Showing papers in "The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability in 2010"

Exploring Barriers to College Student Use of Disability Services and Accommodations.

Abstract: Federal legislation requires most colleges and universities to provide equal access and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. However, many students do not fully avail themselves of college disability services and accommodations. It is important for Office of Disability Services (ODS) personnel to understand the reasons for this, as they attempt to best assist students with disabilities at their institutions. In this qualitative study, 16 college students with disabilities at a medium-sized state university were interviewed. Five major thematic categories emerged from the data analysis, which were identified as barriers to why some students might not seek-out or more fully utilize disability services and accommodations in postsecondary education: (a) identity issues, (b) desires to avoid negative social reactions, (c) insufficient knowledge, (d) perceived quality and usefulness of services, and (e) negative experiences with faculty. Suggestions for ODS personnel to eliminate institutional barriers and to help students overcome personal barriers are provided. Postsecondary education is increasingly regarded as a critical component in gaining suitable and meaningful employment, especially as our economy has become more knowledge based (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2003; National Organization on Disability, 2001). However, it is disheartening that as of 2005, individuals with disabilities in the U.S. were still much less likely than those without disabilities to possess a college degree (13% vs. 30%) (Houtenville, 2007). People with disabilities continue to face challenges that result in lower attendance and graduation rates when compared to people without disabilities (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Henderson, 2001; Kober, 2002). The reasons cited for students with disabilities not obtaining postsecondary degrees in greater numbers have included such issues as: academic dismissal, dropping out for personal reasons, family responsibilities, and the lack of assistance on campus. Over the past couple of decades, legislation has been regarded as one very important aspect in attempting to diminish the barriers encountered by postsecondary students with disabilities. National legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (including the recent 2008 ADA Restoration Act) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are in place to require most postsecondary institutions to provide equal access and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. More specifi cally, Section 504 requires postsecondary institutions to provide equal access to all aspects of a college campus and its programming. And the ADA requires postsecondary institutions to provide “appropriate academic adjustments as necessary to ensure that it does not discriminate on the basis of disability” (Offi ce for Civil Rights, 2005). Although such federal legislation is in place in an attempt to ensure the availability of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities on college campuses, many students either do not make regular use of their accommodations or do not seek out an awareness of the array of resources that could be made available to them (Ferrell & Marshak, 2004; Jackson & Ferrell, 2000; Marshak, Ferrell, & Dugan, 2004). Learning to Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 22, No. 3; 2010 152 locate and make use of supportive services is vitally important for students with disabilities who may struggle in a postsecondary educational setting (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). In fact, one of the primary questions explored in a sub-study about postsecondary education participation of youth with disabilities, as part of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), was: “To what extent do those who enroll [in postsecondary education] receive supports and accommodations...?” (Newman, 2005, p. 2). Results of the NLTS2 study found that only 40% of postsecondary students who received special education services while in secondary school identify their disability to their postsecondary institution. Of these identifying postsecondary students, 88% actually then receive supportive services, accommodations or learning aids (Newman, 2005). A critical question to consider then is why so few postsecondary students with disabilities choose to seek out and make use of supportive services and accommodations. There have been numerous studies that focused on the types of accommodations that are provided to college students, as well as how well these provisions are provided. These studies have explored topics such as: faculty knowledge and practices regarding students with disabilities and their willingness to make needed accommodations (e.g., Hill, 1996; Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; McEldowney-Jensen, McCrary, Krampe, & Cooper, 2004; Leyser, Vogel, Brulle, & Wyland, 1998; Rao, 2004; Vogel, Burgstahler, Sligar, & Zecker, 2006); the perceptions of college students with disabilities of the value and effectiveness of institutional disability interventions, services, and policies (e.g., Hill, 1996; Kurth & Mellard, 2006; Suritsky & Hughes, 1991); and the quality of campus disability services (e.g., Graham-Smith & LaFayette, 2004). However, in addition to these issues, it is also important to understand broader factors that may prevent students with disabilities from choosing to actively seek out or make regular use of disability services on campus. A general lack of knowledge regarding the nature of their disabilities, their rights, or their accommodation needs seems to be one type of barrier faced by some college students with disabilities in seeking out or making regular use of accommodations (Ferrell, Marshak & Dugan, 2003; Ferrell & Marshak 2004; Palmer & Roessler, 2000). In a review of the literature regarding help-seeking behaviors of college students with disabilities, Trammell and Hathaway (2007) found many different and sometimes contradictory fi ndings among the studies, concluding that a student’s decision to seek help is “complex, multilayered, and highly correlated to the climate and disability environment on campus, as well as to personal factors related to motivation, which vary from student to student” (p. 6). Ultimately, Trammel and Hathaway concluded via their literature review that the “...stigmatizing effect of disability seems to be a signifi cant factor in all of the studies, and likely infl uences when college students with disabilities go for help and when they do not” (pp. 6-7). The purpose of this study is to contribute to the ongoing exploration of barriers (institutional and personal) that may prevent college students with disabilities from seeking or making regular use of the disability services and accommodations that are available to them on college campuses. An exploratory, qualitative design was chosen in order to focus on gaining a holistic understanding and meaning of this phenomenon (as opposed to testing any particular predictions or hypotheses about this phenomenon). This was accomplished through indepth guided interviews with several current college students with various types of disabilities. Based upon the insights gained from these interviews, a number of common themes emerged. Implications and recommendations for postsecondary Offi ce of Disability Services (ODS) personnel are also provided.

Postsecondary Students Who Have a Learning Disability: Student Perspectives on Accommodations Access and Obstacles.

