DAIS Online

September, 2006
Volume I, No. 2

WELCOME to DAIS ONLINE and the new DAIS website!

A NOTE FROM YOUR EDITOR!!!

I have started this newsletter at least a half dozen times in the last two weeks, and I keep getting distracted. I have been asked a LOT of technical assistance questions in the past few weeks, and two of the more frequently recurring issues are discussed in this newsletter. But I have also been spending a lot of time reading and responding to the many (too many?) listservs that I monitor. I just want to pass along some advice to all of you who are dealing with new challenges (or STILL dealing with old, challenging students) and trying to keep your head above water as the school year begins. I have just one suggestion for you that may help you to survive and thrive in 2006-2007 – BREATHE!!!!! It will be alright. Maybe you'll find some of the upcoming professional development opportunities from DAIS will help…

Online Courses from the DAIS Academy
(In progress) SEPTEMBER:
Developing You Own Service Animal Policy
Our listservs are clogged with questions and concerns about how to respond to issues surrounding animals on campus. Is it a service animal or a companion animal? What kind of documentation do I look for? What kind of policy should I put in place? Pull up a keyboard and find the answers to those questions and guidance in the development of a policy that works in the unique circumstances of your institution.
Registration Form

OCTOBER:
Developing a Policy Regarding Attendance Accommodations
Should attendance policies be open to a discussion of reasonable accommodation? How do I decide when to say "yes," "no," or "within limits"? What kind of policy should be implemented to help keep the lid on this can of worms?

For more information on these and other planned classes, hit the link to your left marked "DAIS Academy" and then peruse the 2006-2007 Course Schedule.

From the DAIS Institute (Inservice Training Offsite!)
The Unique Promise – and Predicament – of Open Enrollment Institutions - October 16/17, 2006

"A hundred dollars and a heartbeat…"
"A dollar and a dream…"

No matter what kind of catch phrase you have heard applied over the years to students accessing the promise of higher education through the nation's open enrollment system, the fact remains that these institutions provide a very affordable and manageable pathway for many students with disabilities along with their non-disabled counterparts. Yet, students with disabilities sometimes present unique challenges to service providers (and institutions!) when the lack of formally stated criteria or expectations mean that students with dramatically different levels of preparation and motivation sit side-by-side in class… (Read more at http://www.daisweb.com/node/8)
-------

Establishing Appropriate (and Legally Defensible) Technical Standards – October 18/19, 2006

Institutions of higher education have become better, in the recent past, at detailing the specific skills and abilities necessary for safe and effective practice, as well as assuring quality of care, in everything from nursing to automotive repair. For "hands-on" activities, establishing technical standards and eligibility criteria for such programs that are both comprehensive and yet legally defensible under the ADA is no small task, especially when working with faculty who know *what* they want to include but haven't consider *WHY* it should be included for a long time.

The Institute will focus on the most common issues, concerns, and solutions in developing appropriate standards/criteria for selection, inclusion, and successful completion of technical and professional programs… (read more at http://www.daisweb.com/node/8)
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

… and SPEAKING of technical standards –

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS
IN USE ON YOUR CAMPUS – AND WHY YOU *NEED* TO KNOW

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,"

This quote is from a 1964 Supreme Court decision (Jacobellis v. Ohio), was written by Justice Stewart Potter. The "shorthand description" that Justice Potter alluded to was for the term "hard core pornography." It became a kind of "cult classic" quote for a generation, and was used as the punch line for a whole lot of jokes. Unfortunately, 40+ years later, very similar statements are often made by college faculty in referring to their technical standards and requirements, and for students with disabilities there is nothing funny about that attitude!

