Disability and Campus Dynamics E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B HE Single Issue Higher Education
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 205

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Prepare your institution for a new generation of disabilityservices that embraces the growing student, as well as staff andfaculty population with disabilities. Legal compliance, reasonableaccommodations, classroom instruction issues, strategies to improvethe campus climate and more--this volume examines what disabilityservices may have to offer, and have cmapuses and disabilityservice professionals may need to collaborate or expand traditionalnotions of disability and disability services. Volume editors Wendy S. Harbour, Lawrence B. Taishoff Professorof Inclusive Education at Syracuse University, and Joseph W.Madaus, co-director of the Center on Postsecondary Education andDisability, assemble an introduction, and overview of disabilityservices. Contributing authors examine campus case-studies,procedures and terminology, legal compliance and disabilityservices for staff and faculty. The volume concludes with a broadview of disability itself and how its role as a part of campusdiversity. This is the 154th volume of the Jossey-Bass quarterly reportseries New Directions for Higher Education. Addressedto presidents, vice presidents, deans, and other higher-educationdecision-makers on all kinds of campuses, New Directions forHigher Education provides timely information andauthoritative advice about major issues and administrative problemsconfronting every institution.

Leseprobe

Contents

Editors’ Notes

Chapter 1: The History of Disability Services in Higher Education

Early Efforts

Early to Mid-Twentieth Century

The 1970s to 2000

Backlash

The Current Landscape and Emerging Issues

Summary

Chapter 2: Collaboration Strategies to Facilitate Successful Transition of Students with Disabilities in a Changing Higher Education Environment

Emerging Populations of Students with Disabilities

Collaborative Programming Liaison System

External Outreach Initiatives

Summary

Chapter 3: Disability Services Offices for Students with Disabilities: A Campus Resource

Legal Compliance and DS Offices

The Accommodations Process

Consultations with DS Offices

Current Issues in Provision of Disability Service

Conclusion

Chapter 4: Harnessing the Potential of Technology to Support the Academic Success of Diverse Students

Recognizing Academic Diversity

Responding to Academic Diversity by Proactively Valuing Differences

New Insights About Teaching and Learning from Universal Design Theory

Applications of Technology

Leadership and Action Planning

Summary

Chapter 5: UReturn: University of Minnesota Services for Faculty and Staff with Disabilities

Establishing Employee Services at the University of Minnesota

The Organization of DS and UReturn

Case Management

Recommendations for Implementing Employee Services

Conclusion

Chapter 6: Legal Challenges and Opportunities

The ADA Amendments

Psychiatric Disabilities

Access to Technology

Summary

Chapter 7: Responding to and Supporting Students with Disabilities: Risk Management Considerations

Legal Considerations in Higher Education

Risk Management: The Context for Disability Services

Lessons Learned

Responding Effectively Means Planning Proactively

Practical Considerations: Risk Management Protocols

Conclusion

Chapter 8: College Students with Disabilities: A Student Development Perspective

Chapter 9: Disability-Friendly University Environments: Conducting a Climate Assessment

Introduction

Why a Climate Assessment?

What Is Climate Assessment Measurement and How Is It Used?

Conclusion

Chapter 10: Disability Studies in Higher Education

Index

Disability Services and Campus Dynamics

Wendy S. Harbour and Joseph W. Madaus

New Directions for Higher Education, no. 154

Martin Kramer, Betsy Barefoot, Co-Editors-in-Chief

Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except as permitted under sections 107 and 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or authorization through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; [phone]; fax [phone]. The copyright notice appearing at the bottom of the first page of a chapter in this journal indicates the copyright holder’s consent that copies may be made for personal or internal use, or for personal or internal use of specific clients, on the condition that the copier pay for copying beyond that permitted by law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating collective works, or for resale. Such permission requests and other permission inquiries should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030; [phone]; fax [phone]; www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Microfilm copies of issues and articles are available in 16mm and 35mm, as well as microfiche in 105mm, through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346.

New Directions for Higher Education (ISSN 0271-0560, electronic ISSN 1536-0741) is part of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741. Periodicals Postage Paid at San Francisco, California, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to New Directions for Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741.

