toward Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\n

Students note instructor resistance and lack of familiarity with how to provide accommodations as significant barriers to receiving or using accommodations (Slaughter et al., 2022). Edwards et al. (2022) also found stigma related to disability and administrative processes as significant factors negatively influencing the use of accommodations. Perceptions of instructors\u2019 negative attitudes toward accommodations are further documented in a study that found instructors could not understand accommodating \u201csomeone who appeared young and healthy\u201d while one instructor claimed to have written a more difficult exam to negate the \u2018advantage\u2019 of a student\u2019s extra time accommodation (Sheets, 2019, p. 80). Faculty perceptions of accommodations and disability are powerful factors in the use of accommodations. Nieminen & Eaton (2024) found that students may avoid applying for accommodations for fear of being considered cheaters because, as the authors note, Canadian universities dedicate considerable resources to prevent cheating during accommodated assessments. This conflates accommodations with cheating and disabled students as cheaters. While \u201cthe academy is part of a neo-liberal context where it is generally assumed that \u2018we all\u2019 value access and desire inclusion\u201d disability is often treated as transitory, rare, and undesired by post-secondary institutions (Titchkosky, 2011, p. x). Ideally, accessibility would be used to recruit new students and satisfy existing students; however, it is not and thus legislation is required to make efforts toward accessibility compulsory (Ly et al., 2025). Faculty concerns about accommodations often cite unfair advantage or lowering standards (Maurya et al., 2025) and concerns about interference with their academic freedom (Lewsen, 2024; Gelber, 2025). Some instructors expressed concerns about the feasibility of accommodations, despite eagerness to enhance the accessibility of their classrooms (Norris & Wood, 2023).<\/p>\n

A common refrain in popular articles about education is that any accommodation of difference is \u201cquickly inflated into a \u2018state of the kids these days\u2019 fictionalization\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 69) where educators claim, \u201cI had to walk five miles barefoot up a snow-covered hill, so you should suffer too!\u201d (Grant, 2023). These non-academic pieces often quote unnamed professors, rarely talk to any students, and argue that the rise in the number of accommodations is not due to the rise in number of disabled people and increasing equitable access to education, but to people exploiting support systems for disabled students through fake diagnoses as argued by Lewsen (2024) and Horowitch (2025). These articles posit that accommodations are no longer for students with disabilities, but for \u201crich kids getting extra time on tests\u201d (Horowitch, 2025). Horowitch claims that a professor feels sorry \u201cfor the students not taking advantage of\u201d the accommodations system. This \u201cfear of the disability con\u201d is a \u201cmoral panic that individuals fake disabilities to take advantage of rights, accommodations, or benefits\u201d (Dorfman, 2019, p. 1053). These attitudes are not new. A 1997 New York Times<\/em> opinion piece positioned accommodations as \u201csubvert[ing] the goal of education\u201d (Sternberg, 1997). The author makes outlandish claims about parents seeking disability diagnoses so their children will be eligible for the benefits, that the number of truly disabled students is impossible to quantify due to this fraud, and that \u201ceven students with genuine disabilities should not use [accommodations] as an excuse for not learning.\u201d In 1999, Washington Monthly<\/em> published an article suggesting that the American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act inflated the definition of disability and encourages wealthy families \u201cto capitalize on their weaknesses at the expense of their peers\u201d (Worth). Unfortunately, these attitudes persist. A 2017 article portrays a faculty member who \u2018dreads\u2019 the accommodations talk, stating faculty should guide students to understand \u201cwhen it\u2019s best to try to cope on one\u2019s own\u201d (Hornstein). Rarely do these articles offer grace to students; nor do they offer solutions, only complaints.<\/p>\n