I seem to spend a lot of time, lately, looking over stated technical standards for programs with practical components (allied health programs, vocational programs, clinical/experiential programs) and trying to "clean up" the way things are worded, or help faculty recognize what IS, and what IS NOT, a technical standard. I am beginning to think that helping faculty to determine when it IS and ISN'T appropriate to *have* stated technical standards and requirements would help them to better frame those requirements themselves (with help from us! GRIN)

* Technical standards should never be used as a tool to exclude people from participation – especial people with disabilities. It is not uncommon to see the discussion of technical standards begin with a statement like this:

"We had a student with ______________ (name a disability) enter this program last year. We have had nothing but problems, because the student can't really function in this area, but we had no way to keep him out so we had to admit him. We want to develop some technical standards to use as entry requirements so that we are never in this position again."

If the reason for considering the development of technical standards is to prevent students with disabilities from ever getting INTO the field in the first place, then I would suggest that the effort is doomed before it begins. The technical requirements set forth in such an exercise are likely to be based either on a pre-conceived notion of what the faculty think someone in their field SHOULD look like/sound like/be able to do, or on the specific circumstance they have most recently dealt with (i.e., "what could we have said that would have allowed us to refuse this student in the first place?"). Neither is an auspicious way to begin such a discussion.

* Technical standards shouldn't be developed with a focus on what skills abilities students will need in the world of work. They should be developed with a focus on the skills and abilities needed to safely, effectively, and successfully function within the program of study. If the faculty believe that "X" ability is necessary for someone in their field and that all students must have that skill to graduate, then demonstration of mastery of that skill or ability should be built into the program, so that ALL students have an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities during their preparation. For example, a technical standard that suggests someone must "be able to stand and walk for up to 8 hours at a time" (which I have seen show up in the suggested technical standards for a surgical nursing program) is only acceptable if, during their training, all students are required to assist in a surgical setting in which they are asked to stand for 8 hours straight. If students in the program are only asked to assist in shorter surgeries (sometimes as much as 4-5 hours at a stretch), then a requirement based on the understanding that "surgery COULD last for up to 8 hours straight and all students have to be prepared" can only be applied on the basis of speculation. Typically, such speculation only comes into play for students whom faculty think can't meet the standard, often for a disability-related reason (e.g., "Because of her back problems, her doctor says she can't stand for 8 hours at a time. Our standards say that you have be able to stand for 8 hours. She's not qualified."). Unconsciously, faculty assume that if there is no reason that they know of for a student not to be able to fulfill the requirement then they must, in fact, be able to fulfill the requirement. You don't know that until you try. And if you don't test it out the same way for everyone, you may not use it as a means for sorting out only a few.

* Technical standards SHOULD be developed as a means of helping all students to understand the demands and rigors of the program of study. The focus should be on what must be accomplished, and not on how it is to be accomplished. The issue is not whether you can take someone's blood pressure using standard hospital equipment; it is whether you can safely and accurately take someone's blood pressure. It isn't about whether you can tell by listening whether an engine is running smoothly, it is about whether you can correctly determine if the engine is running smoothly and fix it if it isn't (I don't care if you determine that by listening to it, smelling it, or by osmosis!!!). Don't let knowledge and familiarity with how a task is typically accomplished interfere with a focus on what task is being taught and what part of that task must be learned. (Remember, the Supreme Court said that just because many golfers walk when they are playing the game, it didn't make walking a PART of the game – if Casey Martin needed to ride the cart as an accommodation, then so be it!).

My father used to have a sign over his desk that read, "I would not like to have lived without ever having disturbed anyone." Being my father's daughter, I always like to throw in a line that is a little controversial along the way, just to see if anyone is really reading. Are you ready for it?

THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR COURSES IN AREAS LIKE ENGLISH, MATH, AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

Now, I would submit that this statement is controversial because faculty in these courses would sometimes LIKE to adopt technical standards for their courses for all the wrong reasons – because they could use them to avoid having to deal with students with disabilities, because it would allow them to stay within their comfort zone in assessing how students in this years' classes match up with past students when doing the same tasks in the same way, and/or because it gives them a chance to delineate what they WANT students to learn from their classes, even if they haven't figured out how to teach them those things. Besides… it makes everything so nice and neat to say, "We have developed technical standards for all of our courses!" But as soon as you try to develop technical standards for such classes, you realize (or you should!) that such standards only make logical sense in the context of skill mastery, not information mastery. It may make sense to say that a student must demonstrate the ability to read an X-ray, or calibrate a gauge, or flambé their Bananas Foster without burning down the kitchen. But saying that the student must "be able to list the 5 primary reasons behind the Crimean War," or "use correct punctuation and grammar in the creation of written assignments," just isn't the same thing. Those are not technical standards. Those may be learning objectives, and they are certainly gradable. But if the emergency medical technician doesn't know how to properly apply a tourniquet, the patient could bleed to death. If the English major has too many misplaced commas in a term paper, s/he should get a lower grade, not be drummed out of the field.

I wish more DSS providers had the time and energy to explore the use of technical standards within their institution BEFORE such things become a source of tension between faculty, administrators, and students. Getting out there to review the technical standards in place in various programs on campus is one of the few times that disability service providers get to be proactive, instead of reactive, in fulfilling our mandate for assuring equal access. Moreover, I would venture to guess that pretty much everyone reading this newsletter could find at least one instance on their campus in which the stated technical standards for a program of study make your eyes roll and your stomach churn. You know, in your gut, that it just isn't right, although you may not be able to articulate what's wrong.

If you are interested in thinking all this through some more, learning how to troubleshoot when reviewing technical standards, and practicing "preventive medicine" when it comes to these issues, please consider making the trip to Columbus for the October 18-19th Institute on " Establishing Appropriate (and Legally Defensible) Technical Standards."
-------

REVISITING THE CONCEPT OF "REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS"

Several years ago I wrote a piece to be used for inservice training to faculty regarding the concept of "reasonable accommodations." That piece is available on the new DAISweb.com site at http://daisweb.com/node/53. Feel free to print it out and spread it around – that's why it was posted there! The article talks about four kinds of accommodations that are NOT reasonable, and suggests that if a request doesn't fall into one of those categories, then it may well be reasonable and should be considered.

Lately, though, it doesn't seem to be faculty who need reminding what IS and IS NOT a reasonable accommodation – it is DSS providers. That isn't because they are becoming stingy with the help that they provide. On the contrary, I see more and more service providers who are bending over backwards to give students whatever they ask for, simply because this IS a student with a disability and this IS what they asked for. Whoa – back up here!

(ASIDE: I had a colleague when working at AHEAD who was charged with providing technical assistance to callers. She frequently took calls from service providers who began the conversation with, "I have a student who wants…" and then went on to lay out the demand – or three or four! – that they were being presented. Her standard response was, "I want a red convertible… it doesn't mean that I'm entitled to it." I almost used that as the title for this article!!!)

When I read plaintive messages on the various listservs about students who are demanding that someone carry their books, or unload their wheelchair from the car, or provide them with blanket extensions on all assignments, or to have their companion tarantula with them in the dorm and in classes – I find myself shaking my head and wondering, "at what point did we lose control?" I am beginning to realize that we HAVEN'T lost control, we have simply lost our focus. Section 504/ADA were meant to foster the full integration of students with disabilities in education and in campus life. That means having full access to all the same opportunities, AND fulfilling all the same responsibilities.

There are a number of reasons that disability service providers sometimes go overboard in trying to stretch (and tie themselves in knots!) to meet the demands of students with disabilities unquestionably. The three most readily identifiable reasons seem to be these:

1) Fear of litigation: especially when dealing with a particularly difficult and vocal (vitriolic?) student, I think service providers and their administrations sometimes go beyond what it appropriate out of fear that they will face a barrage of lawyers and complaints if they do not. I have long been of the opinion that to provide a service that you know isn't necessary or appropriate because you are afraid you will get sued if you don't is a really silly reason to provide the accommodation – because you will get sued anyway! No matter how much you give in, sooner or later the individual will present some demand that simply can't be met and THEN they'll sue. Better to say "stop!" at the point where logic dictates that enough is enough, and deal with it sooner, rather than later.

