This resource page emerges from a workshop presented by Elliott Hawley and Andrew Lucchesi for the Institute for Critical Disability Studies on March 8th 2024 at Western Washington University. Reach out for comments or questions to icds@wwu.edu
Edited Video of the Workshop
Find slides for the workshop here.
Introduction
This workshop was designed by the Institute for Critical Disability Studies to explore the topic of mandatory attendance policies through the lens of disability studies and advocacy. Attendance is a challenging issue, especially in our current moment when instances of class absence are at an all-time high (Times Higher Education). Many faculty are finding themselves trying to develop new policies to encourage students to participate in classroom learning, while they also aim to be sensitive to students’ needs. Everyone knows about the trouble with attendance policies–students fall behind, classroom activities don’t work as well, and faculty have to put in a lot of extra work to keep everyone able to participate and succeed.
It would be nice if there were a silver bullet for this issue. However, the problem is individualized from class to class, from discipline to discipline. What works in a humanities seminar might not work in a science lab. And yet all faculty are held to the same basic university standard (access the WWU university policy here).
About the Workshop
We framed this workshop as an open-ended exploration of the topic of attendance policies from a disability-focused lens. In particular, we wanted to discuss:
- What do disabled students think about mandatory attendance policies
- What issues arise for faculty around attendance issues
- What principles could guide faculty into more effective and equitable attendance policies
By starting with the voices of disabled students, we follow the disability-rights mentality of “nothing about us without us,” which means that decisions about how to respond to disability must always include disability perspectives.
Disabled Student Perspectives
We interviewed several disabled students about their perspectives on accessibility policies, and we found some interesting results. You will find full details and quotations in the workshop video.
- Students see the utility of mandatory attendance policies, explaining that they provided motivation for them to engage in the classes, show up, and participate
- Students are sympathetic to the challenges frequent absences put on faculty in terms of the labor needed to adjust assignments or help students catch up on what they missed
Another important thread concerns the interpersonal dynamics of attendance policies. Some students reported feeling judged by faculty, for example, being treated as if they don’t care about their education. Some faculty are condescending about students’ maturity or professionalism. (We hope to do a workshop about the concept of professionalism in future years).
Faculty Perspectives
We lay out some key issues for faculty concerning mandatory attendance policies.
Labor Issues
Many faculty feel overwhelmed by the amount of labor it takes to accommodate student absences. Challenges include things like assigning and reading make-up assignments, meeting for extra office hours, and interrupting grading schedules to accommodate extended deadlines. Faculty often feel required to do this labor without any extra compensation or support. The same is true when students request remote access to the class, such as live Zoom participation in class or recorded lectures, which also require extra labor, especially when faculty do not have expertise in the technology.
Judging Student Excuses
Faculty feel anxiety about the role they must play in judging whether student absences are appropriate or not. The university policy gives very little guidance in this regard. It lays out that university-sponsored activities should be excused (such as debate competitions), but it does not say what the standards should be for illness or persistent disability-related issues. Faculty are not trained to determine what constitutes a medical issue severe enough to warrant students being unable to attend class. Is a migraine sufficient? Are frequent bouts of depression?
Many faculty rely on external authorities to help make these determinations, such as the disability resources office or the student health center. These can be useful sources for students with long-standing disability or illness issues, but many students have acute issues that cannot be documented through on-campus resources. At Western Washington University, for example, the student health center does not provide doctor’s notes for short-term illnesses such as the flu. Faculty often do not know the limits of these resources when they require doctor’s notes for excused absences. If you are coming from another institution, consider checking in with your student health center to find out about their policies for documenting student illness.
Universal Design for Learning
The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offer an alternative to mandatory attendance policies and some of the issues they create. The basic principles focus on providing multiple ways for students to engage with the class in three areas:
- Multiple means of engagement – students have options in what aspects of the course content they explore
- Multiple means of representation – students have options in terms of how they take in the content of the course: readings, audio, lectures, activities
- Multiple means of expression – students have options in terms of how they participate: remotely, aloud, in writing, synchronously, asynchronously
Attendance policies most clearly fit with the means of expression and representation categories. Does the class offer a variety of options for participating in the class, both inside and outside the hours for which the class is scheduled? Are there methods for taking in the material if they are not in the room?
