It was very difficult to decide how to frame the following information
because (1) not all of the subscribers of the DAIS Newsletter have an interest
in this topic, and (2) many of the readers of the newsletter are also subscribers
to the DSSHE-L listserv, where this issue has been a topic of conversation
for the last week (thus much of what follows is repetitive). I finally decided
to start at the end, instead of the beginning, to make it easier for readers
to understand the implications without having to suffer through the rhetoric
if you have other priorities!
THE APOLOGY: This newsletter is late because I chose to wait
until plans were firmly established for the Teach In (see below). I believe
this issue is critical for ALL postsecondary institutions and MANY of the
readers, and I wanted to make it easy for you to take action and become informed/involved
to whatever extent you choose.
THE WARNING: In June, 1998, subscribers to the DAIS Newsletter
were alerted to the need for action in forcing changes in an all-but-completed
drafting of the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We met
the challenge head-on at that time (see "Brief Re-cap" below), but we knew
then that the battle was far from over. There have been minor skirmishes along
the way over the last year. The biggest threat may NOT lie in open warfare
as to how to resolve the differences between the state Vocational Rehabilitation
agencies and the state's higher education community. The biggest threat may
be in refusing to negotiate (on the part of VR) or failure to negotiate (on
the part of higher education) and thus seeing policies/practices develop in
a vacuum -- policies and practices that we will have to live with for the
foreseeable future. When you understand the potential problems/concerns, you
may decide consciously that this is not an issue you choose to get involved
in at this time. That's fine. But, PLEASE... DON'T IGNORE THIS!!! Make a conscious
decision one way or another.
AN INVITATION: In an effort to inform interested parties about
these concerns and to offer possible approaches to resolving this issue in
your state, for your institution, DAIS is sponsoring a virtual Teach In on
the issue of VR and Interagency Agreements. On Monday morning, June 7, you
will be sent a message with a url (internet address) for a separate area on
the DAIS website devoted to this issue. It is hoped that in the months to
come this mechanism will provide a means to inform, to discuss, to publicize,
and to encourage action. If you need more background on the issue at hand,
you may wish to read the re-cap below, strung together from several recent
posts to the DSSHE-L. If you already have that background, then we invite
you to go directly to the Teach In on Monday monring and explore your options
for learning or involvement. Either way, you are also encouraged to visit
http://www.pepnet/org and read the review of this situation posted to the
website of the Postsecondary Education Programs Network.
BRIEF RE-CAP: Last year, as the Reauthorization of the Rehab
Act neared passage (tacked on as part of the Workforce Investment Act) the
higher education community became aware that there were some changes proposed
in the Senate version of the bill that had serious implications for the manner
in which students with disabilities enrolled in higher education would be
supported by VR, and what kind of support could be expected from VR by postsecondary
institutions in meeting OUR obligations to these students. The report of the
skirmish that arose out of these proposed changes is probably only important
from an historical context. For those who don't know/remember how it played
out, there is a review posted to the DAIS website at http://www.janejarrow.com/natlissues/index.html.
What is important now is the final language in the bill read, and where we
are today in its implementation. In the end, the issue of financial responsibility
for auxiliary aids and services was not resolved by the wording of the bill
-- it was postponed. The 1998 rendition of the Rehab Act requires a state-by-state
"interagency agreement" (with, presumably, interagency cooperation!) among
those state agencies that may be dealing with individuals with disabilities
INCLUDING higher education. The State VR agencies are ordered to work out
such cooperative agreements, under the auspices of the Governor, and determine
who shall take responsibility for covering the cost of services. In its inception,
this seemed a reasonable plan. Institutions and state systems of higher education
that have had a good working relationship with their state VR agencies in
recent years could reasonably expect that cooperation to be continued. Institutions
of higher education and state systems that have seen the Vocational Rehabilitation
agency in their state withdraw support for such services in part or in whole
would have the opportunity to re-define roles and responsibilities under the
direction of state government, and at least re-open the lines of communication.
