<<< CONTENTS>>>

1. WELCOME TO DAIS -- An Introduction and an Invitation
2. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY?! -- Extended Time on Tests
3. RESOURCES ON-LINE: The DSSHE-L Listserv
4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Q&A -- Externships/Practicum/Student Teaching
5. RESOURCES FROM DAIS

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

<<<WELCOME TO DAIS --
An Introduction and an Invitation>>>

There are a large number of new subscribers for whom this June edition will be their first issue of the DAIS Newsletter. Welcome to the DAIS Newsletter readership. It is hoped that you will find the information provided useful in developing a proactive, effective, and successful approach to the issues of concern for persons with disabilities in higher education.

For any of these new readers or ongoing subscribers planning to be in Boston for the AHEAD Conference in mid-July, I hope to have a chance to meet, and meet WITH you, at the conference. On Thursday evening, July 17, from 7-10:00 PM, DAIS will join with colleague Paul Nolting, of Academic Success Press, in hosting an Open House for our friends and readers at the Sheraton Boston Hotel (the conference site). The hotel will not assign us a room for the reception until after our arrival in Boston. If you will be at the conference, why not check the Conference Message Board for information as to location and plan to stop by during the evening to introduce yourself, say "hello" to old friends, or to meet some new ones!
*******************************

<<<FROM HERE TO ETERNITY?! Extended Time in Testing>>>

Recently there has been a fascinating discussion on the DSSHE-L (Disabled Student Services in Higher Education listserv) about the issues surrounding the provision of extended time on tests for students with disabilities. The discussion was triggered by a problem one individual was having with a faculty member who refused the service provider's determination of double-time for a student and stated that he would give only time-and-a-half. This initiated a spirited discussion of (1) the civil rights nature of federal legislation and how to respond to attempts to restrict equal access; (2) the problems faced by service providers in trying to determine how much extended time truly IS the right amount of extended time; (3) the basis on which judgments of the amount of extended time to be provided can/should be made; and (4) the assigned role/responsibility of administration, faculty, service providers, and students with disabilities in reaching an equitable and appropriate response to all the issues and concerns that legitimately surround such decisions.

As a direct result of the flurry of listserv activity, an attempt is being made to draw together all of the critical thinking and discussion that occurred (on-line and off) into a position paper on the subject that may eventually be published by AHEAD (Association on Higher Education and Disability). At this juncture, it seems apropos to speak to a few of the points raised. (EDITOR'S NOTE: One of the advantages to being author/editor/publisher of your own newsletter is that you are allowed to give YOUR opinion on things and you are not obligated to present "the other side" of various arguments. What you read below IS my opinion! JEJ)

A large portion of the listserv discussion revolved around the manner in which service providers can determine how much extra time is appropriate in a manner that will stand up to scrutiny by faculty who want to know why YOUR determination is better (less arbitrary) than THEIR determination. Service providers legitimately struggle with a variety of questions including: "What is the purpose of the test?" "What is the purpose of the test construction as given?" "How does the student's disability impact on the ability to respond to the test in the typical fashion?" What was evident from the listserv discussions is that service providers agonize over how to justify their responses so that they are not being arbitrary in such determinations. I think there is another "arbitrary" decision that needs to be considered here -- the arbitrary decision by the faculty member that the typical student will be able to finish "x" amount of material in the standard amount of time! When service providers make reasoned decisions based on knowledge of disability, knowledge of the student, consideration of functional limitation, AND input from faculty regarding the purpose of the test, the process is actually a lot less arbitrary in determining the amount of extended time appropriate than the faculty member was in the original test construction. Disability service providers need to be careful about finding themselves on the defensive in justifying decisions about extended time to those who are looking for a "scientific" or "legal" determination of necessary extra time when there has been no "scientific" or "legal" determination of the standard time allotted!!! For faculty to suggest that their arbitrary original decisions are "academic decisions" with which the administration or the service provider has no right to tamper (by determining extra time allotments) seems to me to be a not-so-subtle display of academic arrogance.