Others worry that equitable access to education contributes to \u201ca generalized culture of leniency\u201d (Lewsen, 2024). This dangerous rhetoric contradicts most serious research and perpetuates the academic ableism that pervades education, reaffirming the misguided belief that only certain bodies and minds have the right to pass through the hallowed halls of academia. In fact, disability advocates note that disabled people don\u2019t abuse accommodations but regularly ask for fewer than they need or would benefit from; \u201cdisabled people are less likely to ask for what we need, not the other way around\u201d (Withers, 2012, p. 115). Gelber (2025) reviews the history of learning disabilities in American higher education and notes that the overreaction to accommodations and modified teaching practices is not new. In fact, Gelber notes that \u201cin retrospect these concerns appear overblown because so many of the early accommodations for students with [disabilities] are now regarded as practices that benefit all students\u201d (p. 28). Gelber goes on to argue that as practices developed to assist disabled students often become mainstream best practice, some<\/p>\n

Recommended supports [for disabled students] can even seem like an indictment of the overall quality of college instruction because they continue to include basic practices such as stating the goal for the class session, highlighting key points, and providing clear written directions. (p. 28)<\/p>\n

Regardless of instructor perceptions of fairness, accommodations are needed to create equitable access for disabled students. Accessible experiences, specifically more accessible digital learning material, would reduce the need for accommodations and create inclusive educational experiences for all. While that would not eliminate the ableism that pervades academia, it would reduce the burden on students to seek the assistance of those who may not want them present.<\/p>\n

Efficacy of Academic Accommodations<\/h4>\n

Broken bureaucracy, communications, and the use of \u201cone shoe fits all approach\u201d to accommodations are significant impediments to the efficacy of accommodations (Low, 2019, p. 76). Accommodations should be individually tailored as part of a comprehensive plan, as generic accommodations might be counterproductive if applied based solely on diagnosis rather than individual needs (Baeyens, 2021). Students are generally not informed of all the available accommodations, only given a narrow set of possible accommodations based on the functional limitations imposed by their disabilities. A more student-focused and impactful approach would be a \u201cseries of individualised support accommodations that take into account [the student\u2019s] personal and emotional characteristics, as well as their own symptomatology due to the disorder\u201d (\u00c1lvarez-Godos et al., 2023, p. 10). Dolmage (2017) cites a student who described the accommodations process:<\/p>\n

As being like the game Battleship\u2014you can\u2019t perceive what\u2019s on the other side of the board, because there is a barrier there, and so you have to just keep trying to guess where the other player\u2019s ships are\u2014or where the relevant accommodations are, if they exist. (p. 90)<\/p>\n

Dolmage argues that students are encouraged to graciously accept what they get with no opportunity for feedback about the fit or efficacy of an accommodation. This universal approach to accommodations may be the only method many disability support offices have capacity to offer given the increased numbers of students with disabilities and extremely high number of disabled students per disability support staff member (Lewsen, 2024; Beck Wells, 2025). As Dolmage describes, seeking accommodations \u201cis to identify your needs within a framework in which everyone (from teachers to administrators to pundits) seems to know what college students need, and who they are, better than they do themselves\u201d (Dolmage, 2017, p. 69). Additionally, \u201cuncanny accommodations\u201d that may be well-intentioned but simply do not improve the student experience, are simply as waste of everyone\u2019s time and resources (Ireland, 2017). The lack of student input on accommodation type and efficacy is important and while this study does not focus specifically on accommodations, increasing the overall accessibility of digital learning material would reduce the number of accommodations and increase access for all students. Engaging disabled students in meaningful discussion about what digital formats work best for them can also function as a model for future research focused on soliciting disabled students\u2019 feedback on what accommodations work best for them. Unfortunately, disabled students\u2019 perspectives are often overlooked or ignored when it comes to making decisions about their education (May, 2024). Students are rarely considered by post-secondary education as knowledge holders and legitimate sources of information to improve the student experience (Marom & Hardwick, 2025). Numerous studies explicitly call for the consultation and inclusion of disabled students in improving the accommodations system (Trybus et al., 2019; Alyass, 2024; May, 2024; Marom & Hardwick, 2025). People are the experts on their own lived experience.<\/p>\n