2) A "the-customer-is-always-right" mentality: I grew up in Chicago, the home of Marshall Fields and Co. I remember hearing someone give a speech about the guiding philosophy of the company's founder – "Give the lady what she wants!" This is a great way to run a company, and a real mistake in running a DSS office. It actually harkens back to all the problems we typically associate (and make fun of!) in the K-12 Special Education system, in which pushy, vocal (verbally abusive?!?), and demanding parents often get outlandish things written into their kids' IEP's because it is easier than arguing with them. Our customers are NOT always right. Sometimes what they want is a success-oriented support, not an access-oriented accommodation. Sometimes what they want is convenience-oriented, not access-oriented. And sometimes what they want is just plain silly. DSS providers shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge that, even if it is only to themselves or behind closed doors, and say, "no!" if the request is inappropriate in the college setting.

3) An honest and heartfelt desire to be welcoming to all students: Institutions that embrace their mission in offering otherwise-unattainable opportunities to students and to their communities sometimes find their best efforts go unrewarded and unappreciated. This is especially true when they hit that one individual who abuses their good intentions and who senses that their good nature can be exploited. It is doubly hard for such well-meaning folks to sort out the fact that this individual is out-of-line REGARDLESS of his/her disability, when the student couches everything in the context of disability in order to make it harder to refuse. But refuse you should!!! If you don't want campus-wide resentment of inappropriate demands and uncomfortable personal interactions to spill over to "those students with disabilities," in general, then you had best be prepared to make it clear that the institution DOES have limits, both in what it will do and what it will tolerate.

As always, there is a caveat here. I DO believe that it is appropriate – and necessary – for DSS providers to remind themselves, periodically, that not all requests for accommodation are reasonable and that it is OK to say "no" if what is requested is NOT reasonable. BUT… in this context I am not equating what is "reasonable" to what is "legally required." Sometimes, institutions choose to go beyond what is legally required and provide a service because it just seems to be the right thing to do. It goes beyond what the institution is required to provide for equal access and spills over into what the institution chooses to provide to ease the student's attempts to access those equal opportunities. I am thinking about an impassioned plea I made last week on the DSSHE-L for an institution to provide a sign language interpreter to assist a deaf student in an outside assignment in a film class. They weren't required to do it, because it was personal study. But if they hadn't been willing to provide the interpreter, the student's chance to show what she could really do on such projects would have been significantly restricted. Do not confuse "legally required" with "morally, ethically, educationally sound." They aren't the same. They never were.

So how do you determine which requests are unreasonable and which ones are worth considering? Maybe by using your judgment (which I still maintain is what the institution hired you to do!!!) Maybe by not being afraid to say "yes" to one request and "no" to another. These days, a lot of service providers seem to think that they have to have clearly set out guidelines -- from which they never deviate. They believe that they have to be CONSISTENT (capitals on purpose) or they will have trouble justifying their decisions. How about CONSISTENTLY (capitals on purpose!) assessing each request in the context of the need, the impact, the appropriateness, and the consequences on the student in granting/not granting the request, and then making a judgment call!?!

In discussing this article with someone, I was introduced to a new phrase – mission creep. Wikipedia defines it this way:

"Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields, mainly the growth of bureaucracies."

Are you guilty of letting "mission creep" effect the way you make decisions about requested accommodations? Have you allowed your success in providing an hospitable and accessible environment for past students blind you to the dangers of saying "yes" to every request. Are you (or your program) in danger of a "catastrophic failure?" For those readers old enough to remember "Hill Street Blues," I leave you with Sgt. Esterhaus' daily admonishment to his troops – "Let's be careful out there, folks!"
-------------------
(End Newsletter)