Abstract: Students with Learning Disabilities (SLD) face unique challenges when entering postsecondary education after high school. A successful navigation of postsecondary context requires knowledge of one’s own disability and needs as well as access to what resources may be available at the institution. The purpose of this study was to gather SLD perspectives on accommodations use and obstacles they faced in gaining access to services. A total of 110 undergraduate students at a selective, four-year public University completed an online survey as part of a research subject pool requirement. The study collected information about the following areas: (a) accommodations use, (b) opportunities/barriers faced during transition, (c) knowledge students had regarding their disability and available services, and (d) self-advocacy strategies. Results indicated that this student population might not have used the University resources to the extent that they were available, pointing towards a potential need for greater awareness of campus resources. However, it was also true that students generally knew the implications of their disability and were utilizing many of the same resources that they did in high school. The article concludes with implications for education professionals who serve SLD. Students with learning disabilities (SLD) comprise a small but growing proportion of the college-bound student population. In 2002, SLD comprised 9% of the national population of students attending college in the United States (Kurth & Mellard, 2006). Students with Learning Disabilities (SLD) face unique challenges when entering postsecondary education after high school. One of the largest challenges is ensuring that they obtain the necessary disability services needed to be successful in their postsecondary program. The effectiveness of high school transition teams in preparing SLD for college has been examined from the viewpoints of both secondary and postsecondary special education personnel (Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Milsom & Hartley, 2005). Special education students’ views are an essential component of ensuring a successful postsecondary preparation and implementation of the transition process. The purpose of this study is to explore SLD perspectives on levels of access to accommodations and resources at a highly competitive, four-year, postsecondary institution. Legal Context There are three main legislative acts that affect how SLD access accommodations: (a) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (b) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and (c) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Students making the transition between high school and college also make a shift between legislation that guides their eligibility and access to support services. There are significant differences between the IDEA, the law that governs special education in secondary institutions, and ADA, which applies to postsecondary institutions. Among these differences are the purpose of the law, how one is determined to be eligible for services, and to what accommodations eligible SLD are entitled. The Rehabilitation Act applies to students in both settings, but follows different principles and guidelines for receiving services. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) first originated in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). Renamed in 1990 as Individuals Cawthon & Cole; Accommodations Access and Obstacles 113 with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it has been reauthorized about every five years, the latest in 2006 (as Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, or IDEIA). IDEA specifically lists areas in which disabilities may occur, including a learning disability. The purpose of the law is to identify eligible students and provide services to them that are educationally focused and aimed at helping the student achieve academically to the best of their ability. These services are to be given at no cost to the student or their families. Once a child is determined to have a learning disability, schools are required to provide an Individualized Education Program (IEP) plan. When a student reaches high school, the role of this IEP plan is not only to identify and document current services, but also to articulate what the student’s postsecondary goals might be. As early as age 14 and no later than age 16, the IEP team must meet with the student (and parents) and lay out a plan for the transition from high school into the student’s chosen postsecondary setting, one of which may be college or a university. Americans with Disabilities Act. When a SLD enters a postsecondary institution, or more specifically, when they attain the age of majority (18-years-old), they have the option to seek protection under ADA. Passed in 1990, the ADA is a federal civil rights law that protects all persons with disabilities from discrimination. Unlike IDEA, where the school is responsible for providing services, under ADA the student must initiate this process, and is not entitled to protection if they do not inform the school of their disability. Additionally, unlike IDEA, ADA does not provide explicit guidelines on how to determine if a person has a learning disability or who makes that determination. The ADA states that a person has a disability if the individual has a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual, the individual has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment” (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). Once a person is considered to have a learning disability under ADA they are entitled to accommodations that enable persons with disabilities to engage in activities at the same level as their peers without a disability. Unlike IDEA, ADA accommodations are not necessarily educationally focused. There is more flexibility in the kinds of services that can be obtained through ADA. Rehabilitation Act. A precedent to later legislation such as the ADA (1990), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited discrimination by federal agencies and by federally funded programs. Following the lead of reforms such as those initiated by Brown v. the Board of Education, the Rehabilitation Act was passed during the civil rights era and reflects the focus on access and inclusive participation in publicly funded institutions. Because most school districts and universities in the country receive federal aid, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act effectively covers all students in public education from discrimination or limited access to services on the basis of a disability. Section 504 has a broad definition of disability: Under this law, individuals with disabilities are defined as persons with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities. People who have a history of, or who are regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, are also covered. Major life activities include caring for one’s self, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, working, performing manual tasks, and learning. Some examples of impairments which may substantially limit major life activities, even with the help of medication or aids/devices, are: AIDS, alcoholism, blindness or visual impairment, cancer, deafness or hearing impairment, diabetes, drug addiction, heart disease, and mental illness. (United States Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.) Applied to schools, Section 504 requires schools at both the secondary and postsecondary level to provide necessary accommodations for students with disabilities. Adequate access to curriculum is the central question when a school or district is asked to provide services to a student with a disability. The Rehabilitation Act does not require that the student be designated as a special education student in order to receive these services, nor does it require the district or university to pay for these services, particularly if it would cause an undue burden on the institution. In this way, the Rehabilitation Act is a less codified legislation than other avenues for receiving accommodations in public schools. The long-term impact of the Rehabilitation Act was, in part, to put language into place that includes students with disabilities into larger educational reforms. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 2; 2010 114 Planning for Postsecondary Education IDEA requires that the student be an active participant in the transition process from the secondary to postsecondary setting. For example, student presence is required at all IEP transition meetings and it is preferred that students take an active role in the formation of their IEP. The intent is to provide students with critical knowledge and information that prepares them to advocate for themselves when they reach college. Knowledge of disability, knowledge of postsecondary support services, and the ability to self advocate have been identified as contributors successful high school to college transitions for SLD (Milsom & Hartley, 2005). Potential obstacles to transitions. Within the transition experience there are many potential obstacles that may hinder a successful transition from secondary to postsecondary institutions. The first obstacle can be at early stages of the transition process. The reauthorization of IDEA required that students be present and actively involved in their IEP meetings (Hammer, 2004). When students do attend their meetings parents report that they understand the meeting better and feel more comfortable expressing their opinions, while teachers are more likely to express the SLD interests, talents, and requirements. Both parents and teachers feel more optimistic about the IEP meeting with student attendance. However, a majority of

Adaptation to College for Students with and without Disabilities: Group Differences and Predictors.

Abstract: This study investigated differences between attributional style and student adaptation to college for students with and without disabilities In terms of attributional style, the students with disabilities demonstrated a more internal, stable, and global attributional style for both positive events and negative events In terms of student adaptation to college, the group of students without disabilities scored higher for overall student adaptation to college, social adjustment, institutional attachment, and semester GPA Additionally, we explored the ability of six variables to predict student adaptation to college for students with disabilities Two variables contributed significantly to the prediction: self-advocacy skill and visibility of disability

The Social Justice Perspective.