New Directions for Higher Education is indexed in Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC); Higher Education Abstracts.

Subscriptions cost $89 for individuals and $259 for institutions, agencies, and libraries. See ordering information page at end of journal.

Editorial Correspondence should be sent to the Co-Editors-in-Chief, Martin Kramer, 2807 Shasta Road, Berkeley, CA 94708-2011 and Betsy Barefoot, Gardner Institute, Box 72, Brevard, NC 28712.

Cover photograph © Digital Vision

www.josseybass.com

Editors’ Notes

The second National Longitudinal Transition Study noted that the number of high school students with disabilities who are attending college has more than doubled since the 1980s (Wagner et al. 2005), and roughly 11 percent of college students are now identified as having disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics 2009). As several authors in this volume observe, the diversity of these students and the complexity of their disabilities are increasing over time. With greater inclusion occurring in K–12 education, the media, and society in general, a college education is becoming a goal for more people with disabilities. It is also a legitimate way to improve employment outcomes in a difficult economy, where only 18 percent of people with disabilities are employed (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). Similarly, as more students with disabilities graduate, they are joining the ranks of staff and faculty in higher education, meaning that disability services is not just for students anymore.

Thus history repeats itself—as each wave of students with disabilities breaks ground in higher education, colleges and universities adjust accordingly, with the federal government mandating better access and services through legislation. Administrators and faculty are now seeing a new generation of people with disabilities on campus. They arrive in higher education with knowledge that the law is on their side, ready to learn or work on any campus that is right for them, whether or not the campus itself is ready. Students with a variety of disabilities who have traditionally been excluded from higher education (e.g., students with intellectual disabilities, students with significant psychiatric disabilities) are knocking on the door of higher education, wondering why that door is not accessible. In response, campuses are turning to disability services for guidance on legal compliance, reasonable accommodations, classroom instruction issues, and strategies to improve the campus climate. This New Directions volume examines what disability services may have to offer, and how campuses and disability services professionals may need to collaborate or expand traditional notions of disability and disability services.

This volume is divided into four sections. In the first chapter, Joseph W. Madaus provides an introduction and overview of the field of disability services, explaining how it developed as a profession. The chapter provides useful definitions of disability services, as well as background and context for other chapters.

The second section continues to define disability services, complicating views of what disability services may provide to campuses. In chapter 2, Donna M. Korbel, Jennifer H. Lucia, Christine M. Wenzel, and Bryanna G. Anderson from the University of Connecticut explain how collaboration with other units on their campus has improved disability services’ outreach and services to students, with creative ideas for reaching prospective and first-year students in particular. Then Rebecca C. Cory explains some basic procedures and terminology related to disability services, including the process for determining reasonable accommodations. She further encourages campus administrators and faculty to not only consider legal mandates, but also ethical matters that may go beyond compliance. In chapter 4, Dave Edyburn provides an additional example of this “beyond compliance” attitude, explaining how technology can enhance service provision and instruction, creating campuses that are universally designed for diverse learners, including students with disabilities. Addressing the common assumption that disability services is only for students, Dave Fuecker and Wendy S. Harbour use chapter 5 to explain how the disability services office at the University of Minnesota is also serving faculty and staff. Serving not only employees with disabilities and chronic illnesses, the office also handles workers’ compensation and insurance-related cases, centralizing services in one location. For campuses that need to expand or enhance services, the authors in this second section offer creative and varied recommendations.

The third section examines legal compliance in greater detail. In chapter 6, Salome Heyward discusses the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments, students with psychiatric disabilities, and federal interest in accessible campus technology. Analyzing these issues using recent legislation and court cases, Heyward shows how campuses must continually respond to legal compliance—an ongoing journey rather than an end point. Anne Lundquist and Allan Shackelford take a similar approach in chapter 7. They also recommend that campuses examine their compliance with the law carefully, focusing on the development of risk management policies that are consistent with the needs of students, faculty, staff, and the institution as a whole. Taken together, these authors guide campuses toward more thoughtful proactive compliance.

