Courts

NCAD failed to support art student with Down syndrome during ‘chaotic’ first semester, mother claims

College’s lawyers have denied discrimination ‘in the strongest possible terms’

The National College of Art and design on Thomas Street in Dublin. Photograph: Alan Betson
The National College of Art and design on Thomas Street in Dublin. Photograph: Alan Betson
Stephen Bourke
Mon Nov 18 2024 - 20:53

An art student with Down syndrome who has accused the National College of Art and Design of disability discrimination had her typed signature “forged” on an assessment document, her mother has alleged.

The student, Ellie Dunne (25), – who is said by her legal team to be the first student with Down syndrome to enrol on a degree programme at NCAD – is pursuing a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 against the college.

Her case is that the college failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation during her first semester after starting in September 2023 – and that disability discrimination continued when the college required her to re-sit an assessment on a module she was studying at the time. The college’s lawyers have denied discrimination “in the strongest possible terms”.

At the Workplace Relations Commission, Ms Dunne’s mother, Katy McGuinness, told an equality hearing on Monday that she and her husband “had a sense that things were fairly chaotic within NCAD” in late September and early October 2023.

READ MORE

The tribunal was told that having applied successfully via the Central Applications Office (CAO) Ms Dunne had formal notice of acceptance on to the NCAD fine arts programme in August 2023 and started on the course in mid-September that year.

An educational support worker provided by the college was initially available only two days a week and was not familiar with the studio techniques and equipment Ms Dunne was to use in her studies, she said.

However, another student on the course was a long-standing friend of Ms Dunne’s who had been involved in supporting her education for the previous 17 years. Part of the accommodation planned was that her friend would follow the same timetable as Ms Dunne and be a support to the claimant, Ms McGuinness explained.

She said her daughter was left “very upset” to be informed on October 19th that she and her friend would not be in the same course, though this was later reversed. The witness said Ms Dunne’s friend “does not do any work for her” but assisted her daughter in “knowing what to do” by breaking down instructions “into bite-sized chunks”.

Internal correspondence from around this time obtained under a data subject access, which was opened to the tribunal, included reference to ethical concerns about this arrangement among tutors.

There was also correspondence from tutors expressing concern that Ms Dunne “doesn’t seem to be doing much work on campus during class time”, Ms McGuinness said.

Ms McGuinness said those concerns were not raised with her even though she was in correspondence with tutors on the course at the time.

Later in October 2023, Ms Dunne’s friend was being “excluded ... from various things” to do with the complainant’s educational support, including sessions on the use of assistive technology, Ms McGuinness said.

When it emerged that Ms Dunne had failed the module early in November 2023, there was further correspondence and meetings, during which Ms McGuinness said she first became aware of the profile of needs summary (POMS) document.

“We still thought we could trust NCAD. We weren’t aware of any malign intent – we thought things were maybe inept, we thought things were disorganised ... we were giving them the benefit of the doubt,” Ms McGuinness said.

Ms McGuinness said that although her daughter had agreed to put her signature on one document prepared by a professional following a meeting on accommodating her disability earlier that year, she had not agreed to sign the second plan document, the profile of needs summary, which bore Ms Dunne’s typed signature, she said.

Although Ms McGuinness said she later engaged with the college about a new PONS document, she said: “The only PONS at the time of the failed assessment was the one dated 12 September, with Ellie’s forged signature on it.”

Adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill noted that the author of the document, a professional engaged by a third party involved in preparing an educational support plan for Ms Dunne, had “typed a signature” and that it “wasn’t a classic forgery”.

Ms McGuinness said her daughter had “passed all her other assignments” after new supports, including an educational support worker, had been made available for a full five days a week.

However, the question of Ms Dunne passing the first module remained an issue, and was not resolved following mediation on March 8th, 2024. After the college confirmed later that month that it required Ms Dunne to re-sit the assessment, Ms Dunne’s equality complaint was filed to the WRC, the tribunal was told.

Ms Dunne has since been accepted on to a degree course in art at TU Dublin, but has deferred it by a year, the tribunal heard. Ms McGuinness said her daughter was unwell for “quite a while” as a result of the alleged discrimination.

“She couldn’t understand why the college didn’t want to make it work for her ... There was nobody taking responsibility for Ellie’s success at NCAD, for making it a successful experience, and it’s been absolutely devastating. We can’t even drive down Thomas Street any more with Ellie in the car because she’s so upset going past NCAD – about what happened there,” Ms McGuinness added.

The adjudicator has adjourned the case overnight.