And in some states, that is what has happ ened. People are talking. Open forum
meetings have been held to gather input. There is concern, even in these circumstances,
as to WHO will represent the higher education community on a statewide basis
-- and whether those individuals will understand what is at stake for us --
but at least people are talking.
I have much greater concern about how the new law is playing
out -- or ISN'T playing out -- in other states. The Rehabilitation Services
Administration out of Washington has yet to release guidelines to the state
agencies as to HOW or WHAT they should do in setting up these meetings or
establishing cooperative agreements. In the absence of either input or leadership
from Washington, it appears that some state agencies believe they have found
a quasi-legitimate way to avoid dealing with this newly-assigned responsibility.
Rumor has it the word is that if you have current working arrangements with
other agencies in your state, it may not be necessary to have a formal review
of those arrangements by state officials simply to meet a procedural requirement
of the newly-reauthorized law.
(NOTE: I have tried very hard not to let my PERSONAL bias show
through until this point, but I am ANGRY at what I am hearing/seeing and from
here on out what you read is my OPINION, for what it is worth. JEJ)
Alright, folks, you tell me. If you are the Director of VR
for a state that cut off all support for auxiliary aids and services several
years ago and has thus far gotten away with it unchallenged, wouldn't you
be MORE than happy to assert that you HAVE a working arrangement in place
among relevant state agencies and abdicate any responsibility to sit down
at the table??? It works for you, right? Then, again, if you are the Director
of VR in a state in which state government strives always for peace, and in
which higher education is not high on the Governor's list of priorities, wouldn't
you feel pretty safe (smug) about forging on ahead with an interagency agreement
that suits YOUR purposes, knowing full well that the state system of higher
education will never be allowed to challenge you in court? It is happening,
today, in a number of states.
Several weeks ago, I moderated a panel regarding this issue
at a regional conference, and Dr. Fred Schroeder (the head of VR from Washington)
joined that panel briefly by phone link. When asked about the responsibility
for payment of auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities
enrolled in higher education, Dr. Schroeder hedged like crazy. He said that
court interpretations of the Section 504 responsibilities clearly suggested
that VR should pay such expenses for clients of VR. He said that he knew some
VR agencies felt that this responsibility should now be transferred to higher
education because of the ADA. And he said we probably won't have a definitive
answer until such time as the courts are asked to make a determination. MY
interpretation of his remarks was that Washington has tacitly suggested to
the State agencies that they should cooperate, but Washington doesn't intend
to tell them they have to do anything. They are going to wait for the courts
to resolve the issue.
WE NEED A TEST CASE, FOLKS. We need a state system of higher
education that is willing to go head-to-head with their State VR agency to
get this resolved by the courts. I am not an attorney. I don't understand
all the in's and out's (and the higher education community will need some
expert advice on all this). It may be that the suit will need to be generated
by a student potentially denied this and other services by VR who will bring
the suit against BOTH entities and let the courts sort it out (as was the
case in Jones v. IIT and the Illinois Dept. of Rehab).
While higher education and VR play cat-and-mouse with each other
in trying to skirt the financial responsibility issue, there may be a bigger
problem. There were other CRITICAL issues to be resolved at those meetings
regarding interagency cooperation -- issues that are being ignored. Where
do the private institutions stand in all this? What about students with disabilities
who live in one state but attend school in another? What about sorting out
services that are part of rehabilitation from services that are necessary
for equal access, so that the higher education institutions do not get inappropriately
used as extensions of the rehabilitation system, rather than serving the educational
purposes they are chartered to fulfill.
Recently, I was contacted by someone at a community college
in Region VII. She was concerned about a problem arising for (LD) students
coming to the college through the VR system. This institution has adapted
the AHEAD LD guidelines to serve as the model for the scope and level of information
they need in order to establish that the student is eligible for service and
to determine the type of accommodation(s) that the student should receive,
if any. Lately, they have had problems with the diagnostic reports forwarded
to them from the VR system regarding LD students who are also VR clients.