Providing a counterpoint to legalities, the final section takes a more philosophical approach, looking at the bigger picture of disability itself, and how that relates to disability services. In chapter 8, Wanda M. Hadley considers how students with disabilities may change over the course of their college career, maturing in their identity as students with disabilities and in the ways they use services. In chapter 9, Robert A. Stodden, Steven E. Brown, and Kelly Roberts explain their research of campus assessment tools, and strategies for learning about campus climate for students, faculty, and staff with disabilities. They also make recommendations about how the results of these assessments may inform policies and programs in disability services and across campus. Sharing his perspective as a pioneer in his field, the final chapter by Steven J. Taylor comes from a Disability Studies perspective. Like African American Studies, Women’s Studies, Queer Studies, and other fields that examine issues of oppression, difference, and societal norms, Disability Studies uses disability as a lens for looking at culture, society, and politics. It can also turn its lens on disability services and higher education, providing insights into how disability is defined on campus. These chapters start with an assumption of disability as part of campus diversity, and then ask how the campus can be more welcoming of this diversity.

This volume illustrates how the nascent field of disability services is still growing, and how even definitions of disability services change depending on one’s perspective. In editing this volume, we hoped to provide a snapshot of the field in its current context, addressing what administrators may need to know in addressing disability-related needs of their institutions (we occasionally referred to this volume as “Disability Services 101”). We are painfully aware that some questions will not be addressed in this issue; because the field is so new, many gaps exist in research and commentary about disability services, especially with traditionally demarcated groups (e.g., students of color who also have disabilities). We hope this volume provides a reference point for determining what those gaps may be, as well as inspiration for campuses and researchers to address them with innovative approaches.

We thank the authors of these chapters for their contributions to an ongoing dialogue about disability services and disability on campus. We dedicate this volume to students, faculty, and staff with disabilities who push the field forward by expecting the ivory tower to be welcoming and accessible. We also dedicate it to disability services professionals and other allies who share the same vision for higher education and are working to make it a reality.

References

National Center for Education Statistics. 2009. “Number and Percentage Distribution of Students Enrolled in Postsecondary Institutions, by Level, Disability Status, and Selected Student and Characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08.” Digest of Education Statistics. Accessed July 20, 2010. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_231.asp.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment Situation Summary.” Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 10, 2010. Accessed December 20, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., and Levine, P. 2005. “Changes Over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities: A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).” Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wendy S. Harboura

Joseph W. Madausb

Editors

aWendy S. Harbour is the Lawrence B. Taishoff Professor of Inclusive Education at Syracuse University, where she directs the Taishoff Center for Inclusive Higher Education.

bJoseph W. Madaus is the Co-Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut.

Chapter 1

The History of Disability Services in Higher Education

Joseph W. Madausa

In parallel with educational, social, technological, and legal changes in higher education, disability services has evolved rapidly, with professionals addressing increasingly complex issues on their campuses.

In 2002, Brinckerhoff, McGuire, and Shaw observed that the field of postsecondary education and disability services had “moved through its adolescence and was embarking on adulthood” (xiii). Indeed, the field had undergone rapid expansion nationwide in the prior thirty years and grew into a full-fledged profession within higher education (Jarrow 1997). Now nearly a decade later, the field serves an estimated 11 percent of all students in higher education (National Center for Education Statistics 2009). However, the development of this sector of higher education is largely unrecognized in books covering both the history of higher education, and disability rights and history. This article will provide an overview of some of the seminal events in the development of postsecondary disability services, and will highlight some emerging trends that may influence services in the coming years.

Early Efforts

In 1864, with congressional approval, President Lincoln signed into law a bill authorizing the establishment of a college division at the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. Under the directorship of Edward Miner Gallaudet, the National Deaf-Mute College enrolled its first student in the fall of 1864, and by 1866, had twenty-five students (including two women) from thirteen states and the District of Columbia (Gallaudet 1983). The first class graduated in 1869, and according to Gallaudet’s personal account, “the graduation of the first bachelors of arts in a college for the deaf-mutes, from what could be justly claimed to be a regular collegiate course of study, excited unusual interest in the educational world” (100).

