Current Status of Acceptance of Students with Disabilities at Universities and Colleges - From the 2024 Survey (Classes Part: Overview, Policies, and Periodic Examinations)

• This section analyzes classes based on the results of the “Survey on the Acceptance of Students with Disabilities at Universities and Colleges 2024” conducted last year. Of the 821 institutions surveyed (811 universities and 10 university colleges), 381 responded, giving a reply rate of 46%. Nihon University was surveyed by faculty, and two faculties submitted responses. This represents a decrease of five institutions compared with the previous survey.
• This survey requested responses representing each institution’s official position. Some institutions entered responses but were unable to obtain internal approval and therefore did not finalize their submissions. Such institutions, as well as those that had suspended student recruitment, are not included in the final reply count.

• * The reply rate is calculated as the number of responses for each item divided by 382 responses (including two faculties of Nihon University).
• * “Change from previous survey” indicates the difference in reply rates (percentage points) between the previous and current surveys.

Overview of Considerations in Classes

• 354 institutions (93%) reported providing some form of consideration during classes, an increase of 3 percentage points from the previous survey.
• By class type, considerations were reported by 318 institutions for general lectures (83%, +5 points), 163 for language classes (43%, +4 points), 209 for physical education (55%, +5 points), 122 for experiments (32%, +3 points), 222 for practicum/training (58%, +3 points), 238 for presentations (62%, +4 points), and 276 for periodic examinations (72%, +5 points).
• Overall, the implementation of considerations in classes is expanding, with notable increases in general lectures, physical education, and periodic examinations.
• However, the level of implementation varies by class type. In areas where participation can be more demanding, such as experiments and language classes, establishing systems that ensure appropriate considerations are consistently provided remains a key challenge.

Overview of Considerations by Disability Type

• By disability type, considerations were provided by 173 institutions for visual disabilities (45%, +3 points), 210 for hearing disabilities (55%, +4 points), 222 for physical disabilities (58%, +1 point), 244 for developmental disabilities (64%, +3 points), 254 for mental disabilities (66%, +4 points), and 244 for internal disabilities (64%, +5 points). For intellectual disabilities, surveyed for the first time, 116 institutions (30%) reported providing considerations.
• Considerations increased across most disability types compared with the previous survey, indicating that the scope of support in classes is expanding.
• At the same time, the types of considerations required differ by disability. A key challenge is to standardize information sharing and implementation procedures between campus support offices and faculty members, ensuring that support is provided seamlessly from student request to actual provision.

Overall Policy on Class-wide Considerations

• Regarding overall policies on class-wide considerations, 309 institutions (81%, +3 points) reported “requesting instructors to provide specific considerations,” 277 (73%, +4 points) reported “notifying instructors of the enrollment status of students with disabilities,” 152 (40%, +5 points) reported “preparing guidelines and presenting them to instructors,” and 141 (37%, +3 points) reported “monitoring the implementation of considerations by instructors.” “Others” accounted for 31 institutions (8%, 0-point change).
• This indicates that universities are increasingly establishing institutional systems to promote considerations, rather than leaving them solely to individual instructors.
• At the same time, developing guidelines and monitoring implementation should not end with preparation and execution alone. Ensuring that instructors can apply them without difficulty, along with establishing mechanisms for review and improvement each semester, remains a key challenge.

Policy for General Lectures

• For general lectures, 305 institutions (80%, +4 points) reported “adjusting seating arrangements,” 251 (65%, +5 points) “allowing the use of assistive devices,” and 204 (53%, +4 points) “allowing the use of recording devices.” “Consideration of absence limits” was reported by 76 institutions (20%, +4 points). “Providing assistants during lectures” was reported by 119 institutions (31%, +1 point), and “providing assistants for lecture preparation” by 34 institutions (9%, +1 point).
• These results indicate that relatively easy-to-implement considerations, such as seating arrangements and the use of equipment, are becoming more widespread.
• On the other hand, human support such as providing assistants and preparation support remains limited. A key challenge is to establish clear procedures within institutions—from request to arrangement—so that necessary support reaches students without delay.