These reports have had pages removed (little things, like the test results
for the battery used), and things whited out -- such as the diagnostician's
name and credentials, and the date of testing. Essentially, the report provided
nothing other than contact information and the diagnostician's conclusions
and recommendations. (As an aside, the VR counselor who had whited out and
removed information from the report had no background in LD herself.) When
the service provider from the institution called to find out where the rest
of the report was, the VR counselor said, essentially, "you wanted a report
-- you're holding it. You don't need to know anything more than what I sent
you to know that you have to provide accommodations, and I sent you the recommendations
so that you would know what to provide. You can just trust me on that and
make a note in your files that the full information exists in MY office."
This is not a hypothetical situation, folks -- this HAPPENED to someone two
weeks ago!!!
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE DANGER HERE??? If you do not
sit down and clarify roles and responsibilities with your state agency then,
conceivably, once the new agreements are implemented, if you are in a public
institution the service provider in the story above could be YOU. Your institution
could end up being responsible for providing services on the basis of what
the (untrained) VR counselor has decided should be provided for students who
are clients of VR?!
A side note to those who think, "Thank goodness this is not
a problem for us at my institution -- we have a great working relationship
with our local VR people." DON'T KID YOURSELF. Does every institution within
your State enjoy the same comfortable relationship with VR? Remember, this
is going to be decided by State policy, and your local VR contact who has
worked well with you in the past may be constricted from continuing that relationship
by agency mandate in the future. To those of you who say, "Oh, but we DO have
a good working relationship on a state-wide basis, so we don't have a problem..."
my response would be, "DON'T BET ON IT!" I'd be willing to venture that the
good working relationship you have on the statewide basis has to do with financial
arrangements. That's great. Hopefully that won't change for you. But unless
you actively protect higher education from the potential infringement into
areas of documentation and services you provide, you may well find yourself
MORE at risk for such interference without a formal resolution of responsibilities
in place. After all, If VR is paying some of the costs involved and helping
out the institution financially (THEIR words, not mine!), shouldn't they have
more say in how that money is spent and what their clients are receiving?
My personal feeling is that REGARDLESS of the decision regarding
financial responsibility for services, we NEED to see that there are agreements
in place that resolve these other critical issues. We NEED to sit down at
the table and talk. That means the higher education community NEEDS to figure
out who will speak for them, and we NEED to raise this issue to the attention
of the highest levels of state government.
A year ago, we took our message to federal Congressional representatives,
and made our case heard. But there were a whole lot of people singing the
same song at that point in time. This time, we will have to make noise with
the right people on a state-by-state basis, and colleagues from other states
will not be able to assist. Service providers are not going to be able to
make this happen. You need to enlist the administrators within your institutions
all over again, and MAKE them listen.
The information shared above was prepared to alert **service
providers** to the problem at hand. It may not be framed in a way that will
catch the attention or communicate the urgency that we need to pull the "higher
ups" into this. And besides, we haven't figured out what we want them to do
about it. I feel strongly that when we are ready to approach this head-on,
we had better be ready to suggest specific strategies/solutions, not just
wring our hands in worry. We aren't going to be able to hold their attention
for very long -- we'd best be prepared to make the most of it. Join us for
the DAIS Teach In on the issue of VR and Interagency Agreements, and learn...
share... act.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
<<< I HATE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU S0" BUT...: Providing Access to
Technology **NOW** >>>
During the Spring of 1998, there was a series of articles in
the DAIS Newsletter regarding the importance (urgency!!!) of evaluating the
access to technology available on your campus for students with disabilities.
That included access to hardware and software and -- most importantly -- access
to the internet and all the educational opportunities that affords. That series
of articles is posted to the DAIS website in the technology corner of the
Dining Room at http://www.janejarrow.com. The need to upgrade technology acces
s has recently moved from a goal to a priority for many institutions -- and
if yours isn't one of them, read on!
