<<< CONTENTS>>>

1. JABBERWOCKY - VR STYLE
2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Q &A: When is it NOT a Reasonable Accommodation?
3. REMEMBER THE GOLDEN RU LE - Reduced Courseload and Financial Aid

*******************************

<<<Jabberwocky -- VR Style!>>>

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

-- From "Through the Looking Glass"
By Lewis Carroll

Why is it that when we read the nonsense above it seems to make sense to us at first? Well, the cadence is familiar. The phrasing is comfortable. We recognize some of the words. But in the end, no matter how you look at it, this is nonsense!

Why is it that when we receive outlandish suggestions or edicts from others (in this case, others in the Vocational Rehabilitation system), we are ready to accept or believe what they tell us at face value? Well, the rhetoric is familiar. The phrases are dressed in all the legal-ese we have come to recognize. We recognize the words being used. BUT IN THE END, NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, MUCH OF IT IS NONSENSE!!!

Before I go any further, I must qualify this by saying that I have just returned from the Alabama-AHEAD Fall Conference. The postsecondary folks in Alabama have a terrific working relationship with the state VR network and cooperate often and comfortably to the benefit of all. I am sure there are other VR systems or individuals within systems who are working well with their postsecondary colleagues and who are doing their best to string the services available through VR to the accommodations and services available through the postsecondary institutions in order to provide the best possible support framework for students with disabilities pursuing higher education. Those readers who work with such VR colleagues, be grateful. For the rest -- beware!

The issue of who pays for sign language interpreters -- the institution or the VR system -- has yet to be resolved. There are points to be made on both sides; points of law and points of philosophy. The fact that postsecondary institutions have always been responsible for providing interpreter services for students who were NOT clients of the VR system complicates this situation, but that is not the issue here. It appears that the longer the issue of interpreters remains unresolved, the more emboldened some VR personnel have become in trying to obligate institutions of higher education to provide services/support to students with disabilities that have NEVER been the responsibility of the postsecondary institution.

• There are increasing reports of VR telling students that the institution is required to provide tutoring to them under 504/ADA;
• Some students are being told that the institution must provide personal care attendants to them while they are on campus;
• One of the more creative examples dealt with a student who needed a second set of textbooks to have in class with her, as her disability prohibited her from carrying the books to and from class. The VR counselor indicated that buying a second set of books for the student was no different than installing a ramp for a student in a wheelchair. The institution was obligated to provide equal classroom accessibility. (NOTE: There were lots of other alternatives for how this student could have access to her texts in the classroom without carrying the full book around.)
• One of the more extreme examples came from a small southern campus that was dealing with its first-ever deaf student. This student was NOT a client of the VR system; VR had deemed her unsuitable for pursuing a four-year degree based on her limited academic skills and background. The institution had made some mistakes in providing services, but they had made those mistakes honestly -- they were learning as they went along. The VR counselor informed the school in a written letter that because the student had not had a full opportunity to participate and succeed throughout the school year, the school was now obligated to give her free tuition AND LIVING EXPENSES for the following school year so that she would have another opportunity to try her luck in higher education and improve her self-esteem. Honest -- that is what was said! I have a copy of the letter. I think it was reprehensible because the VR counselor knew full well that the institution had little or no knowledge or experience with these issues and that they would very probably accept the pronouncement at face value.

It is particularly annoying to hear reports of IWRPs (Individual Written Rehabilitation Plan) being written to include not only the commitment of the Vocational Rehabilitation agency to the student, but also to include statements of commitment by the institution to the student (e.g., "The student shall receive 3 hours of tutoring per week, per subject from ________ University"). In an earlier discussion of recommendations from outside sources (DAIS Newsletter, Volume I, No. 2) we discussed the fact that no one outside of your institution has the right to determine what accommodations a student shall receive from your institution. By the same token, no one outside your institution has the right to dictate what services the institution should or will provide to a student in fulfillment of its responsibility. Such not-so-subtle attempts to obligate the institution are inappropriate and unfair -- unfair to the student who is led to believe that when he/she signs off on an IWRP that includes such statements, the pact extends to the institution and these services can be expected or demanded.

