UDL – Where the buck stops! - In the change to a UDL model, who does what? Presented at the AHEAD 2018 Conference - Let’s Bring the Elephant into the Room! - Reshaping the inclusive environment in further & higher education

1. UDL – Where the buck stops!
AHEAD2018Conference-Let’sBringtheElephantintotheRoom! -
Reshapingtheinclusiveenvironmentin further& highereducation
Dr. Frederic Fovet,
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Prince Edward Island
UDL and Inclusion Consultant

2. Who’s this guy?
• Unpacking multiple perspectives
• Assistant Professor in Education at UPEI
• Teacher and principal for 15 years
• Focus on Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties
• But also
• Director of the Office for Students with Disabilities at McGill for four years
over the period of my PhD, and in charge of a UDL implementation drive
accross campus
• Phenomenological impact and relevance of these multiperspective thoughout
the presentation

3. Objectives of the workshop
• Explore the ‘need’ that has emerged in the field of UDL implementation to
reflect on strategy on an institutional dimension.
• Examine issues that arise when disability service providers are tasked with
promoting UDL cross-campus
• Examine issues of territoriality and silo mentality in UDL work across
campuses
• Explore the notion of ‘ecological mapping’ to address this growing tension

4. Identifying the need
• The victories have been striking:
• The last decade has been a dynamic and exciting time for UDL in
Higher Education both in Europe and North America.
• The model is more widely discussed
• Initiatives are popping up on numerous campuses
• A vibrant literature is emerging and hopes are growing for rapid
change.
• And yet…

5. Identifying the need
• Perhaps time to stop and to take a realistic look at the strategic way we embrace UDL
before pushing ahead...
• Is UDL implementation progressing as quickly and as successfully as it should on our
campuses?

6. Group activity
• Take 5-7 minutes with your colleague, peer, neighbour to discuss
the following questions:
• Who has ownership of UDL on your campus and who is tasked
with moving it forward as an agenda?
• How good is that stakeholder at collaborating with other
departments and units?
• How quicky is UDL implementation moving across your campus?

7. Interactive interlude
• I thought it might be useful to gauge the room a little before I begin.
• By show of hands/ object raised or waved, who feels that in general terms…
(a) Who feels that their institution is receptive to UDL?
(b) Who feels their institution has a strategic plan in place when it comes to UDL?
(c) Who feels their institution has thought and discussed ‘ownership’ (i.e. which units
or departments will take on the responsibility of promoting UDL)?
(d) Who feels they have clarity within their institutions when it comes to UDL and the
future?
You can also comment & participate using the hashtag #elephantAHEAD

8. We have identified a need!

9. First hurdle: Disability Service providers
as key implementers
• These units’ commitment to UDL is often shaky due to funding model.
• The funding model relies on a diagnostic approach
• The funding model also depends on learner’s reliance on student services.
QA often is unidimensional: how many service users requested support?
• Fear for the sustainability of these units: ‘Are we working ourselves out of a
job?’
• Deep rooted inherent adherence to medical model approach. Incompatible
with UDL which translates social model practices.
• Background and training: too often there is a disconnect between disability
service provision and disability studies as a taught discipline within academia.

10. Disability Service providers as key
implementers: the challenges (contd.)
• Over-reliance on the notion of ‘help’. UDL privileges autonomy.
• Complex issues around the conceptualization of service provision:
it often contradicts notions of inclusive design. ‘Do as you preach’
is often an easy come back when these units try to promote UDL.
• Accessibility services are treated with caution by faculty members:
this limits the impact of cross campus promotion

11. Tackling some of these issues within
Accessibility services
• It is imperative that Disability service providers in HE first align themselves
with UDL
• This requires a thorough examination of practices and ethos
• A possible road map: UD audit of services

12. Second hurdle: Silo mentality & territoriality
• How can we move past territoriality and share
ownership?
• Silo mentality
• Often stakeholders across campus have radically different backgrounds and
theoretical stance
• Faculty are not receptive to receiving pedagogical advice from non faculty
• HE generally is rife with silo mentality. Faculties do not even necessarily share
expertise and resources

13. Second hurdle: Silo mentality &
territoriality
• Territoriality
• Service providers and faculty (and other units) end up struggling
for predominance instead of rallying to each other’s cause.
• Issues of visibility and prestige
• Issues of funding and sustainability
• Pedagogy versus design thinking

14. Tackling silo mentality and territoriality
• Interdisciplinarity
• Cross unit staffing
• More mobility between faculty, curriculum designers, accessibility services and
Teaching and Learning services
• An overarching UDL objective in the insitution’s mission statement
• Cross-department funding enveloppes