In 1894, in response to “dislike of the presence of the words deaf-mute in the name of the college” (Gallaudet 1983, 188), the college division was renamed Gallaudet College, in honor of E. M. Gallaudet’s father, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. Authorized by Congress as a university in 1986, Gallaudet University now offers undergraduate degrees in 40 majors, as well as graduate degrees (History of Gallaudet University 2010) and remains the only liberal arts university in the world for the deaf (Burch 2001).

Beyond Gallaudet, examples of individuals with disabilities in higher education existed, such as Helen Keller’s attendance at Radcliffe College from 1900 to 1905 (Nielsen 2001) but were largely isolated. Changes began to occur at the end of World War I and, more significantly, at the end of World War II.

Early to Mid-Twentieth Century

After World War I, the federal government passed the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918, which led to educational assistance for some veterans with disabilities (Chatterjee and Mitra 1998). College study occurred in such areas as industry, trade, and agriculture. Professional training was also provided for some veterans with prior college experience (Gelber 2005). Another notable program was established at the Ohio Mechanics Institute (OMI) in Cincinnati, which provided services to over 400 veterans with disabilities. In conjunction with a veterans group at the University of Cincinnati, the OMI students formed the Disabled American Veterans, which continues to be active today (Disabled American Veterans 1995).

In 1944, Congress passed the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, more commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights. This legislation provided $500 per year of educational expenses to qualified veterans depending on length of service at approved institutions (Strom 1950). This legislation resulted in an immediate impact on college campuses. Strom (1950) noted that “after the formal signing of the surrender papers, the hue and cry began all over the world to get the men home . . . this accelerated demobilization program necessarily resulted in an unexpected upsurge in applications for college training” (24). By 1946, veterans constituted 52 percent of the total college population in the United States, with over $2 billion in federal funds being expended annually (Strom 1950).

This influx of veterans resulted in a corresponding increase in students with disabilities enrolling in college. A study of veterans with disabilities in higher education commissioned by the American Council on Education (ACE), noted:

For the first time in the history of American higher education, student bodies are composed of a sizable number of disabled veterans, ranging in types of disability from minor ailments to almost total physical disability. These disabled veterans, as well as other handicapped students, required, in many instances, particular services to enable them to achieve maximum progress in academic work. (Strom 1950, 38)

Results of the ACE study (with 453 responses from 595 member institutions) described the presenting disabilities, such as those students who were “leg and arm amputees, those with spinal and back injuries, those with diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, the deafened and the blinded, and those with psychoneurotic disabilities” (Strom 1950, 39). The report also provided examples of services provided to veterans with disabilities, many of which are common today. These were broken into three broad areas: transportation facilities (e.g., special elevator privileges, parking privileges, guides to take the blind to classes, extra stair railings, ramps into buildings); housing facilities (e.g., first-floor rooms, homes close to campus, permission to live in dorms throughout college plan of study); and classroom facilities (e.g., scheduling classes in locations that minimize distance to travel, provision of readers and notetakers, priority seating and course registration) (Strom, 1950).

These programs emerged throughout the country, but were most often near veteran’s hospitals. A story in a 1947 edition of Phi Delta Kappan (Atkinson 1947) explained that “an interesting and unusual educational program for handicapped students in the United States is currently being carried out at the University of California, Los Angeles. Here, eighteen veteran students in wheelchairs live, study, go to classes, and otherwise maintain a normal student existence” (295). This program was initially conducted with the Birmingham Veterans Hospital in Van Nuys. Likewise, a program was initiated at the University of Illinois in 1947 when a VA Hospital in Galesburg became a satellite campus and students with disabilities were among those enrolled. When the campus closed, a group of students with disabilities self-advocated to gain “experimental” enrollment states at the main campus in Urbana-Champaign. Through active advocacy, this group became firmly established on the campus (History of Disability Services at the University of Illinois 2008; Nugent 1978). Other examples cited in the literature included the City College of the City University of New York (Condon 1951, 1962) and the University of Minnesota (Berdie 1955).