Abstract: This article shines an important light on the continuing struggle of disabled people for dignity, citizenship rights, and access to the marketplace. Common threads bind the struggle for basic human rights among disenfranchised groups, offer experience and approaches to facilitate change, and move society towards social justice. The philosophy behind the Disability Rights movement offers disability service professionals the opportunity to reframe disability in order to effectively advocate for and facilitate social changes in higher education. Disability service professionals have an important role and crucial responsibility in moving their profession, students, and the campus towards a social justice model, supporting disability pride, offering equality, and promoting participatory democracy to disabled students. “Blind man breakin’ out of a trance Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance Hopin’ to fi nd one circumstance Of dignity” (Dylan, 1994) Striving for dignity is at the core of social justice movements. Activists involved in social justice movements believe that oppressed people have a right to fair treatment and a share of the benefi ts of society based on their human rights and equality of all people (Longmore, 2003; Miller, 2001; Waddington & Diller, 2000), and the principles of participatory democracy (Weisman, 1999). This article will review the history of the Disability Rights movement within a social justice perspective and refl ect on the implications this movement has on the disability service (DS) profession and the delivery of services to disabled students in higher education. Social justice movements have struggled and continue to struggle with issues such as sexism, racism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism (Johnson, 2006). The Women’s movement opposes oppression from violence and harassment, and works for equal wages as well as reproductive and voting rights (Eisenberg & Ruthsdotter, 1998; Epstein, 2002; Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Jones, 2008). Vietnam War Veterans advocated for medical, educational, and disability benefi ts (Madaus, Miller, & Vance, 2009); Veterans of the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion are fi ghting to get recognition and understanding for the debilitating, emotional trauma experienced in current approaches to war (Church, 2009; Madaus, Miller, & Vance, 2009; Shackelford, 2009). The Gay and Lesbian movement’s priority is acceptance and dignity, full inclusion in society with marriage rights, and access to benefi ts for partners (Gianoulis, 2004; Johnson & Summers, 2004; Nedeau, 2008). Through the Civil Rights movement, African Americans fi ght for racial dignity, respect, economic and social equality, and freedom from white domination (Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia, 2009; National Park Service [NPS], n.d; Ruehl, 2009; Teaching Tolerance, 2009). “I know one thing we did right Was the day we started to fi ght Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on (hold on) Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on” (as cited in Marsh, 2009) Alice Wine wrote this song after African Americans had won the right to vote, only to discover one more Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 6 barrier; they were required to pass a literacy test in order to qualify to vote. Songs of hope and empowerment were infl uential during the Civil Rights movement as they identifi ed the common goal worth fi ghting for and offered optimism that the prize was achievable (Marsh, 2009; Ruehl, 2009). All these social justice movements have made gains to varying degrees in achieving their goals related to social justice (Crow, 1996). African Americans and women won the right to vote (Eisenberg & Ruthsdotter, 1998; Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia, 2009) as well as equal pay for equal work (Eisenberg & Ruthsdotter, 1998); women won reproductive rights with Roe vs. Wade (Eisenberg & Ruthsdotter,1998; Nedeau, 2008). Several American states as well as countries such as Canada have passed legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry (Gianoulis, 2004; Johnson & Summers, 2004; Jones, 2009.). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is now a recognized outcome of war (Church, 2009). These movements have worked hard to remove the barriers caused by privilege, which “...exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything that they’ve done or failed to do” (Johnson, 2006, p. 21). As a result of these gains, the Disability Rights and Gay Rights movements (Jones, 2009) were able to utilize those experiences, strategies, and perspectives in order to enhance their own struggle towards achieving social justice and empowerment in several ways (Crow, 1996; Madaus, 2000; Malhotra, 2001; Waddington & Diller, 2000). Activists realized that issues of physical access and attitudinal barriers could now be described as a socio-political problem (DeJong, 1983; Waddington & Diller, 2000). They also gained awareness that social programs, segregated education and housing programs, and employment quotas, inspired by a social welfare model (Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Marks, 2009; Waddington & Diller, 2000), lead to “social exclusion” (End Exclusion, 2007). Disability activists and scholars also recognized that social welfare models rely on a functional defi nition to qualify for services that can segregate those who are eligible, which further marginalizes the members of society who qualify for this service (Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Waddington & Diller, 2000). And lastly, they recognized that social welfare models require people to disclose their inabilities or limitations in order to gain access to special services (Shakespeare, 1996; Waddington & Diller, 2000). This disclosure in turn reinforces the stereotypes about the incompetence of people who require special support (Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Linton, 1998; Longmore, 2003). It is not an easy task to change a history of attitudes, behaviors, laws, and social policy that allow for discrimination and marginalization of a segment in our society. The struggle for equal rights now involves multiple racial groups such as Latinos and Asians (Teaching Tolerance, 2009) as well as the issues of rights based upon gender, disability, and sexual orientation (Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Malhotra, 2001; NPS, n.d.; Shakespeare, 1996). Members involved in a social cause need to keep an eye on the prize and persist in pressing for change as personal, social, and economic costs of exclusion and marginalization are too high to be ignored (End Exclusion, 2007; Hugemark & Roman, 2002; Linton, 1998; Shakespeare, 1996). Disability Rights Movement “There is a Third Kingdom the land of the crippled. This place is no democracy; it is a dictatorship. The usual rights of citizenship do not apply here. A great wall surrounds this place, and most of what goes on within the wall is unknown to those outside it” (Gallagher, 1990. p.1). The focus of the Disability Rights movement has been to change the way the world is constructed so that everyone can participate in life’s activities to the greatest extent possible with maximum independence (Longmore, 2003; Malhotra, 2001; Weisman, 1999; Winter, 2003). This movement has similar goals as the Civil Rights movement–to be treated with respect and dignity, have economic and social equality, experience usable and inclusive environments, and have the opportunity for full participation (UPAIS, 1976) in educational, employment, and community activities (Malhotra, 2001;Winter, 2003). Throughout modern times in North America and parts of Western Europe, disability-specifi c groups have formed to champion specifi c interests with a focus to solve specifi c disability issues, not global issues. Examples include (Fleischer & Zames, 2001; Malhotra, 2001; Pullingart, 2002; Resource Center for Independent Living, 2004): 1921 American Foundation for the Blind 1938 March of Dimes as the National Foundation Loewen, & Pollard; The Social Justice Perspective 7 for Infantile Paralysis 1939 League of the Physically Handicapped 1940 National Federation of the Blind 1948 National Spinal Cord Injury Association 1950 National Association for Retarded Citizens 1974 People First Canada group began in British Columbia 1975 Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) founded in Britain In the 1970s, disabled activists and scholars from Great Britain, such as Ken Davis, Paul Hunt, and Vic Finkelstein (UPIAS, 1976) and the United States, such as Judy Huemann, Ed Roberts, Fred Fay, and Justin Dart (Fleischer & Zames, 2001; Pelka, 1997) started to question and voice opposition to society’s response to various aspects of disability. In 1974, some of these activists, understanding the importance and the power of cross-disability communication and cooperation, came together in Washington, D.C. to propose a crossdisability coalition (Pelka, 1997). The American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD) was formed and initially brought 19 disability groups together for a common purpose of promoting disability inclusion (Pelka, 1997). The ACCD was led by the late Frank Bowe, a deaf activist and educator who, as its fi rst Director, worked diligently to support the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Fleischer & Zames, 2001) and called for civil disobedience to bring pressure on the Carter administration to approve the regulations (Pelka, 1997). In 1977, at the local level, activists such as Irv Zola, Marsh Saxton, David Pfi eiffer as well as former AHSSPPE member Andrea Schein (Pelka, 1997) and other local activists, formed Boston SelfHelp, a grassroots peer counseling and cross-disability organization. International activity was also prevalent. In Canada, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped (COPOH) was founded in 1976 by people with disabilities and in 1994 they changed their name to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities

Disability Documentation, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, and the Summary of Performance: How Are They Linked?.

Abstract: Disability documentation has been an ongoing challenge for Office for Students with Disabilities personnel. Initial lack of consistency and inadequate documentation data resulted in the promulgation of detailed documentation guidelines in the 1990s. Discontinuity between approaches to transition assessment and disability documentation in secondary and postsecondary schools has been exacerbated by court decisions and divergent legal requirements. The recently implemented Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008) significantly impacts the postsecondary disability documentation process. The Summary of Performance (SOP) requirement of IDEA 2004 is discussed in regard to the range of data it adds to the review of functional performance and determination of reasonable accommodations. Recommendations regarding the application of the SOP to the new reality of disability documentation are presented.

Mentoring Individuals with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Review of the Literature.

Abstract: The purpose of this literature review was to locate, describe, and analyze empirical data on mentoring individuals with disabilities in postsecondary (or higher) education. The fundamental question posed was: Is there evidence to support effective mentoring practices for students with disabilities in postsecondary (or higher) education? This paper begins with a brief description of several types of mentoring models to establish context, followed by a presentation of the parameters of the literature search. Findings demonstrate that evidence-based research about mentorship for students with disabilities in postsecondary education is minimal. Only 10 articles fit the search criteria. These articles are categorized into three areas: a) transition to higher education, b) success in higher education, and c) work and higher education. A discussion of themes in the articles reviewed is followed by suggestions for future research.

Perceptions of College Students with and without Disabilities and Effects of STEM and Non-STEM Enrollment on Student Engagement and Institutional Involvement.

Abstract: In a college student sample (n = 4,467) chosen among the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) participants in 2006, group differences based on disability (i.e., no disability, single primary disability, multiple primary disabilities) were examined on five NSSE benchmarks of student engagement and institutional performance (i.e., academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, supportive campus environment) and taking into account curricular status (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-STEM, non-STEM). Students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities in their perceptions related to student-faculty interactions and the extent to which they experienced supportive campus environments. Students with disabilities were significantly more favorable in their perceptions of student-faculty interactions, but reported significantly less favorable supportiveness of their respective campus environments. Although curricular status had independent effects on most of the measured outcomes, no compounding effects of curricular status on disability status were found. According to recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, up to 11% of all undergraduates report having a disability (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). Previous research has found that students with disabilities who enroll in postsecondary education are less prepared academically for college, have lower overall retention rates (Horn & Berktold, 1999), take longer to obtain a degree (Freiden, 2004; Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003) and have lower persistence rates than their counterparts without disabilities (Horn & Berktold, 1999). According to National Organization on Disabilities survey (2000), only 12% of individuals with disabilities graduate from college, as opposed to 23% of their non-disabled counterparts. In addition, even though the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors has been shrinking (National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 2004), and approximately 7% of all scientists were individuals with disabilities, they are still underrepresented (i.e., 2%) among those younger than age 35, compared to 15% of those between ages 65–75 (National Science Foundation, 2006). Higher education is one of the most effective means of diminishing the negative consequences of disability (Stodden, Jones, & Chang, 2002). Research on experiences and perceptions of students with disabilities in postsecondary education mostly focused on student factors like self-determination skills as being critical in transitioning, adjusting, and remaining in college (e.g., Getzel & Briel, 2006; Stodden, Galloway, & Stodden, 2003; Thoma & Wehmeyer, 2005; Wehman, 2001). In addition to self-determination skills, self-management skills such as time management, organizational skills, and study skills have also been identified as important student variables (e.g., Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). Research has also looked at the barriers to the access and utilization of disability support services on campuses (e.g., Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Getzel, 2008) as variables that impact persistence and retention in postsecondary eduJournal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 2; 2010 130 cation. The goal of this study is to extend the literature on experiences and perceptions of students with disabilities in postsecondary education by looking at their perceptions of student engagement and institutional performance that have been extensively documented as leading to student achievement and other desired outcomes of college (e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pike, 2006; Tinto, 1987, 1993). More specifically, we examined if and how college students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities in terms of student engagement and perceptions of institutional performance. The construct of student engagement generally refers to the quality of effort and involvement in productive learning activities and highlights the importance of student involvement, student effort, and student time on task (e.g., Kuh, 2009). However, student engagement is not only conceptualized as an indicator of “student performance,” but also as an indicator of “institutional performance,” and it also highlights the role that institutions have in inducing students to take part in educationally purposeful activities (e.g., Kuh, 2001, 2003; Kuh, Schuh, & Whitt, 1991). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institute developed five benchmarks to measure various aspects of student engagement and institutional performance: Academic Challenge measures the level of aca• demic effort and expectations set for students by the institutions; Active and Collaborative Learning measures • the level of involvement in learning in different settings as well as collaborating with others; Student-Faculty Interaction measures the • amount of learning first-hand by interacting with faculty members both inside and outside the classroom; Enriching Educational Experiences measures • the amount of complementary learning opportunities in and out of class augmenting academic programs and having diverse set of experiences to integrate and apply knowledge; and Supportive Campus Environment measures • if the environments are committed to student success and cultivating positive working and social relations among different groups. Even though engagement in effective educational practices generally benefits all students, the conditional and compensatory effects for specific student groups have been documented (Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Conditional effects are the differences in the amount of learning or development experienced by one group of students relative to other groups. Compensatory effects indicate differences among various groups of students, like students who may start college underprepared, and their differential gains and benefits compared with their relatively advantaged peers. For example, Kuh et al. (2008) documented compensatory effects of student engagement for historically underserved students in terms of earning higher grades and persistence. Since students with disabilities in postsecondary education are shown to be less prepared academically for college and have lower persistence rates than their counterparts without disabilities, it appears that the assessment of student engagement may be critical to the identification of effective interventions for ameliorating the aforementioned negative consequences of disability. The first goal of this study was to examine, if and how, college students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities on five benchmarks of student engagement and institutional performance in a nationally representative sample: (a) Academic Challenge, (b) Active and Collaborative Learning, (c) Student-Faculty Interaction, (d) Enriching Educational Experiences, and (e) Supportive Campus Environment. The second goal was to assess whether STEM and non-STEM curricular status compounded any effects of disability status in terms of student engagement and institutional performance.