15. We haveidentifiedtwo major hurdles. There are more!
Anecdotal feedback:my owninstitutionaljourneys
• Issues of ownership: who should take ownership of the implementation process?
Who will?
• Issues of ‘silo mentality’: Unis and departments too often claim ownership of the
UDL model. Is there any possible genuine implementation that involves solely one
stakeholder?
• Issues of rivalry between departments and campus politics: Often these resistance
processes have little to do with the worth of the agenda you are presenting.
• Issues with ‘over-personalization’ of campus wide UDL work and over-reliance on
specific individuals
• Issues of strategic planning and sustainability
• Issues of management of change
• Issues of burn out

16. Implementation in post-secondary campuses: a large,
complex and multilayered phenomenon
• Does a straight forward implementation model really exist?
• Campuses are:
• Complex
• Multidisciplinary and multi-profession environments
• Anchored in tradition
• Political
• Multilayered
• Not great at effective institutional communication
• Not great at management of change
• Inherently ambivalent about UDL
• Subject to their own external variables

17. Introducing the notion of using ecological theory to
navigate institutional management of change
• What is ecological theory?

18. Need for strategic cross-campus implementation as an
institutional process through the lens of ecological
theory
• When we examine the UDL process, we talk about ‘barrier analysis’ within the
environment
• I am going to suggest we should apply a similar lens when examining wide
scale, systemic implementation in complex environments.
• An ‘ecological analysis’ is essential and will be the only way to guarantee
success.
• This is (sadly) not transferable from institution to institution as the variables
at play internally vary.
• This should happen before a blueprint for implementation is even devised
• I suggest adopting the notion of ‘ecological mapping’

19. What an ecological pre-UDL implementation
‘mapping’ might look like.
Stakeholder
accepting
responsibility
Multiple
competing
stakeholders
Institutional
culture and
history
Size and
resources
Administrative
strategic
planning
Relationship with
natural
collaborators
External variables
affecting all parts
of the campus
Support from senior
administration
- embedding of UDL
in mission statement
Credibility
with
student
body
Red tape/ admin
heaviness &
willingness to
streamline

20. The pressing need for literature on strategic
institutional development in the field of UDL
• We will need to import resources and frameworks from other fields
• Issue at this stage is not about introducing UDL or explaining its worth.
• The challenge is management of change, and hence strategic planning
• Other fields (Management, Industrial Relations, Psychology, etc.) will provide
us rich lessons and speed up the process of developing a strategic expertise
around UDL implementation.

21. A few resources – A reflective exercise
• Worth watching as a reflection exercise. How many of these UDL resources for HE
tackle ownership, leadership or strategic planning?
• UDL on Campus video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MCvjkd8Jc
• UDL on campus site: http://udloncampus.cast.org/home#.WnDtWsiGPIU
• McGill UDL video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjUKGBipJZA
• Seattle Central College video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FE1CLS7i3k&t=44s
• Empowering the next generation video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SG1IwzHhiU
• It is no longer sufficient to produce UDL material that preaches the virtue of the
framework for Inclusion. Stakeholders need strategic advice and hands on
organizational tips.

22. Today’s take-away?
• Driving implementation is not the same as introducing the appeal of UDL
• High level strategic planning across campuses is required
• Committed stakeholders are required and must take ownership
• Collaborative interdisciplinary leadership is required and must be nurtured
• Ecological mapping is required in each institution

23. A few references
• Beck, T., Diaz del Castillo, P., Fovet, F., Mole, H., & Noga, B. (2014) Applying Universal Design
to disability service provision: outcome analysis of a UD audit. Journal of Post-secondary
Education and Disability, 27(2), 209-222
• Fovet, F. (2017) Access, Universal Design and Sustainability of Teaching Practices: a Powerful
Synchronicity of Concepts at a Crucial Conjuncture for Higher Education. Indonesian Journal
of Disability Studies (IJDS), 4(2), 118-129
• Fovet, F., Jarrett, T., Mole, H., & Syncox, D. (2014) Like fire to water: building bridging
collaborations between Disability service providers and course instructors to create user
friendly and resource efficient UDL implementation material. Collected Essays on Learning
and Teaching, 7(1)
• Leech, S., A. Wiensczyk, and J. Turner. 2009. Ecosystem management: A practitioners’ guide.
BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 10(2), 1–12. Retrieved from:
http://forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/jem_archive/ISS51/vol10_no2_art1.pdf
• Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community
partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46 (5), 987-
1010. Retrieved from:
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=education_faculty_
pubs

24. Contact details
• Dr Frederic Fovet
• Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, UPEI
• ffovet@upei.ca or implementudl@gmail.com
• www.implementudl.com
• @Ffovet

25. Q&A?
• We have about 10 minutes to tackle remaining questions