Policy for Language Classes

• For language classes, the most common measure was “assigning alternative tasks,” reported by 95 institutions (25%, +4 points), followed by “providing assistants” at 78 institutions (20%, +2 points). “Substituting with another course” was reported by 20 institutions (5%, 0-point change), and “creating special classes” by 15 institutions (4%, +1 point). “Others” accounted for 60 institutions (4%, -1 point).
• These results indicate that efforts are being made to support continuity in learning in language classes.
• However, while alternative tasks and course substitutions can be valid options, a key issue is ensuring that support is sufficiently provided so that students who can participate are not shifted prematurely to substitute measures. Priority should be given to considerations that make participation possible, including the provision of assistants and adjustments to materials and assignments.

Policy for Physical Education

• For physical education, “observation (not participating)” was reported by 111 institutions (29%, +5 points), “modifying content or activities” by 109 (29%, +4 points), and “substitution with reports” by 90 (24%, +4 points). “Adapting equipment” was reported by 57 institutions (15%, +3 points), and “providing assistants” by 50 (13%, +1 point). “Creating special classes” was reported by 29 institutions (8%, 0-point change), and “substitution with another course” by 20 (5%, +1 point).
• These results indicate that relatively accessible considerations, such as modifying activities and adapting equipment, are becoming more widespread in addition to observation and substitution measures.
• However, efforts to support actual participation and human assistance remain limited. A key challenge is to prioritize making participation possible through adjustments to activities and rules, as well as the provision of assistants, and to flexibly review course design, including evaluation methods.

Policy for Experiments

• For experiments, “providing assistants” was reported by 79 institutions (21%, +1 point), and “adapting equipment” by 53 institutions (14%, +4 points). “Observation (not participating)” was reported by 34 institutions (9%, +1 point), “assigning alternative tasks” by 32 (8%, +2 points), and “substitution with reports” by 30 (8%, +2 points). “Substitution with another course” was reported by 4 institutions (1%, 0-point change).
• These results indicate that a certain level of consideration in experiments is being provided, mainly through human support.
• However, adjustments to the environment, such as adapting equipment and procedures, as well as support designed with participation in mind, have not yet become sufficiently widespread. Rather than relying on observation or substitution, a key challenge is to share accessible implementation methods within institutions and develop systems that enable continuous operation while reducing the burden on instructors.

Policy for Practicum / Training

• For practicum/training, “requesting considerations from host organizations” was reported by 203 institutions (53%, +4 points). “Arranging practicum placements” was reported by 82 institutions (21%, +3 points), “providing assistants” by 60 (16%, +1 point), and “adapting equipment” by 46 (12%, +2 points). “Assigning alternative tasks” was reported by 31 (8%, +1 point), “observation (not participating)” by 21 (5%, 0-point change), “substitution with reports” by 17 (4%, +1 point), and “substitution with another course” by 2 (1%, -1 point).
• These results indicate that universities are actively involved in coordinating considerations in practicum settings, including collaboration with external organizations.
• However, because practicum conditions are highly dependent on the receiving institutions, disparities in the quality of support can arise. A key challenge is for universities to take responsibility for coordination—standardizing request formats and procedures, conducting advance confirmation, and providing follow-up after implementation—to ensure continuity of support.

Policy for Presentations

• For presentations, “allowing the use of assistive devices” was reported by 182 institutions (48%, +4 points). “Assigning alternative tasks” was reported by 82 (21%, +2 points), and “providing assistants” by 79 (21%, 0-point change). “Substitution with another course” was reported by 6 (2%, 0-point change), and “others” by 96 institutions (25%, +3 points).
• These results indicate that diversification in presentation methods, including the use of assistive devices, is progressing to some extent.
• However, presentation settings often require human support or changes in methods. A key challenge is to move beyond simply substituting tasks, and instead separate evaluation methods from presentation formats, enabling students to choose considerations that allow participation while maintaining learning objectives.

Policy for Periodic Examinations

• 276 institutions (72%, +5 points) reported providing considerations in periodic examinations. In terms of policy, 226 institutions (59%, +6 points) reported “consultation between the university and the student,” and 160 (42%, +4 points) “consultation between course instructors and the student.” “Establishing institutional standards” was reported by 36 institutions (9%, +1 point), and “others” by 24 (6%, 0-point change).
• These results indicate that more institutions are providing considerations through consultation, and that support in periodic examinations is expanding.
• However, since periodic examinations are directly tied to academic evaluation, excessive reliance on case-by-case handling can lead to variations across courses and instructors. A key challenge is to establish institutional standards, procedures, and systems for internal sharing to ensure that considerations are implemented reliably while maintaining fairness.