Determining Faculty Needs for Delivering Accessible Electronically Delivered Instruction in Higher Education

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine if a need exists for faculty training to improve accommodation for students with disabilities enrolled in electronically delivered courses at a statewide university system. An online survey was used to determine if instructors had students who had been identified as needing accommodation in their online courses, to identify which tools instructors used in electronically delivered instruction, and to determine how familiar the instructors were with strategies for accommodating students with disabilities in their courses. Over half the respondents reported identifying students in their classes with disabilities either by an official notice or through other means of identification. The respondents identified a variety of electronic delivery tools used to provide instruction in distance courses. A low percentage of the faculty surveyed reported they were aware of strategies to improve accessibility in their electronically delivered courses. In a report issued by the U.S. Department of Education, Setzer and Lewis (2005) noted that over one-third of public high schools offered distance education courses in the year 2002-2003 with 50% of those courses offered as online or Web-based courses. In keeping with the growing interest in online learning, the push to offer online or distance education has moved from individual schools to statewide initiatives in some areas. In 2006, Michigan passed legislation that requires high school graduates to take an online course (Michigan Merit Curriculum Guidelines, 2006). Deubel (2007) reported that in the same year Michigan passed their legislation, 38 states had either initiated online educational projects or had developed proposals for regulating such programs. This move to involve K-12 students in online education will result in more students entering higher education with expectations of furthering their education online. Interest in online learning has continued to increase for higher education as well. The Sloan Report describes a growing population of students in the United States who are taking online courses and reports that 3.9 million higher education students took at least one online course during the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seaman, 2008). In fact, the Sloan Report states that enrollment in online learning has increased at a higher rate than enrollment in higher education in general. Terminology used to describe instruction provided electronically has varied and shifted as institutions and schools try to describe new strategies for using technology to deliver instruction. Distance education has been defi ned by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as “any education or training delivered to remote sites (via audio, video, live, or prerecorded), or computer technologies, including both synchronous... and asynchronous...instruction” (NCES, 2003). Online is another term often used to describe electronically delivered instruction. The Sloan Report considered online courses as those for which 80 percent of the course content was delivered online (Allen & Seaman, 2008). However, neither distance or online delivery accurately describe blended or hybrid delivery in which students receive instruction on-site. For the purposes of this study electronically delivered instruction (eLearning) will be used as a more inclusive term with virtual, online, and hybrid models considered types of a broader category of electronically delivered instruction. Because of the rapid growth of interest in online learning, institutions of higher education and K-12 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 22, No. 3; 2010 186 schools have moved beyond asking if they should offer online courses to asking how to best meet the needs of a growing population of online learners. In an attempt to ensure quality in online programs initiated by K-12 schools, the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) has developed national standards as guidelines for schools offering online education (NACOL, 2007). NACOL’s standards include guidelines for providing accessible instructional materials to meet all students’ needs. Accrediting agencies for higher education also have set standards for distance delivery of instruction. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002) surveyed 59 national accreditors for higher education institutions to determine what guidelines were being used to ensure quality instruction in distance-delivered courses. They reported that most accreditors, at that time, applied the same standards to distance and site-based learning but that a majority of the accreditors were examining how to modify or expand their standards to apply to distance learning. One example of the growing awareness of the need to improve the quality of instruction delivered by distance is the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008) accreditation standards which now require units involved in teacher education to address specifi c questions related to distance delivery. The increasing presence of electronically delivered instruction in K-12 and post-secondary education offers expanded opportunities for many students (Altbach, 2008; The State Educational Technology Directors Association [SETDA], 2008). The SETDA report on virtual learning states that “Virtual learning provides each student the promise of access to ageand abilityappropriate curriculum, rich and extensive resources, and accurate and up-to-date assessments regardless of location, economic situation, or time” (2008, p. 1). Can eLearning live up to the promise envisioned by so many educators for increased access to learning opportunities for students with disabilities as well? Data gathered from the National Longitudinal Transition Study revealed approximately 13% of high school age students received special education in 2000-2001 (Wagner, Cameto, & Guzmán, 2003). According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy ([IHEP], 2004), the majority (73%) of those students with disabilities continue on to higher education. IHEP also found that 9 to 10% of students in higher education reported a disability, a percentage similar to that of the NCES (2006) profi le of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions that reported 11% of the students identifi ed themselves as having a disability. However, students with disabilities in higher education have a lower course completion and graduation rate than the general student population (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009). A case study of 604 students with disabilities enrolled in undergraduate courses at Athabasca University determined that fewer students with disabilities completed their courses than that of the general student population but that students who received support services were more likely to complete their courses (Moisey, 2004). Unfortunately, eLearning can create additional challenges to higher education students with disabilities (Blansett, 2008; Bruyère, 2008; Lewis, Yoder, Riley, So, & Yusufali, 2007). Of the 600 million people worldwide reported to live with disabilities, only 5 to 15% have access to the assistive technologies that would allow them to access to expanded opportunities for education (World Health Organization, 2008). Diffi culties in access go beyond lack of access to assistive technologies. Web sites are often the fi rst encounter students have with their institutions in higher education, however only a small percentage of Web sites meet basic accessibility guidelines (Mariger, 2008). Harper and DeWaters (2008) noted that in spite of the increase of students with disabilities enrolling in higher education, few university Web sites are completely accessible and that Web accessibility continues to be an issue for higher education institutions. The technologies involved in providing access to students can actually deny access to populations of students with disabilities. Web-based course materials and online content create new challenges for students with disabilities. Students with visual disabilities encounter Web sites and course media unreadable by screen readers. Disorganized and cluttered course Web sites confuse all students, but especially those with learning and cognitive disorders. Uncaptioned videos, podcasts, and video conferences limit access to students with hearing disabilities. Students with non-traditional learning styles who are not documented as needing accommodation can also encounter the same types of barriers encountered by students with disabilities. In addition, students with learning modalities not well supported by the textual environment of online instruction, students learning in a foreign language or from a different culture, and students with age-linked sensory declines can also face barriers to full access in eLearning environments. Gladhart; eLearning and Accessibility 187 Course management systems such as Blackboard and software companies such as Adobe have attempted to meet accessibility requirements of disability legislation mandated by major developed countries (Seale, 2006). However, many online delivery tools and course materials are used and developed by instructors who have little awareness of accessibility criteria mandated by federal legislation and who, even when aware, have little incentive to make their materials accessible (IHEP, 2004). In addition, popular new instructional tools such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts are easy to implement but not readily accessible to all users (Driscoll, 2007). The goal of the study was to provide the leaders and instructional designers on all campuses of a state-wide institution of higher education in the U.S. Northwest with more information about numbers of students identifi ed by instructors as needing accommodation and what strategies were being used to provide instruction to those students. This study also attempted to identify tools and strategies used by instructors to accommodate stu