Faculty have a right to have input into discussions of extended time if they believe that time/speed is a pertinent factor in the test they have constructed. In my opinion, faculty should NOT be involved in discussing how much extended time is needed based on their view of the student's disability (as in "He has a learning disability and the last LD student I had in my class only needed time-and-a-half"). But if the faculty member is specifically designing the test with the idea that speed, as well as accuracy, are important to this discipline, then that information may be critical to determining how much extended time should be given in order to level the playing field -- rather than tipping it to the student's advantage. Experience would suggest, however, that in most pencil-and-paper exams, time is a factor in the examination process out of tradition, rather than out of necessity (practical or skill-based evaluations are, clearly, another matter). MOST college exams are given with the idea that students will be able to complete the exam in the amount of time allotted. Therefore, the purpose for extended time should be to see to it that the student with a disability has enough time to complete the exam in the amount of time allotted to him/her. You don't need to carefully calculate or justify the why's and the wherefore's when the only real goal is "enough." Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the faculty members who have the hardest time dealing with the idea of extended time on pencil-and-paper tests are the math and science faculty, who are used to working with definitive and exact measurements and data. If you could say, with confidence, that "this student needs 97 minutes and 22 seconds" for this test, these folks wouldn't be so bothered as they are with the assignment of "time-and-a-half" or "double time." Remember, though, that the decisions are SUBJECTIVE, not ARBITRARY. There is a difference.

An interesting side issue to this discussion is the issue of fairness to others -- how does the provision of accommodation to a student with a disability impact on everyone else in the class when the faculty member grades on the curve? It is a given that we cannot be precise is determining the amount of extended time absolutely necessary for a given student with a disability in order to equalize opportunity but, as pointed out by a number of listserv contributors, in the end the student will be successful or not on the basis of what he/she knows and has learned, not on the basis of an extra 15 minutes here or there. But if the faculty member grades on the curve, how does the accommodation given the student with a disability NOT potentially impact negatively on others in the class? The practical answer here is simple -- take the student out of the calculation of the curve! Determine the curve based on the scores of other students with the test taken under standard conditions. THEN assign the student with a disability the grade equivalent to that score achieved under standard conditions. In this way, faculty can be assured that the provision of accommodation does NOT impact on anyone other than the student with the disability.

This brings us back to the discussion of relative roles and responsibilities in making the determination of extended time in testing. Students should be consulted as to how much additional time they think they will need -- and should be pressed to justify their response/request based on past experience in similar testing or disability-related issues (fatigue, distractibility, and so on). As noted above, faculty have a role in contributing to the discussion, as well. In the end, though, there ought to be institutional policy in place, handed down from the highest authorities, that assigns responsibility for making decisions regarding accommodation to someone within the system. Logically, this would be the disability service provider who holds the documentation regarding the students disability and is in a position to judge the impact of the disability, gather input from faculty as to the ramifications of accommodation, AND THEN USE GOOD JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE in making informed decisions that meet the legal mandate for equal access while at the same time protecting the academic integrity of the educational process. Built in to this institutional policy should be the option and the opportunity for anyone in the system -- student, faculty, staff -- to raise question about a given determination and to ask for additional consideration of a decision. But somebody has to have the responsibility and authority to make decisions initially. As the number of students with disabilities grows on our campuses, the process needs to be streamlined. NOT minimized, but streamlined. There must always be the option of case-by-case consideration, but it is logical to recognize that this will not always be necessary. It should be noted that the suggestion is that the disability service provider have the authority and responsibility for making determination of extended time. The authority and responsibility for enforcing those decisions falls to the institutional administration.

