La aplicación del reglamento de adaptación curricular a las titulacionesadscritas a la Facultad de Derecho: hacia un espacio de educación superior másinclusivo

Resumen

The regulation of curricular adaptations enacted by the university of alicante on 24 july 2015 means a mechanism allowing students with specific circumstances to acquire all academic skills required to practice as professional. In addition to the physical and psychical disabilities or the reconciliation between work and studies, the children and dependents care, the regulation guarantees other social realities in order to avoid processes of double victimisation, such as the recognition of a specific adaptation to the victims of gender-based violence. In our view, it is required an effective coordination among operators involved in the curricular adaptation during the whole process. In this sense, the Tutorial Action Program (PAT) is the way to advice and guide students. However, in many cases, students are not aware of this option, and the tutor is not usually involved in the process since the very beginning. Hence, even if the tutor is in charge of coordination and academic guidance, he is not able to tackle such issues properly. It also arises the question about the person who should be responsible for signing the learning agreement with the student, as the lack of interaction between the coordinator of the subject and professors teaching such matter may lead to situations where the purposes of integration pursued by the Regulation are not in practice reached. In regard of the procedure, from our perspective, we positively assess the implementation of a computer application for the management and signature of the learning agreement through the “UACloud” platform (“Apoyo a Estudiantes”). Even if this implies an improvement, there is path for reform. Indeed, this (non-intuitive) application has abolished any type of negotiation among operators affected, thus lecturers and students receive an “adaptation proposal”, being only possible to accept or refuse it. This clearly contravenes Article 5.3 of the Regulation. In this vein, rapidity and automatism are not synonymous and the simplicity should not imply the elimination of the need phases of the procedure. Moreover, once the learning contract is signed, there is no kind of monitoring or control by the centre about the effective fulfilment of such agreement. As the Regulation nothing says about that issue, in practice, the non-observance of the contract is communicated to the tutor by the student. Once again, the tutor does not usually have proper tools to require the compliance of the contract. Considering these reasons, the application of the Regulation in those studies offer by the Faculty of Law, and more precisely, some of its proposals, involves some added difficulties that, sometimes, make difficult to combine inclusion-joint responsibility at higher education. The aim of the present paper is to highlight those deficiencies and to make proposals to improve the inclusive purpose of the Regulation.