NavigationWelcome to DAISweb.com! You don't need to be signed in to the site to explore. Feel free to browse. Create an account to add to the Employment Exchange. User login |
March, 1997 Volume I, No. 3
_____________________________________________________________ D A I S A newsletter from Disability Access Information & Support Providing information and technical assistance regarding <<< CONTENTS>>>
******************************* Over the past several years, service providers across the country have reported that the Vocational Rehabilitation agencies they deal with on behalf of students have been cutting back -- or threatening to cut back -- on the support they provide to students with disabilities in higher education. There are a number of concerns regarding what may happen in the future that will be addressed in future issues of this newsletter. For now, it seemed important to alert folks to a critical statement from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) in Washington that may help individual service providers and institutions to stem this tide for the moment. The March, 1997 supplement (No. 220) of the Section 504 Compliance Handbook published by Thompson Publishing Group reports that Beverlee Stafford, who directs policy planning and evaluation at RSA, has indicated that the federal agency will not be issuing any new policy statements regarding VR's role in funding auxiliary aids and services for their clients enrolled in postsecondary education. The article indicates that Ms. Stafford said that there is existing case law regarding relative responsibility for payment and that "nothing has really changed since those court cases." It would appear that Ms. Stafford has quietly confirmed what we, in the higher education community, have been saying for some time. The coming of the ADA did nothing to alter the responsibility of VR agencies to their clients, since VR is not covered under the ADA, and Section 504 (the pertinent legislation for VR) is alive and well and has not been changed. This may be the statement/stance that service providers and institutions can refer to in working with their state agencies to assure an appropriate continuum of service and support for students with disabilities in higher education. (Editor's note: My thanks to Dan Miller of Jacksonville State University for alerting me to Ms. Stafford's remarks.) ******************************* <<<When Faculty are TOO Accommodating...>>> Not all faculty are resistant to accommodating students with disabilities in the classroom. Sometimes problems arise from faculty who are more than willing to provide appropriate accommodation -- and it is their accommodating nature that can get them, the institution, and (sometimes) the student into trouble! Most institutions have established a clearly articulated policy as to who holds the documentation of disability, what steps a student must take to declare their need for disability-related accommodations, and how that information is communicated to faculty. But what of the student who says, "I don't want to go through the disability services office. I want to advocate for myself and work directly with faculty and negotiate my own accommodations." Regardless of why students choose to go this independent route (and there are both good and bad reasons for taking such a stance), the faculty member who agrees to disregard institutional policy and honor accommodation requests directly from the student may not be doing anyone any favors. **Personal Jeopardy** Faculty members who work directly with students, discuss the disability, (possibly) look over the documentation, and agree to accommodation may be establishing themselves as the "gatekeepers" without meaning to do so. If the faculty member agrees to provide accommodation "x" and not accommodation "y" and later the student maintains that he/she was not appropriately accommodated, it is the faculty member's decision that is subject to question and the faculty member who could conceivably be held responsible for violating this student's civil rights. The faculty member who agrees to provide accommodations without institutional authorization for a student with one disability (for example, LD) but is less familiar and comfortable with another disability (for example, ADD) and sends that student back through channels for official documentation could be opening himself/herself up for charges of discrimination, intimidation, or harassment. Faculty members who conscientiously try to make life easier for the student by allowing the student to bring the documentation directly to them may gain access to confidential information to which they should not be privy. For all these reasons, it would be best for faculty not to be drawn into the collection of disability documentation or the decision-making regarding accommodation. **Institutional Jeopardy** The student who provides documentation to a single faculty member (who accepts and acts on that documentation) may be able to make a legitimate case for saying the he/she informed the institution of the disability and the need for accommodation. The faculty member should not be discussing the information that has been shared (because of issues of privacy and confidentiality), and yet the student may be expecting to receive similar consideration and accommodation from other faculty on the basis of having provided the documentation to someone in authority at the institution. If it is not made clear that the institution has not been "notified" until the documentation is provided and requests are made from such-and-such an office, the institution may not be in a position to defend itself from charges of discrimination by neglect for a student who does not receive accommodation by others within the institution. Or consider this scenario -- Professor A accepts the documentation and provides accommodation without going through channels, as do Professors B and C, and then Professor D says, "I will provide accommodations when I receive proper notification from the disability services office that this is appropriate." Professor D looks like the villain for following the rules! More distressing, however, is the possibility that the institution may be facing some very real difficulties if the disability services office determines that some of the accommodations that Professors A, B, and C provided were NOT warranted by the documentation and does not prescribe those same accommodations for Professor D to provide. **Student Jeopardy** Students with disabilities will still have those disabilities after they leave the postsecondary environment. Whether they choose to go on to graduate or professional school or seek a place in the world of work, chances are that if they needed accommodations to successfully function in higher education, they may need accommodation in their future endeavors as well. More and more often, those