<<< CONTENTS >>>

1. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS -- Setting the Stage
2. FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS -- Will Technology Level the Playing Field or Send Us Sliding Downhill?
3. FOLLOWING THE MONEY A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE TRAIL
4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Q & A -- A Question About Student Teaching Assignments

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Welcome to the March edition of the DAIS Newsletter. In the first article, the spotlight is again focused on technology access. It is an issue that you will hear about repeatedly in the coming months -- from DAIS and (I believe) from students, the Office for Civil Rights, and the courts. Take heed! Then the discussion shifts back to money and how its distribution (or lack thereof) impacts on disability support services in higher education. In the February edition of the Newsletter we talked about how money influences decision-making; this time the discussion is on how money influences the behavior of decision makers. The technical assistance question this month echoes an oft-heard refrain -- "Where do we draw the line?" This time, the question is asked in relation to student teaching placements for students with disabilities.

The author (AND editor, AND publisher!) would like to take this opportunity to thank subscribers who are currently renewing their subscriptions for a second year of service. Not only is it gratifying to see how many Year I subscribers are coming back for more, but many of the renewal subscriptions include the email addresses of additional folks to receive the newsletter. Hopefully, that means that you find the information useful and the bandwidth well spent!

(( SPECIAL NOTE: My apologies for the delay in transmission of the newsletter. I have been spurred by this latest round of problems to establish a new mechanism for distribution (note this came from dais@janejarrow.com). For the moment, correspondence will still be handled through the addresses you are used to seeing -- DAISlist@aol.com or JaneJarrow@aol.com. By the time you receive the April edition of the newsletter I should have more information about how to reach me! ))

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The February edition of the DAIS Newsletter saw the first in a series of articles regarding access to technology ("URGENT!!! ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY IS CRITICAL"). In the last month I have spent a great deal of time examining the issues that surround access to technology on campus for students with disabilities. Every conversation, every article read, every presentation attended reinforces the same conclusion -- the speed at which institutions are spending money to acquire new technology and the pace at which internet-based education is being incorporated into higher education poses the most critical threat to programmatic access for students with disabilities since the passage and implementation of Section 504. The Grove City decision (1984) may have halted progress for a while, ADA backlash and misperceptions of the ADA as affirmative action legislation may create problems in ascertaining rights, and the tight money situation in higher education may threaten quality of services -- but none of these compare with the magnitude of the problem we are **creating** every day on our campuses by letting technology and technology applications proliferate without regard to access. The following excerpt is taken from a 1997 Letter of Finding from the Region IX Office for Civil Rights in regard to a complaint received from blind students at a state institution who maintained they did not have equal access to technology:

"The magnitude of the task public entities now face in developing systems for becoming accessible to individuals with disabilities, especially with respect to making printed materials accessible to persons with visual impairments, is comparable to the task previously undertaken in developing a process by which buildings were to be brought up to specific architectural standards for access. Buildings in existence at the time the new architectural standards were promulgated are governed by "program access" standards. However, buildings erected after the enactment of the new architectural standards are strictly held to the new standards on the premise that the builder is on- notice that such standards apply. One who builds in disregard of those standards is ordinarily liable for the subsequent high cost of retrofitting."

This not-so-subtle warning bell must be sounded throughout our campuses now, today -- no, YESTERDAY! Ironically, it seems history is repeating itself. Just as people focused on the ramps and elevators (and the pricetags attached!) and ignored the issues of programmatic access in the early days of Section 504 implementation, so today those who ARE listening to the cautions regarding access to technology seem to be focusing on the physical access issues (in this case, the availability of hardware/technology that is useable by people with disabilities) and ignoring the very real threat to programmatic access engendered in the race to make the most of the opportunities created by such new technology. We are doing it again, folks!

It is logical to begin by surveying the available hardware and technology to ascertain its availability to people with disabilities. After all, the reason we worried about the ramps and the elevators first was because if the students couldn't GET to the classroom, they certainly couldn't take advantage of the educational opportunities presented there. In that same way, if the appropriate technology and/or adaptations aren't available, then students with disabilities will not be able to GET to the Internet to take advantage of the educational opportunities presented there.

But after we got the ramps and elevators installed, we could think about how to make the teaching that had always gone on in those classrooms fully available to all students. The parallel ends here. While we are scrambling to get the technological "ramps and elevators" in place, we are actively creating new barriers to access on a regular basis. At the risk of stretching the analogy a little too thin, if we don't be careful we will find that when those technological ramps and elevators we installed are finally in place, they only allow for a better view of the opportunities passing by us. WE CANNOT WAIT to get the technology in place before we start trying to impact on the application of that technology.