Much is happening for and with VR agencies today. There is the unresolved interpreter issue, funding woes, and concerns about its future existence based on rumblings from Washington. Remember, too, that the focus of the VR agency is not necessarily that of the postsecondary disability services component. VR wants to see its clients gainfully employed through successful education and training. While disability services personnel hope that students will be successful, they are obligated to provide equal access, NOT success. In the wake of all this, many postsecondary institutions that have worked comfortably and successfully with their local VR for many years have lost touch with the personnel, the philosophy, and even the procedures being followed. While you cannot independently change the combative relationships that have emerged all too often between the two arenas, you CAN do your best to learn about what VR is doing these days and to open or re-open the lines of communication. The more we let turf battles and finger-pointing infringe on our working relationships, the more the students potentially suffer. That's the bottom line.

*************************

<<<TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Q&A:
When Is the Requested Accommodation NOT Reasonable>>>

QUESTION: Our voc-tech program provides a kind of "lab-school" beauty salon, where patrons can come to have their hair done by students-in-training at greatly reduced rates from those charged by commercial salons. We have had an inquiry from a potential patron who has multi-chemical sensitivity; in order for this woman to come and have her hair worked on by our students, we would have to try to arrange for a chemical-free zone. The "salon" is also a laboratory for classes meeting in the morning, and since this patron could not be in a room where hair dyes, bleaches, or nail polish had been used recently, we would have to restrict access to that space for the morning of the proposed appointment AND we would need to see this patron at a time when no one else was being seen (we normally have 10-12 students working simultaneously in the lab). Is that reasonable?

ANSWER: In my opinion, **NO**! It is NOT a reasonable accommodation if making the accommodation means making a substantial alteration to the manner in which you conduct your program or services; it is also not appropriate if it means an undue administrative burden. I think the requests above could easily fit in either of those categories. (NOTE: There were actually some other demands (regarding alterations in ventilation which could NOT be done and changes in the hair care products used for this individual, which COULD be done.)

QUESTION: We have had an inquiry from a prospective student who has serious developmental disabilities. His IEP states that he is allowed to take an exam over a period of several days. His parents say that it is usual for him to take up to 6 hours to take an exam and that it was preferable to the school to allow him to take his exams over several days than to have him miss an entire day of school to take an exam. They have asked us if the same accommodation would be available at our institution. Is this reasonable?

ANSWER: In my opinion, **NO**! Extended time is one thing, but unlimited time spread out over a period of several days certainly sounds like a watering down of academic standards of performance, and possibly an undue administrative burden. Making appropriate accommodations in the manner in which responses are required may alleviate the need for such extraordinary measures (for example, providing a scribe to assist with recording response instead of expecting a student to independently write). But it does NOT seem appropriate to provide such extensive alterations in typical functioning that the comparability of this student's level of achievement might be legitimately questioned.

QUESTION: The Disability Services Office on campus provides a quiet, proctored setting for students with disabilities to take tests with extended time as shown to be appropriate by virtue of their documentation. However, the Disability Services Office closes at 5:00 PM. We have a lot of night classes on our campus, and the evening faculty do not want to take responsibility for monitoring testing in ways not required of their "day-time" peers, nor do they want to stay late to give extended time on tests. Is it reasonable for a student with a disability to receive extended time on tests for evening classes under such circumstances?

ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY!!! How the institution chooses to assign responsibility for this obligation is an internal decision. It may be that some member of the disability services staff must be assigned (or someone else hired) to proctor exams in the evening. It may be that the faculty member has the option of allowing the student to take the test either prior to the regular testing time or the following day during regular business hours through the DSO. Or it could be that the institution makes it clear to faculty hired to teach night courses that providing such accommodations WILL be part of their responsibility. Whether or not the provision of accommodation is convenient for the institution has nothing to do with either the reasonableness of the accommodation or the legal responsibility to provide it.