On April 20, the Office for Civil Rights, Region IX, issued
a letter to the President of California State University, Long Beach, accepting
the institution's voluntary plan for resolving a complaint brought by a blind
student. The student maintained she did not have adequate access to appropriate
technology to allow her to access the College of Business curriculum and other
educational programs. There are, I think, several critical statements within
this letter, and within the institution's plan for resolution.
(from OCR) >>As universities have striven to provide effective
communication to students >>with disabilities with respect to computer technology,
traditionally the >>academic community has relied heavily on a single centralized
unit on >>campus to house and maintain the specialized adaptive technology
equipment. >> This practice has been seen as a method for enabling a small
number of >>staff with adaptive technology expertise to serve a relatively
large number >>of students with disabilities. However, such sole reliance
upon a single >>centralized location (when not limited to adaptive technology
training, but >>instead used for instructing disabled students in course subject
matter) >>may run counter to the strong philosophy embodied in Title II and
Section >>504 regarding the importance of fully integrating students with
>>disabilities into the mainstream educational program, unless such services
>>cannot be otherwise effectively provided [see 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(iv);
28 >>C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iv)]. Thus OCR assumes in most cases computer access
>>will be effectively provided to the student with the disability in an >>educational
setting with his or her nondisabled peers and classmates at the >>various
computer laboratory sites scattered throughout the campus.
Translation: The days are gone of having ONE "Adaptive Technology
Lab" on campus, fully serving the technology access needs of students with
disabilities. It is not enough to have adaptive equipment available in one
location when the software needed to "run the numbers" for the Business 101
assignment only exists on the computers in the Computer Lab for the School
of Business. Individual colleges/departments at the institution have created
and maintained their own laboratories is because it is either necessary (specialized
software or expertise) or more convenient (or BOTH) for their students to
be able to access the technology in the presence of other resources and in
concert with their classmates. The quote above would suggest that OCR expects
students with disabilities to have that same level of access. EVERY computer
lab on campus needs to be available for use to students with disabilities
who have the need to access those labs.
More intriguing still, is a part of the plan put forward by
CSU - Long Beach in resolution of the complaint. The plan includes the following
assurance:
(CSU- Long Beach will...) >>3) Develop and implement a systematic
method for informing campus employees >>who design/select web pages for use
by students to make sure the web pages >>are in accordance with principles
known to maximize accessibility to users >>with disabilities, including visual
impairments.
Note that neither the complaint nor the resolution was limited
to a discussion of access to information about the institution found online.
It was about access to information POSTED TO THE INSTITUTIONAL WEBSITE by
(in this case) faculty who are using the internet for instructional purposes.
For more than 20 years we have known that information presented in print in
the classroom must be made available in alternate media to persons with disabilities
who cannot access standard print. But the proliferation of the internet and
of web-based education has so captured the imagination that we forgot to consider
the barriers we were building, as well as the bridges. Every time a faculty
member at your institution throws up a web page for Intro 101 that is not
accessible for individuals with disabilities, he/she has created one more
barrier to full participation -- and pushed your institution a little further
in the direction of non-compliance!!!
In the June edition of the DAIS Newsletter, there will be an
announcement of a new course offering from the DAIS Academy which addresses
this issue for institutions of higher education ["Building In (Not Adding
On) Technology Access"]. While you are waiting, you might want to take the
challenge issued in an earlier DAIS Newsletter as a precursor to further discussion/action...