Here is an assignment for readers of the DAIS Newsletter. I challenge you to put together a listing of the web pages (with all associated screens) that are available through your institution. This list should include everything from the web page that provides general information about the institution, application procedures, and so on, to the web page for your Philosophy (Chemistry? Art History?) department that lists the faculty members and gives their credentials and their office hours. It includes the content information for courses now being offered by your institution exclusively through the Internet under the heading of "distance learning." It includes the web page that gives information about the policies and procedures regarding access to students with disabilities -- and the web page that gives information about how and when to apply for tickets to next year's football games. And, of course, included in this listing for each of these web pages should be an indication as to whether or not the pages are available to people with disabilities using adaptive equipment to access the Internet. If the task seems daunting in its inceptions because of its scope, GOOD! You have just had your first lesson in how far behind you are in getting control of the situation. For those of you who decide to take the challenge in some way and survey the institution's Internet accessibility, hang on to the information you gather and we will discuss the next step in the April edition of the Newsletter. To be continued...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I apparently hit a few nerves with the February article regarding resources for providing disability services and how decisions are made ("THE OLDEST MOTIVE IS **IN**THE BOOKS -- How Money Influences Decision-Making"). I received more comments from folks about that article during the first 24 hours after the newsletter went out than I normally receive in a month regarding a whole issue! It seems important to address two of those comments here...

Susan Queller of the University of Arkansas - Little Rick wrote to say that they have adopted a policy/practice similar to the one proposed in the article. Her Chancellor has set aside a pot of money to be used to pay for unanticipated disability-related expenses campus-wide. Note, this is for unexpected expenses. Disability-related expenses that can be reasonably foreseen (from interpreter expenses for fee-generating performances to adapted transportation costs for anticipated field trips) are to be incorporated into the budget submissions of individual units. One of the more creative (ingenious) uses of such funds is in covering the cost of interpreter expenses for deaf employees during the first year of their employment. In this way, a department would not need to hesitate in the hiring process because of concern about their ability to cover accommodation costs for this employee -- and by the second year of employment, they could build those interpreter costs into their budget request. Apparently, such a system is workable.

The second comment was distressing. Another subscriber remarked on the recent trend of institutions to hold disability service providers accountable (as in, TO BLAME THEM) for money the institution must spend in order to fulfill their educational (and legal) obligations to students with disabilities. It is distressing to hear reports of service providers who are denied salary increases as punishment for exceeding the budget for mandated services. It is distressing to hear of money needed to cover accommodation costs being drawn from moneys allocated for disability services support staff or staff development activities.

In my opinion, this unsettling trend might be attributable to one of three possibilities:

** The "If-it-weren't-for-him/her-we-wouldn't-have-all-these-expenses" phenomenon. In this scenario, the administration looks at the increase in numbers of students with disabilities and attributes that increase to some action or activity on the part of the service provider. Since the service provider is seen as the creator of the problem, it seems logical to "fix" the problem by taking it out of the hide of the service provider!

** The "We-never-asked-for-'Cadillac'-services" phenomenon. In this scenario, the administration assumes that the increasing costs associated with responding to the mandate for access are the result of the service provider doing more than he/she should or legally needs to be doing. The assumption is that the service provider should be able to keep those costs in check by re- assessing the scope of services being provided and adjusting accordingly. This scenario provides the greatest threat to QUALITY of service/support because it ignores two important considerations. First, as the numbers increase the costs will increase and the numbers ARE increasing. More importantly, while other units within the institution develop their service components by deciding what services they choose to provide, given the resources allotted, the disability service component MUST provide a certain level of service on demand in order to meet its responsibilities to the students and to the institution; that basic platform of service is not optional and cannnot be modified to fit the resources (grudgingly) provided -- which brings us to the third possibility...

** The "We've-already-allotted-as-much-money-as-we-can-spare-to-this- population" phenomenon. This is the most insidious reason for punishing the service provider for costs associated with access -- and the most **dangerous** reasoning for the institution to pursue in making decisions. I am fond of quoting Joseph Califano (former Secretary of HEW) on the release of the section 504 regulations, when he said, "We have never before put a pricetag on the cost of civil rights in this country. We do not intend to start now." I could also quote from 20 years of case law and OCR decisions under Section 504 and (more recently) the ADA in which the federal government has NEVER allowed an institution of higher education to refuse appropriate accommodation solely on the basis of cost. NEVER. But perhaps a less politically-correct paraphrase of a popular bumper sticker provides the best quotable quote in this discussion:

"IF YOU THINK COMPLIANCE IS EXPENSIVE, TRY NONCOMPLIANCE!!!"