QUESTION: We have a student with a disability whose documentation verifies that she should be given time-and-a-half on pencil-and-paper tests. The student wants to have the accommodation, but she doesn't want anyone else in the class to know that she is getting accommodation. Our generally policy is that students taking tests with extended time take those tests in the Disability Services Office, and typically the student would report here instead of to the classroom on the date/time of the test. This student is afraid someone will notice that she is not there for the test and make the connection regarding her disability. She wants to take the test in the class with all the other students, let her paper be collected, and then go to the instructor's office immediately after the test time, retrieve her test, and have the extra time provided then. Is that reasonable?

ANSWER: While a given faculty member could choose to accede to such a request, in my opinion this is NOT appropriate for a number of reasons. First, the established procedure described for providing accommodation in testing (through the DSO office), provides an acceptable level of anonymity and privacy for the student; if she is concerned that someone will guess the truth based on her absence from class, she has the option of choosing not to use accommodation. People with disabilities have rights, but they also have responsibilities -- and one of those responsibilities is to follow appropriately established procedures for requesting and receiving accommodations. Moreover, the alternative proposed by the student not only raises some very real questions of test security, but also would seem to defeat the purpose of providing the extended time -- an uninterrupted period of time to demonstrate mastery without distraction or time pressure.

*************************

<<<REMEMBER THE GOLDEN RULE -- Reduced Courseload and Financial Aid>>>

I have been asked the same question by several people in the last few weeks -- what are the rules regarding financial aid for a student with a disability who is taking a reduced courseload? One of the few "specifics mentioned as a potentially appropriate academic adjustment in the Section 504 regulations is extended time for a course or course of study. This has traditionally translated to a recognition that students with disabilities who have a legitimate disability-related need to take a lowered courseload may do so without jeopardizing their status as full-time students at the institution. There are many reasons why students with various disabilities may request a reduced courseload as an accommodation.

The designation of full-time status makes students eligible for certain benefits or activities. In order to be an "otherwise qualified" person with a disability (as defined under 504/ADA), the student must meet the same eligibility requirements, with or without accommodation. Students with disabilities, taking less than a typical full time load, would thus not be eligible for the same benefits/programs. What constitutes a "full-time student" at an institution is defined by institutional policy. Like any other institutional policy, if it is a rule the institution made, it is a rule the institution can modify. By determining that a student is to be considered "full-time" with less than the typical full time load, the student is being provided access to the same range of benefits and programs available to all students, with appropriate accommodation made. That is what the law is all about.

Essentially, a student who has been declared a full-time student with less than the typical full time load because of a disability is entitled to the same benefits and privileges of any other full-time student -- that is, any benefit or privilege afforded on the basis of "full-time status". This may include such things as living in the residence hall, participation in extra-curricular activities, and even insurance coverage that is provided for "full-time students." Under current regulations, unfortunately, it will NOT provide the student with a disability access to the same full stipend available to nondisabled students for Pell grants.

My father used to have a sign over his desk that read, "Remember the golden rule.*" In small print, at the bottom it said, "*He who has the gold makes the rules!" This is the key to the answer about students with disabilities, reduced course load, and federal financial aid.

A full Pell grant stipend is not provided on the basis of being a full-time student. In order to receive a full Pell grant stipend, the student must be enrolled for 12 hours of coursework; the funding legislation (part of the Higher Education Act) specifically speaks to "12 hours of coursework" rather than to "full-time status". Thus, the student who is enrolled in less than 12 hours of coursework -- no matter how legitimately or appropriately -- is not "otherwise qualified" for this benefit. As noted above, if it is a rule the institution made, it is a rule the institution can modify. However, this is not a rule that the institution made!

At this writing, the law allows for students to receive a prorated stipend based on the percentage of the 12-hour load they carry (in other words, a student carrying nine hours would receive 3/4 of a full stipend). It should be noted that talks are ongoing regarding the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and the issue of financial aid for students with disabilities has been raised again, but it appears unlikely that relief from this dilemma will come through changes in the Pell grant rules.

*************************