(From March, 1998) << 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 next month... >>
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
<<< AN ANNIVERSARY, A NEW ADDITION,
AND PLANS FOR EXPANSION: Welcome Back to the Home of DAIS!!! >>>
May 15th marked the 1st anniversary of the debut of the DAIS
Website. In that time, more than 6800 folks have visited the website, entering
through our "front door" -- but the stats show that another 6000+ have gone
directly to a given spot to check out position vacancies on the Job Board,
or look for resources in the Study, or sample the Food for Thought in the
Dining Room. In honor of our first anniversary, we have done an extensive
update to the website, adding additional resources, making sure things are
current, and so on. The "we" in that sentence refers to myself and Charley
Tiggs, Webmaster Extraordinaire (I keep saying I am going to have that title
engraved on his tombstone; he keeps saying that he'll be ready for it soon
at the pace I push him! ;-) ). Come visit us at http://www.janejarrow.com
and see what we've done with this site...
INTRODUCING THE DAIS ACADEMY Among the things I am most excited
about is the debut of the DAIS Academy... a new venture in professional continuing
education. This is the place to come when you want to explore the resources
available through DAIS to better help you in fulfilling your institutional
responsibilities -- and your own professional development goals. In addition
to the online educational courses ("Technical Standards, Eligibility Criteria,
and the ADA" and "Developing Written Policies and Procedures") offered this
past Spring and due to be repeated in the Fall of 1999, three new courses
are already in the development stages for this Fall:
(1) You Gotta Start Somewhere! This course is specifically
designed for new hires into the field of disability services. This (tentatively
scheduled) 12-week course will provide new disability service providers with
a general grounding in the field, from legislative ramework, to organizational
issues, to experience/practice, to current concerns. The perfect way (time
AND cost-efficient) to help a new member of your team be fully functional
in as short a time as possible!
(2) ADA for Nondisability Student Service Personnel (Online
Inservice Education). Instead of trying to get your colleagues from Admissions,
Career Planning and Placement, Residence and Dining, and so on, together for
a 2-hour presentation hoping to answer every question they ever had regarding
inclusin of students with disabilities, how about taking it slow, building
a support group among the student service personnel on campus, and giving
them a chance to talk to each other AND their immediate counterparts at other
institutions through an online education series bolstered by on-campus discussion?
Try it... you'll like it!
(3) Building In (Not Adding On) Technology Access. As noted
in the article above, the time for aggressively seeking a solution to technology
access issues is past due. This course is beling developed to speak to your
concern for access and for compliance... but we'll let the "techies" do the
talking!
TIME TO OPEN THE DOOR AND STEP OUTSIDE! Do you remember the
scene from the classic movie version of "The Wizard of Oz" when Dorothy opens
the door to the house and has her first look at Oz? Stepping from the limited
(black and white!) confines of her Kansas prairie home, Dorothy suddenly finds
herself surrounded by a dazzling array of buildings, people, and opportunities,
adding new color and texture to her life and experience. As I recall, her
first words are, "Toto... I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore!" After
a year of growth and expansion within the confines of the "Home of DAIS",
it would appear that it is time to open the door and explore new opportunities.
Before the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the DAIS
website will open the front door and venture out into the neighborhood. In
a way, the VR/Interagency Agreement Teach In (described above) is the first
step -- a kind of "virtual block party" for folks in the DAIS neighborhood.
But just as Dorothy learned that "...there's no place like home," the door
of our home will remain open, and visitors will always be welcome. Watch for
these exciting changes in the months to come.
In the meantime... THIS MONTH IN THE DINING ROOM: (http://www.janejarrow.com/dinroom/index.html)
Administrator's Corner: AN APOLOGY, A WARNING, AND AN INVITATION:
VR and Interagency Agreements Take Center Stage -- AGAIN! The article from
this newsletter is reprinted in its entirety. It might be a good place to
start in getting your administrators re-focused on these concerns.
Faculty Corner: IT'S NOT QUANTITY, BUT QUALITY, THAT MATTERS:
Standardized Admissions Tests and Students with Disabilities. This excerpt
from the April, 1998 edition of the newsletter speaks to both the issue of
applying standardized tests to nonstandard populations and to concerns about
equivalency in testing.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