Case in point -- the settlement in the Boston University lawsuit included judgements against the University in the amount of about $30,000 split among six students. The attorney and legal fees for the suit will almost certainly exceed half a million dollars! While Boston University's troubles were not the result of trying to skimp on services, the potential costs in defending against, much less resolving, a complaint brought because of inadequate services will almost certainly exceed the amount of money necessary to support appropriate services. Have you compared the relative salaries of your disability service provider and your institutional attorney lately?

BOTTOM LINE: Service providers have been telling administrators for more than 20 years that the institution must provide accommodations that are necessary in order to assure equal access for students with disabilities. Don't shoot the messengers -- and don't punish them for doing what you hired them to do!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUESTION: (A service provider writes) "Under ADA requirements, what options are available to faculty for placing student teachers when they feel there is a student who should not be placed with children in a public school setting? When can they say, "No, we can't/won't!?"

ANSWER: The following excerpt from Higher Education and the ADA: Issues and Perspectives" provides a roundabout introduction to the issue under discussion...

"A separate issue for placement supervisors in dealing with students with disabilities is if, when, and how such information regarding the student's disability should be shared with the outside site/supervisor. The answer reflects in many ways the earlier discussion of confidentiality of disability- related information. Does the outside site/supervisor have a need to know? Will their actions be different in any way because of that knowledge? If the answer is "no," then technically, they have no need to know any more than the student chooses to share. Moreover, if different actions or a different level of independent action or supervision would be provided inappropriately because of knowledge of disability, then the information probably shouldn't be shared. Recently someone related a story about a young woman who is legally blind who went out to do her student teaching but required nothing in terms of accommodation. On the first visit of the supervising teacher with the onsite supervisor three weeks into the experience, the onsite person raved about this young woman's work, her rapport with students, and her outstanding performance. The institutional supervisor asked for something she could share with the student as a hint or goal to make her even more effective. The site supervisor suggested that when she held papers up so close to her eyes to read them, she set a bad example for the students and perhaps she should learn to modify this behavior. The institutional supervisor said, "But you know, of course, that she is legally blind." The onsite supervisor turned pale and replied, "Of course I didn't know that. If I had known that I never would have allowed her to be alone in the classroom with the children." Score one for confidentiality!

"On the other hand, if the student's disability will be a relevant or obvious issue during the placement, it is appropriate to share information as necessary. The outside site that will be getting a student teacher in a wheelchair doesn't need to know that when making a decision to accept a student for placement if the building is fully accessible. However, it would seem to be common courtesy to inform the onsite supervisor of that fact before the first day of the placement so there is no question raised about "what other surprises you are hiding." The issue here is not whether the site should be told, but when. Then, too, if the student will need some accommodation during the experience, the onsite supervisor will need to know enough about the student's status as a person with a disability to understand what and how the accommodation is to be provided. The supervisor working with an LD student who needs extra time or use of a spell-checker when doing lesson plans or chart notes will need to know this is an appropriate and necessary accommodation. So long as the focus is on legitimate issues of safety and quality of performance, rather than stereotypic fears and simple curiousity, decisions about sharing disability-related information should not be too cumbersome."

Maybe that very last sentence is a good place to start in dealing with the current faculty concerns. Let's go back and look at why they are asking the question, rather than what they are asking. If the impetus behind the question is that they have a student going through the program who they know has a history of emotional/psychological problems and they don't think this person should be allowed out in the classroom, they are clearly demonstrating **WHY** the law says a person with a history of disability is protected! They are looking for you to tell them under what circumstances it is OK to exclude someone because of his/her history of disability. The answer is that it is NEVER acceptable to exclude someone because of a history of disability. IF on the other hand, they are asking the question because they have a student going through the program who has demonstrated behavior which is either entirely inappropriate for a pre-professional and/or which they believe to be a direct threat to the safety of the students or to the quality of education, they have every right to ask "where do we draw the line?" The answer, however, is that as a faculty they must decide what behaviors will and will not, can and cannot be tolerated and why. It is NEVER alright to make a decision based on disability. It is perfectly OK to make a decision based on common sense regarding observed behavior.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(End of Newsletter)