Using Disability Studies Theory to Change Disability Services: A Case Study in Student Activism

Abstract: In 2001, a group of student activists at Syracuse University started an organization called the Beyond Compliance Coordinating Committee (BCCC). The BCCC activists used disability studies theory to engage the campus in conversations about disability and inform significant change in the way Syracuse administration think about disability. This paper explores what makes Syracuse unique and what happened between 2001 and the present day. It concludes with recommendations for disability services providers on how they can use the experience at Syracuse to inform their thinking about campus culture and services.

Yes We Can Change: Disability Studies--Enabling Equality.

Abstract: In this article, I offer a brief assessment of the international disability rights and culture movements and disability studies, as well as a commentary on the future of disability and disability studies. A diverse group of activists, artists, and scholars have brought about momentous legal changes in dozens of countries around the world. They have also enabled a critical rearticulation of what it means to be disabled. Yet, this revisioning of disability and this repositioning of disabled people remains fraught. I contend that while movement participants, scholars, and their allies are off to a great start, they have yet to grapple in any serious way with some of the most important and contentious issues within the disability rights and culture movements and disability studies, namely their own internal diversity and the material reality of many disabled peoples’ lives. Despite these complexities, I maintain that the disability rights and culture movements and disability studies have tremendous transformative potential. We are living at a critical moment of history. The election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008 was greeted the world over with a potent mixture of unrestrained joy and hope by those individuals, groups, and organizations who rallied around his campaign slogan, “Yes we can change” (Obama, 2008b). Especially moved were people of color, people with disabilities, and women; people who have historically been excluded both structurally and culturally from power. When President-elect Obama delivered his victory speech to the more than one million people crammed into Chicago’s Grant Park and millions more watching around the world, he directly acknowledged his constituency, the “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled,” who welcomed new possibilities, supported democracy, and believed that their voices could make a difference in the future of the United States and the world (Obama, 2008a). For those of us active in the disability rights and culture movements and disability studies, Obama’s victory speech was truly an historic event. Though the most politicized among us balked at Obama’s choice of words (the “disabled”—as if we were some immutable monolith), we recognized that we, the disabled, had arrived socially and politically. Or had we? In this article, I will offer a brief assessment of the recent past and a commentary on the future of disability and disability studies. I will highlight the major legal and theoretical contributions that a diverse group of activists, artists, and scholars have made in opening the world to people with disabilities, and I will show that despite momentous achievements in many areas, much work remains to be done. By forcing legislators, administrators and academics, architects and building contractors, city planners and business owners, to allow equal access, the disability rights and culture movements and disability studies have made people with a broad range of disabilities an increasingly salient minority. Activists, artists, and academics have also enabled a critical rearticulation of what it means to be disabled. We are seeing in K-12 and post-secondary education, in the media, and in our everyday lives, the tremendous potential that this new access and this new understanding of disability hold. Yet, this re-articulation of disability and this repositioning of disabled people remain contentious and incomplete. While we are off to a great start, those of us closest to the movement and to disability studies have fallen short in our attempts to Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 20 contend with some of the most important issues within the disability rights and culture movements and disability studies, namely our own diversity and the material reality of many of our lives. Activists, Artists, and Scholars In this fi rst section, I will provide a brief historical account of the rise of the international disability rights and culture movements and disability studies. All three movements emerged roughly at the same time and were very much interrelated. They, moreover, are the reason why President-elect Obama included disabled people in his victory speech. Disabled people and their allies have been active socially and politically for well over one hundred years. Recent scholarship (Burch, 2001; Kudlick, 2001; Longmore, 2003) has shown that in the United States for example, both blind people and deaf people have been actively building and defending their own cultures and communities since at least the turn of the twentieth century. Longmore (2003, p. 105), moreover, has argued that by the mid-twentieth century, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) had a “vigorous” lobby in Washington that took a “consistent” civil rights approach to disability issues. Parents and other allies of cognitively disabled and learning disabled individuals have also been active in gaining and protecting their civil rights and their access to education, employment, and community living for decades (Noll & Trent, 2004). Yet, scholars agree that the modern disability rights movement, which in most countries consists of a broad cross-section of the disabled population and highlights a politicized disabled identity, emerged out of the social turmoil and civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s. Initially based primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom, the modern disability rights movement focused largely on access, accommodation, and independent living (Barton & Oliver, 1997; Campbell & Oliver, 1996; Charlton, 2000; Fleischer & Zames, 2000; Hahn, 2002; Oliver, 1996: Shapiro, 1994; Switzer, 2003). Throughout the 1970s, numerous disability rights groups emerged in other parts of Europe, and in New Zealand, Australia, Latin America, and southern Africa as well. Although they never lost sight of their original goals, by the early 1980s, disability rights organizations in various parts of the world became increasingly involved in broader global human rights struggles and national liberation movements (Charlton, 2000). Prodded by movement participants and its member states, the United Nations (UN), in many ways, became a global standard bearer for disability rights. Though it remained focused largely on the rehabilitation and reintegration of so-called productive disabled people, especially those living in the “developing world,” by the early 1970s the UN began to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. According to the UN’s own history, it began during the 1960s to recognize an increasing awareness of the importance of new rehabilitation strategies (United Nations, 2003-04a). On December 20, 1971, the UN General Assembly introduced the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and called for national and international action to ensure that it became “the accepted basis and frame of reference for protecting the rights of the disabled” (United Nations, 2003-04b). In 1973, the UN recognized the suggestion that it increase recruitment of disabled people in its own organization, and in 1975, at its 24th session, the Commission for Social Development recommended the elimination of physical and architectural barriers that were preventing “the full social integration of disabled persons.” In December of the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted its Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, which stated that “all persons with disabilities are entitled to the rights stipulated, without respect to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, state of wealth, birth or any other situation.” The following year, the General Assembly suggested that member states take into account the recommendations highlighted in the Declaration, and designated 1981, the International Year for Disabled Persons (United Nations, 2003-04b). The period from the late 1970s to the early 1990s proved to be an important transitional time for the disability rights movement, both locally and globally. Local groups such as ADAPT (American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit) raised the stakes by putting their bodies on the line for disability rights—by positioning themselves in front of inaccessible buses (Charlton, 2000; Fleischer & Zames, 2000; Hahn, 2002; Johnson & Shaw, 2001; Shapiro, 1994; Switzer, 2003). Other activist groups, such as the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, led sit-ins at the offi ces of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in New York, Washington D.C., Denver, and San Francisco to demand implementation of section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Protestors in San Francisco remained in HEW offi ces for 25 days in 1977, Rembis; Yes We Can Change 21 making it the longest occupation of a federal building by political protestors in U.S. history (Longmore, 2003). At the global level, the UN adopted an increasingly progressive position on disability. Following the First Founding Congress of Disabled Peoples International, held in Singapore in November and December 1981, the UN adopted its World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, shifting disability policy toward three main areas: prevention, rehabilitation, and equalization of opportunities. Then, on December 3 1982, the UN General Assembly declared 1983-1992 the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (United Nations, 2003-04c). The international disability rights movement gained momentum throughout the 1980s. From Brazil to South Africa, Zimbabwe to India, Thailand to Nicaragua, and most places in between, people with disabilities were organizing and demanding that their voices be heard (Charlton, 2000). National governments began to respond. Though there had been early attempts at inclusion, such as Section 504 of the United States’ 1