Here are some UDL approaches for providing accessible attendance strategies:
- Note taking–Assign students to be daily note-takers and make their notes publicly available to all students. To assure quality, you can have two students take notes on the same day and make both versions available
- Collaborative annotations–Use a tool such as Hypothesis or Google Documents to allow students to leave comments on a common reading. You can have them highlight within the texts, leave comments on interesting ideas, and respond to each others’ comments.
- Sharing activity prompts for those who miss class–create a space on Canvas where activities and lesson plans can be posted
- Share recordings and lecture slides of the class.
Model Attendance Policies
Several Workshop participants offered models of their attendance policies to be included in this resource page. Here are some common practices for managing attendance:
- Explain in the syllabus the reasons for the attendance policy. This can be an opportunity to explain to students the kinds of labor that are involved in the class so they can make informed decisions about whether they can handle the commitment.
- Focus on in-class participation. For example, several faculty members require daily quizzes or exit reports (brief summaries of the day’s activities), which receive credit. These serve to reward attendance without directly penalizing missed classes as excused or not excused absences.
Bibliography
Joe Gerald and Benjamin Brady, “Time to Make Your Mandatory-Attendance Policy Optional?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 2019
The authors explore the effectiveness of letting students choose between two distinct attendance policies: one incentivizing attendance with extra credit and another mandating it with potential penalties for absences. They found that giving students this choice not only accommodated diverse student needs, particularly for nontraditional and potentially at-risk students, but also fostered a sense of responsibility, leading most to prefer a structured approach. The success of the policy is attributed to the initial commitment students make, aware of the consequences, which mirrors behavioral principles linking commitment to performance. This approach challenges traditional notions, treating students as self-regulating adults capable of making beneficial decisions regarding their educational engagement.
Melissa Nicolas, “Ma(r)king a Difference: Challenging Ableist Assumptions in Writing Program Policies,” Writing Program Administration Journal, vol 40(3), 2017
Melissa Nicolas critiques the ableist foundations of mandatory attendance policies in writing programs, arguing they fail to accommodate the diverse realities of student bodies. Nicolas points out that such policies often assume a “normal” student body, thereby inadvertently penalizing students with disabilities who may struggle with what are considered routine tasks. She advocates for a shift from rigid policies to more flexible, universally designed strategies that acknowledge the complexities of student lives. Highlighting the potential for policies to either promote or hinder equity, Nicolas suggests, “Mandatory attendance policies… are premised on ableist assumptions” (Nicolas 11), urging writing program administrators to reevaluate and revise their approaches to foster a more inclusive academic environment.
Lydia X. Z. Brown, “Syllabus Language,” Sep 2017. https://autistichoya.net/resources/syllabus-language/.
Brown’s syllabus policy expresses commitments to principles inherent to UDL—multiple means of expression “I strive to provide information and resources in multiple formats (text, visuals, audio, silent work, group work, lecture, conversation, etc.) to enable more access possibilities for every student”. This syllabus focuses on minimizing disruption and limiting the need for adjudication of student’s requests: extensions are granted regardless of reason, and the syllabus expressly mentions that no explanation is required. This approach allows a student to self-advocate and get in a high-quality assignment without penalty. Ultimately, Brown’s policy centers on meeting the needs of their students by validating that they are people with busy lives, understanding that they can’t always access official accommodation routes, and can’t always conform to certain traditional expectations in academic settings.
Burgstahler, Sheryl, and Rebecca Cory, eds. Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2008.
Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice suggests a format for group discussions based on a case study of a course. The course included differentiated discussion groups which provided choice and options for students. These discussions had different expectations and formats. Attending discussions and groups were one option for obtaining participation credits, although there were other options to receive these points, like taking notes. Each of these discussion group sessions were optional due to this structure. There were two general categories for these discussions: reviews and “advanced” discussions.
Review sessions focused more on the content of the week, giving students more context and guided review, as well as an opportunity to ask more questions and fill potential gaps in background knowledge. “Advanced” discussions assumed that students had done all of the outside reading and assigned additional material to read prior to the session. These additional readings could be controversial or even challenge previous course readings to give more depth to the discussion. The focus of these “advanced” discussions was on connecting ideas and going further into the granular detail of a given topic. The authors note that “10-15% of students show up for these kinds of sessions in a given week, although about 25% of students participate in them over the course of the semester. These are ideal sessions for students who find the lectures or readings tool elementary or concrete” (53). These discussions were also not all face to face, and indeed many were held online. The authors noted that using UDL principles to develop these discussions allowed for more engagement. “By providing options and multiple means for those discussions, we have found higher rates and quality of engagement in these aspects of the course” (53).