settings beyond the postsecondary experience are ready and willing to provide accommodations on the basis of verification from the higher education institution that those same accommodations have been provided during the student's postsecondary career. If the student has no record of having been served by the institution -- if the student was never on file in the disability services office and received all of his/her accommodations through individual discussion with faculty -- that student will have no official history of being regarded or served as a person with a disability and may have a much more difficult time establishing the claim to accommodations in the future. Bottom line: The policies and procedures were established for everyone's protection. Make sure everyone plays by the rules! ******************************* The Nevada Chapter of WESTOP Proudly Presents The ADA in Higher Education: Everybody Gets a Piece of the Action!!! Speaker: Jane Jarrow, President of Disability Access Information and Support WHEN: April 24-25, 1997 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has now been in effect for five years in higher education. What has been its impact on the day-to-day activities of disability service providers, administrators, students services personnel? What are the issues that arise regularly for institutional consideration and concern? What policies and procedures are being developed to deal with the challenges presented by dramatically increasing numbers of students with disabilities on our campuses? What questions are being raised or resolved by legal action and compliance reviews surrounding ADA implementation? Improve your odds for developing and maintaining a successfull response to the ADA. BE THERE! +++Program Highlights+++ **Whose Deal is It?...** **Playing the Odds...** **Know When to Hold ŒEm, Know When to Fold ŒEm...** **Know When to Walk Away, Know When to Run...** **It's A Crap Shoot!...** **One-Eyed Jacks and Red Threes are Wild!...** **You Pay Your Money and You Take Your Chance...** For registration information, please e-mail Rita Escher at escher@scs.unr.edu or call (702)784-6044. ******************************* <<<Technical Assistance Q & A>>> Q: "We have a student with a disability who is partially paralyzed on the left side, and is enrolled in a wheel-throwing ceramics class. We are providing him with a kind of "lab assistant" to help set up and to clean up in the ceramics studio. Yesterday, the student fell while trying to sit down and knocked over a piece of heavy equipment and several other students' projects. The instructor called with concerns about his safety. The instructor asked us if Disability Services could provide an aide during the whole class (3 3/4 hrs.) to essentially follow this person around tending to all his needs. Is this something that falls within the responsibility of a Disability Services office?" A: Definitely not. Section 504 specifically states that the institution is not responsible for providing services or equipment of a personal nature. Providing an aide to assist with the learning experience (preparation and clean up) is appropriate, but if the student is not able to safely participate, then it may be necessary to question whether he is "otherwise qualified" since all other students are expected to be able to independently and safely participate in the educational experience. It doesn't matter whether the class is ceramics or philosophy, if he cannot enter the room and take his seat without possible injury to himself and others, you have a right to be concerned. Q: "Can we set a precedent here, and say that students who enroll in the wheel-throwing class need to be able to use both hands?" A: No, that would NOT be appropriate. The fact that he cannot use both hands is not the problem. It is that he is unsteady on his feet and has balance problems that create legitimate safety issues. The use of one hand or both hands is one of tradition and convenience in this class, but it is also something that can be accommodated. If the student was an amputee and only had one arm, no one would be suggesting that you need to have two working hands to take the class. The dangers and concerns are not surrounding his ability to function in the ceramics part of the class -- they are surrounding his ability to function independently on campus. Don't confuse the two! ******************************* <<<POSSIBLE FUNDING FOR LD TESTING?!>>> Last week at the NASPA/ACPA conference I was visiting with an exhibitor who works for Insurance Consultants, Inc. The firm provides competitive quotes on insurance coverage in a number of education-related areas including collegiate student health insurance. I asked why some Student Health insurance policies will cover the cost of LD diagnostic testing while others do not. If I understood correctly, he indicated that what an insurance company will or won't cover in such a policy is based on what the institution requests that they cover. In other words, if the institution tells the firms it is taking bids from that it wants them to include coverage for LD diagnostic testing as one of the possible benefits under the policy, the quote provided to the institution for overall coverage will include that benefit. For those at institutions in which students often do not have the means to seek out and pay for testing themselves, this might provide a mechanism for making such testing available to those in need. I am told that it is not all that easy -- most insurance companies don't have much knowledge or understanding of the potential cost for offering such a benefit or rider to the policy, thus the estimates come in high, thus the testing gets knocked out because it raises the overall quote too much. However, if you are interested in finding out more, the gentleman's name was Steven Haney. His contact information was as follows: email: shaney@insocon.com http://inscon.com ******************************* |
Welcome to the NEW Home of DAIS!Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS) is an important resource to the higher education community, providing a menu of services for those concerned with disability and access in higher education. Institutions and organizations can contract for help from DAIS, in the person of Jane Jarrow, Ph.D., for a variety of services. The growing list of DAIS publications and activities includes resource materials to assist in interpreting/fulfilling legal mandates, a variety of professional development opportunities, policy/procedure reviews, consultation regarding quality assurance and compliance, and information to aid in understanding the philosophical underpinnings of providing quality service to people with disabilities in the postsecondary environment. Check out the site orientation given on the home page under the heading of, "Where to look, and what you'll find at daisweb.com!" |