Bridging the Gap between Disability Studies and Disability Services in Higher Education: A Model Center on Disability.

Abstract: The professional field of Disability Services in Higher Education and the academic discipline of Disability Studies share a perspective on disability that considers disability as a socially constructed phenomenon. Despite this common underpinning, there has been little effort or inquiry into the ways that disability services and Disability Studies can and should inform each other. At the University of Arizona, a model Center on Disability is taking shape that will explore the gaps between disability studies and services. Specifically, the Center will unite current and needed resources to advance theory and practice in disability-related research, teaching, and service that contribute to social change. The Center will be a catalyst for innovative, collaborative inquiry that will illuminate the intersections among education, the humanities, the arts, social and behavioral sciences, and the professional schools. The Center’s research will address education, policy, and practice. Over the past twenty years, great emphasis has been placed on improving the quality of service delivery to individuals with disabilities participating in higher education. As the primary professional association for disability service professionals, The Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) has clearly articulated a mission and values that refl ect disability as socially constructed and resulting from “the interaction between person and the environment” (Welcome to AHEAD, 2009). Further, AHEAD has developed and endorsed a code of ethics, program standards, as well as professional standards of practice–all of which consider the importance of redesigning the campus environment to be as accessible as possible. This movement has occurred as a result of many factors including evolving public policies, advocacy by the Independent Living and other disability rights movements, as well as knowledge and theories arising from the academic discipline of Disability Studies. It is noteworthy that as civil rights for individuals with disabilities were advancing into the national consciousness, the academic discipline of Disability Studies was emerging. Linton (1998) has summarily explained Disability Studies as follows: Disability Studies takes for its subject matter not simply the variations that exist in human behavior, appearance, functioning, sensory acuity, and cognitive processing but, more crucially, the meaning we make of those variations. The fi eld explores the critical divisions our society makes in creating the normal versus the pathological, the insider ver-sus the outsider, or the competent citizen versus the ward of the state. It is an interdisciplinary fi eld based on a sociopolitical analysis of dis¬ability and informed both by the knowledge base and methodologies used in the traditional liberal arts, and by conceptualizations and ap¬proaches developed in areas of the new scholarship. Disability Studies has Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 80 emerged as a logical base for examination of the construction and function of “disability.” (p. 2) As the professional association for Disability Studies academic programs and scholars, the Society for Disability Studies (SDS) has as its mission to promote the study of disability in social, cultural, and political contexts. Disability Studies recognizes that disability is a key aspect of human experience, and that the study of disability has important political, social, and economic implications for society as a whole, including both disabled and nondisabled people. Through research, artistic production, teaching and activism, the Society for Disability Studies seeks to augment understanding of disability in all cultures and historical periods, to promote greater awareness of the experiences of disabled people, and to advocate for social change (SDS Mission, 2009). The professional fi eld of Disability Services in Higher Education and the academic discipline of Disability Studies share a perspective on disability that considers disability as a socially constructed phenomenon. Despite this common underpinning, there has been little effort or inquiry into the ways that disability services and Disability Studies can and should inform each other. It should be noted, however, that this shared perspective on disability is recent. Historically, disability services was administered and staffed by predominantly nondisabled professionals who sought to be experts in disability conditions, and to provide accommodation, rather than address accessible design of the higher education environment. Disability Studies has from its inception considered disability to be socially constructed, emphasized the insider as expert, and focused interventions on the environment.

Disability Services' Standards and the Worldviews Guiding Their Implementation.