Accommodations seek to temporarily amend the status quo to allow<\/em> disabled students to participate; accommodations are a form of consumptive access where a student is allowed access on a narrow set of terms (Dolmage, 2017). Once accommodated, these \u2018special cases\u2019 are filed away and repeated term by term, ensuring minimal access for disabled students and no significant change to the dominant practices, pedagogies, and prejudices of the academy. Accommodations are considered an expense, \u201can ad hoc process of retrofitting, repeated . . . for each individual student making a request\u201d (Fovet & Mole, 2013, p. 124). Accommodations are non-renewable, consumable costs that disabled students, in the eyes of some, burden their chosen institutions with (Dolmage, 2017; Fichten et al., 2022). The disposable, retrofitted accommodation ensures no lasting changes are made to standard operating procedures, pedagogy, or culture; like a game of Whack-a-Mole, just whack difference whenever it pops up (Dolmage, 2017, p. 91). This logic, according to Dolmage, allows singular, slight modification for one student once without any pressure to change, learn, or adapt from that modification to create more inclusive and pedagogically sound practice going forward. Much like a ramp added to the side of a building, accommodations are added to the side of curriculum; as Dolmage notes \u201cdisability can never come in the front entrance\u201d (p. 42). By emphasizing disposable accommodations, institutions minimize opportunities for expanding inclusive and diverse modes of learning while ensuring the burden of creating an inclusive educational experience sits with disabled students\u2019 ability to self-advocate, understand their rights, and complete paperwork (Bereza, 2019; Bruce & Aylward, 2021).<\/p>\n

However, the singular, disposable accommodation is not bespoke. As students are not informed of their options, accommodations are rarely reviewed for effectiveness or fit, and accommodations do little to change the culture and practice of an institution. Alyass (2024) argues that:<\/p>\n

\u201cCurrent definitions of meaningful access and reasonable accommodations serve the institution<\/em> [emphasis added] by taking power over students, controlling what accommodations they have access to, and determining the quality of education these students receive.\u201d (p. 60)<\/p>\n

Given that, it is reasonable to question if the current accommodation serves students or the institution. Some argue that accommodation systems need to transform into equity culture (Cook-Sather & Cook-Sather, 2023) while others posit that inequitable institutions, not disabled students, should be centred as the problems in need of fixing (Titchkosky & Michalko, 2012). Others place accommodations in opposition to accessibility as accommodations burden students and force disclosure while making little tangible improvement (Sheets, 2019). Each term accommodations temporarily, but in perpetuity (via their own isolated implementation) delay the creation and implementation of accessible content and experiences.<\/p>\n

Accommodations and Accessibility<\/h4>\n

If a greater amount of digital learning material were accessible, there would be significantly reduced numbers of accommodations. Students would not need to be accommodated in accessible digital spaces. Fewer accommodations would reduce administrative, time, and financial pressures on post-secondary institutions; mitigate faculty concerns regarding fairness; and create a vastly superior student experience by eliminating potential stigma, administrative burdens, and excess time and labour demanded of disabled students. Exploring the technical elements of digital accessibility and the specific formats that are most beneficial to students are keys to greater student access and success. It is difficult to envision a world so accessible there are no accommodations. However, inclusive design, particularly its focus on the broader beneficial impact of design interventions, could better inform accommodation practice to create meaningful, lasting change as opposed to ad hoc, disposable accommodation. Accommodations approached in this manner could transform from an administrative burden into learning experiences that could be incorporated into curriculum going forward. For example, if a student is approved for alternate format textbooks (e.g., an accessible digital copy of course readings), instead of repeatedly requiring students to request an accessible copy and, if one does not exist, offloading the process to a remediation service which delays the student\u2019s access to learning material, the instructor could seek out (via a librarian or publisher) or create (with open educational resources) accessible digital versions. This approach would avoid the repetitive whack-a-mole accommodation system that constantly addresses the same issues in ways that satisfy few, if any, of the relevant parties. Inclusive design can be employed to improve education in meaningful ways. Of greatest concern to this work is the timely and equitable access to digital learning material that works for all students, which once realized will reduce the number of less-than-optimal accommodations.<\/p>\n