However, discrimination on the basis of disability still existed, such as the case of a student who attempted to return to his studies after war service. However, the administration of his university was “convinced that a paraplegic simply couldn’t do the work.” With the advocacy of faculty, the student was admitted and eventually earned a PhD (Rusk 1977, as cited in Fleischer and James 2001). Nugent (1978) summarized the perception of many faculty and administrators in colleges across the nation in 1948, stating that many felt “to include severely handicapped students in regular college programs would be a waste of time and effort” and “most felt there was little reason to believe that seriously disabled people would be able to succeed in college or be able to use their schooling after graduation” (12). Likewise, a study of two-year colleges by Brooks and Brooks (1962) indicated that schools near Veterans’ Hospitals were providing services to students with physical disabilities, but other institutions reported not accepting students because the campus was not accessible.

Although such discrimination existed, the ACE report made a clear statement to higher education, noting that “physical disability is not, and should not be an insurmountable handicap to the successful achievement of the benefits of a college career” (Strom 1950, 47). It further discussed the economic importance of such programs, clearly stating, “if the country is to capitalize on the total talent reserve in its young people, then the resources of this group must not be overlooked” (46).

Programs continued to develop in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War. Condon (1957) conducted a “national canvas of special facilities for the physically handicapped in colleges and universities” (579) and, in a summary paper published in 1962, described a range of services being offered nationwide. These included notification and training for instructors related to student needs, priority seating, texts on tape, the recording of lectures, and examinations administered in a separate location. Condon also described what could be considered a forerunner of today’s trends in distance education, a program at Boston University for “homebound” students who are taught by tutors, by telephone, and by tape recorders.

Another early pioneer in the area of services for students with disabilities was Herbert Rusalem. In 1962, Rusalem wrote:

Physically handicapped college students requiring one or more special educational services are no longer a rarity on the American campus. Having the same goals as other students, they are enrolling in increasing numbers, encouraged by better public and private school preparation, improved rehabilitation services, the availability of scholarship funds, and a changing attitude toward disabled persons in our society. Since these sources of encouragement will probably become more influential in the future, in seems likely that the problems of educating the physically handicapped student will be receiving increasing attention. (161)

While advocating for increased and improved services, Rusalem also clearly noted that the “basic assumption in accepting the disabled student into a college is that, with certain possible modifications in procedure, he can attain stated levels of performance” (162–163) and thus “college-wide standards should be maintained” (162). These two statements remain key tenants in today’s disability services.

The 1970s to 2000

Rusalem’s prediction in 1962 of increasing numbers of students with disabilities accessing higher education proved to be prescient. While veterans with disabilities had a profound impact on the development of early disability services (Madaus et al. 2009), the civil rights movement and legislation, as well as education legislation at the K–12 level, served as a catalyst for an era of greatly expanded services. Until the 1960s, the majority of discussion in the professional disability literature related to physical disabilities. However, in 1963, the term learning disability (LD) was used by Dr. Samuel Kirk (Hallahan and Mercer 2001), and by 1968, this term was designated by the federal government as a category of disability in the K–12 system (Kavale 2001). Shortly thereafter, services specific for students with hidden disabilities such as LD were developed in public schools, and the number of students identified with such disabilities dramatically increased, rising to constitute more than half of all students with disabilities in just over 20 years (Hallahan and Mercer 2001).

In 1975, Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94–142). This legislation required that special education services be provided to students with disabilities. Also required were individualized education programs based on periodic assessments, and the development of individualized goals. Subsequent amendments to the act included a specific focus on planning for the transition to adult life, including postsecondary education. Now more than thirty-five years old, the legislation serves more than six million students aged six to twenty-one annually (U.S. Department of Education 2006), and has consequently resulted in more students with disabilities becoming qualified to pursue higher education.

However, it was another piece of federal legislation that was essential in increasing access to postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Within the wording of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the following language:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Moreover, Section E of Section 504 specifically related to postsecondary education, and required institutions, both public and private, to consider the applications of qualified students with disabilities and to implement necessary accommodations and auxiliary aids for students with disabilities. Based on the language of other civil rights laws (Feldblum 1996), the regulations for Section 504 were signed into law in 1977. Fears about the costs of implementing the regulations were reflected in a 1977 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Providing Access for the Disabled: It Won’t Be Cheap or Easy” (Fields 1977, 4). Bailey (1979) described the ensuing reaction as the “panic period” (88) and noted that some colleges feared closure because of costs related to compliance.