One more observation. A discourse that began with a discussion of how to determine extended time on testing for students with disabilities was, in several instances, reduced to a discussion of what psychoeducational testing might be used -- and how -- to make such decisions. There were excellent points made about how to gather empirical evidence from such testing to support decisions, BUT NOT ALL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO NEED EXTENDED TIME HAVE LEARNING DISABILITIES! Not all students with disabilities who need extended time would have (or need) psychoeducational testing scores available to make a (quasi)scientific judgment of additional time. The fact that several folks shifted back to discussion of such test scores and no one on the listserv confronted that limitation would seem to suggest that, in the end, the REAL problem in discussing extended time in testing revolves around continued skepticism by faculty of invisible disabilities and of the appropriateness of students with invisible disabilities to postsecondary settings. But that is a topic for another newsletter!
*******************************

<<<RESOURCES ON-LINE: The DSSHE-L Listserv>>>

The above comments are the editor's response to pages and pages of discussion and the benefit of thinking of a large number of folks who are subscribers to the DSSHE-L listserv (Disabled Student Services in Higher Education). For readers of this newsletter who are directly involved in disability services and are not yet subscribers to this listserv, you may want to consider tapping in to this valuable on-line sharing of expertise. To subscribe the list, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Leave the subject line blank and in the body of the message write SUB DSSHE-L yourfirstname yourlastname (for example, SUB DSSHE-L Jane Jarrow). This is a VERY active list, sometimes having as many as 30-40 messages each day. I have found it more manageable to receive my postings in digest form. This means that all the messages posted in a given day are stored and some time after midnight they are sent through as a single posting, which can be sorted through as time allows. It means being a day behind in jumping in on discussions, but it allows for monitoring the list without being distracted by the volume of traffic. For those who choose to exercise this option, after subscribing to the list and receiving confirmation of that subscription, write to LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU leave the subject line blank, and in the body of the message write SET DSSHE-L digest

In future issues of this newsletter I would like to review and provide contact information on other on-line resources that folks have found useful. If you have suggestions of such resources, please send the information to Jane Jarrow at DAISlist@aol.com.
*******************************

<<<TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Q & A:
Externships/Practicum/Student Teaching>>>

Q: When students with disabilities need accommodation in order to complete an externship/clinical practice/student teaching assignment, who is responsible for providing accommodation and paying the costs associated with accommodation?

A: In my opinion, the responsibility lies with the institution. Both Title II and Title III prohibit discrimination by contract; in other words, an institution is not relieved of its responsibilities to provide equal access because it has contracted with another entity to provide goods or services (or in this case, opportunities!) on its behalf. Student teaching placements, clinical assignments in allied health, and similar activities essentially are contractual arrangements between the institution and the outside site. While the cooperation agreement between the entities may not involve a direct exchange of money, there are (or should be!) written agreements or letters of understanding between these entities that spell out responsibility, liability, and procedures. By extension, then, the ADA would require that the institution consider how it will assure that students are receiving full access to the educational opportunities afforded by these outside assignments. The purpose for the student placement is primarily to enhance the education and training of the student. Thus, it would seem to be primarily the responsibility of the educational institution to provide accommodations, as necessary, to assure equal access. If the institution can negotiate with the outside site to assume all or part of the responsibility and/or cost, there is nothing within the law that would prohibit such an arrangement.

The specific question asked recently had to do with a student with a disability in a clinical assignment for an allied health field who was going to need assistance in transferring patients and conducting certain portions of the physical examination. In this particular circumstance, the clinical site indicated that if the individual with a disability were an employee they would provide the necessary assistance as a reasonable accommodation, but they did not feel it was their responsibility to bear the cost of providing this assistance for a student in a practicum situation; they wanted the school to pay. It also was noted that the presence of practicum students at the clinical site during the summer months allows the department to have fewer professional staff on duty to cover the patient load, thus benefiting the clinical site and allowing more flexible scheduling of summer vacations for professional staff. Do these details have bearing on the determination of who holds financial responsibility for accommodation?

I don't think so. IF the student were receiving some kind of stipend for working at the practicum site it might bring into play the Title I obligations of an employer to employee; the operative word here is "might" because even under such circumstance the student would clearly be a temporary employee and there are different requirements and responsibilities for employers to temporary employees. However, so long as the student is not receiving money from the clinical site, but rather is earning college credit and/or amassing clinical hours need for some form of certification, the activity would appear to remain in the realm of an educational activity, covered by Title II or III of the ADA, and the Title I obligations toward an employee are not binding.
*******************************