Administrators, instructors, and students are not pleased with the accommodations system. Accessible digital learning material will not remove the need for all accommodations, but alleviate the strain on institutions, reduce the number of requests going to instructors, and increase student autonomy and reduce the ostracization forced upon students by having to ask to be allowed to participate.<\/p>\n

2.1.4 Digital Accessibility in Education<\/h2>\n

Accommodations are necessary where accessibility is missing. Those who choose and create digital learning material have an excellent opportunity to create more inclusive student experiences by ensuring content is accessible by design (Briggs et al., 2024). However, the persistence of inaccessible content suggests significant barriers to achieving accessible and inclusive education. Kent (2016) surveyed and interviewed hundreds of students across 15 Australian institutions and found consistent accessibility issues including selective availability of materials, variable content quality and readability, and the use of third-party products with low accessibility. Behling (2017) found consistent issues with instructor-generated content, textbook publisher platforms and material, Word documents, PDFs, PowerPoints, and audio-visual material.<\/p>\n

One of the most substantial barriers to creating accessible learning material is faculty awareness of, and attitudes toward, digital accessibility. Briggs et al. (2024) note that even when faculty consider accessibility as an important piece of course design, they also report hesitancy due to a lack of time, willingness, motivation, and ability to create and choose accessible material. Guilbaud et al. (2021) and Read (2024) found employees\u2019 schedules and existing heavy workloads made additional professional development difficult to manage and schedule. Read also noted that some faculty believe their course material is not compatible with accessibility requirements. This belief could be intimately tied with a lack of understanding about how to create accessible content. Academic ableism may also influence this preconception. Other work notes how a lack of understanding about how assistive technology works, what makes content accessible, and how to make accessible content restricts post-secondary employees from choosing and creating accessible content (Sanderson et al., 2022; Walz, 2024).<\/p>\n

Perhaps due to prior experiences with remediations, accommodations, and modifications some faculty view accessibility as a reactive practice rather than a proactive operation and do not understand their role in crafting accessible learning experiences that could reduce reliance on prior reactive accommodations (Briggs et al., 2024). However, Dolmage (2017) argues that accommodations are necessary because post-secondary as a sector is \u201cnowhere close\u201d to offering inclusive and accessible experiences (p. 144). Advocating for more accessibility does not mean less support for disabled students. More accessible content would help most disabled students access the content they need at the same time as their peers. This would reduce the need for remediation (and associated time and bureaucracy) allowing disability support services to focus on more complex and labour-intensive tasks.<\/p>\n

Sciarretta (2025) notes a lack of awareness about the legal aspects of accessibility, including the responsibility of faculty, staff, and those that create educational web content and applications. Others argue that even an organization that adheres to basic legal requirements may not provide accessible experiences for students especially when enforcement is not consistent (Sanderson et al., 2022; Briggs et al., 2024; \u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024).<\/p>\n

Numerous studies note that lack of training has a significant impact on accessibility (Sanderson et al., 2022; Briggs et al., 2024; Walz, 2024). While professional development training for post-secondary employees has a positive impact on accessibility best practices, there are significant barriers to consistent and effective training (Guilbaud et al., 2021). In addition to the attitudes discussed above, other impediments to training may include difficulties presented by the rapid changes to technology, software, and platforms (\u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024).<\/p>\n

Finally, the decentralization of post-secondary institutions\u2014including within departments and divisions\u2014may make management of digital accessibility more difficult, contributing to persistent inaccessible content (Walz, 2024). Briggs et al. (2024) note that some faculty may consider accessibility the responsibility of the institution. Even when accessibility is a priority for institutions, financial and temporal constraints may make significant improvements to accessibility difficult to realize (\u017buchowska-Skiba, 2024). Regardless of awareness, perceptions, or questions of responsibility, many students face significant barriers to access. Currently, those barriers may be mitigated by accommodations. Accessible learning material would enhance inclusion and reduce the number of accommodations needed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1655,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-638","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":584,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1655"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":761,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/638\/revisions\/761"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/584"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/638\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=638"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=638"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/lostintranslation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}