Abstract: This paper presents a study that incorporated an Internet survey to analyze disability-related perspectives held by higher education’s disability service providers in the implementation of program standards. Incorporating disability studies scholarship, the quantitative study used the constructs of individual, social, and universal approaches to service delivery as a looking glass. The study’s investigation involved a sample of disability service providers who held a membership in the Association of Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD) during fiscal year 2007. In general, findings indicated participants were more likely to deliver services guided by an individual approach, thereby determining the individual’s “deficit” and accommodating the disability. However, findings also indicated that, to some extent, participants had awareness of and sometimes utilized either social or universal approaches in their service delivery. This manuscript concludes with a discussion of implications for disability studies, disability services, AHEAD, and service professionals. The present study sought to understand perspectives held by higher education’s disability service providers relative to disability and/or students with disabilities and how such perspectives became evident in the implementation of best practices. Although the intention of the Association on Higher Education And Disabilities (AHEAD) standards is to improve the quality of services provided to students with disabilities attending colleges, the standards lack a contextual anchor, permitting the utilization of diverse and antithetical worldviews in their implementation. Using the work of disability studies scholars, three disability worldviews and their applications in the provision of disability services in higher education were considered to explain how these perspectives have maintained the status quo or have re-framed disability. For those reasons, the historical development of disability services, the legislation affecting its development, and also ideas and frameworks developed by disability studies scholars were reviewed. Ultimately, the researcher sought to learn how disability service providers’ perspectives of disability and/or disabled people have percolated into service delivery practices. Disability services in postsecondary education have undergone many changes, including an increase in the population of disabled students from 2.2% in 1978 to 17% in 2000 (Gajar, 1998; National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports [NCESPES], 2002), legislative mandates prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities (Rehabilitation Act, 1973), and the professionalization of disability services (Dukes & Shaw, 1999, 2001; Madaus, 2000; Prize, 1997; Shaw & Dukes, 2001, 2005, 2006; Shaw, McGuire, & Madaus, 1997). In addition to experiencing the stress of rapid growth and change, the provision of disability services in postsecondary education did not enjoy the benefi ts of having standards delineating the essential components for the job. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) did not establish standards or dictate the manner in which disability services in postsecondary education should be implemented. Regardless, the development of such enactments was the result of societal forces, changes in attitudes, legislation, and student advocacy (Madaus, 2000). Meanwhile, disability service providers/researchers have developed standards (Prize, 1997; Shaw & Dukes, 2001, 2005, 2006; Shaw, et al., Guzman, & Balcazar; Disability Services’ Standards and Worldviews 49 1997) as a framework to guide service provision. AHEAD’s standards are a research-based approach of informing stakeholders of the ethical, professional, and programmatic requirements needed to achieve equal access for students with disabilities who are attending higher education institutions (Prize, 1997; Shaw & Dukes, 2001; Shaw, et al., 1997). The standards have provided professionals with clear indicators of the skills needed to do their job and add important elements necessary for both quality service delivery and evaluation. These empirically developed standards have also allowed postsecondary disability service providers to move their profession to a best-practice model, having evolved from one in which an agent was in charge of implementing legislative mandates that did not delineate state-of-the-art services (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993). Disability service professionals do not enjoy the standardized training of other professions and come from a variety of disciplines (Brinckerhoff, et al., 1993; Madaus, 2000). Therefore, standards are necessary to ensure that disability service providers adequately serve students with disabilities (Brinckerhoff, et al., 1993). Brinckerhoff et al. (1993) explain that the creation of standards of best practice could prevent the erosion of legislators’ intentions because courts would be more likely to follow the lead of established professionals at the vanguard of best practice. In addition to these standards, other factors related to participation of students with disabilities in higher education pertain to the passage of federal legislation regarding civil rights and the education of persons with disabilities. Prior to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, services for students with disabilities were limited to a few institutions. Some of these programs were created in conjunction with vocational rehabilitation services to meet the needs of war veterans with physical disabilities, yet discrimination on the basis of a student’s disability was common (Madaus, 2000). Section 504 was the fi rst civil rights law that challenged the status quo by prohibiting any program receiving federal dollars, including institutions of higher education, from discriminating against “otherwise qualifi ed” individuals with disabilities seeking entrance to such programs (Rehabilitation Act, 1973). Other infl uential legal mandates that further impacted services offered at colleges and universities were the Education for All Handicapped Children Education Act of 1975, commonly known today as Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990). IDEA (1975) stands as a promise for a free and appropriate public education, using tools such as the Individualized Education Programs (IEP; K-12) and transition plans for all students with disabilities. Adding to the requirements set in these two legislations, and because the discrimination clause was not contingent upon the program receiving federal funds, the ADA broadened the reach of Section 504. However, court decisions, not postsecondary disability service professionals, have continued to redefi ne who is protected by the law, what are essential components of a program, and the role of mitigating circumstances (Madaus, 2000). In addition to the standards and laws created which affect the implementation of services, a discussion of the potential role disability studies could and should play in the provision of services was included. An emerging discipline, disability studies serves to theorize about the experience of disability, using the voices of the individuals living under the oppression of disablement (Abberley, 1987; Oliver, 1990). The discipline considers the environment instead of the impairment in attempting to understand what contributions the environment makes in limiting the ability of individuals to function as active members of society (Hahn, 1985, 1987; Oliver, 1990; Zola, 1989). Both Oliver and Hahn argued that the disadvantages experienced by persons with disabilities are due to conditions (the environment) that reside outside the individual’s body. Therefore, lower socio-economic statuses as well as poor labor force participation are products of a society that continues to marginalize disabled people. Oliver (1996) has explained how disability is a product of our materialist society, one that does not take into consideration the needs of those living with disabilities. Hahn (1985, 1987), like Oliver, emphasized that society is responsible for the disadvantages experienced by persons with disabilities; however, he also argued that the acquisition of civil rights by this group could aid in their emancipation. The acquisition of civil rights should prevent persons with disabilities from being relegated to a subjugated status (Hahn, 1985, 1987). Like Hahn and Oliver, the late sociologist, Irving Zola (1989) argued that disability resulted from the poor fi t between impairments and societal environments. His position reaffi rms the role of the environment and, like Hahn, Zola argued that policies played an important role in the oppression or emancipation of persons with impairments. His greatest point of departure from Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 50 Hahn and Oliver was his view that disability is not a dichotomous concept with a person either having a disability or not. Instead, Zola (1989) emphasized that all individuals fall within a continuum that represents all the levels of ability found among human beings – a universal dimension of the human experience. Zola noted that the ranges of ability among humans vary widely and, therefore, society should adopt measures that are universally compatible with those variations. Reframing disability through policies that provide the greatest level of fl exibility possible should prevent the marginalization of individuals falling at the lower end of the ability spectrum. Understanding how these perceptions are refl ected in disability services in higher education could help service professionals determine the implications of their approach. This knowledge allows the service provider to evaluate their own biases and also their personal impact on service provision. Having the means f

A Disability Studies Framework for Policy Activism in Postsecondary Education.

Abstract: This article uses disability studies and the social model of disability as theoretical foundations for policy activism in postsecondary education. The social model is discussed and a model for policy activism is described. A case study of how disability studies and policy activism can be applied is provided utilizing the “3C Project to Provide Students with Disabilities a Quality Higher Education,” a federally-funded development grant.” A Disability Studies Framework For Policy Activism in Postsecondary Education Disability studies (DS) is an interdisciplinary area of study that situates disability at the center of the humanities, sciences, social sciences, and applied fi elds of study. Disability studies “challenges the view of disability as an individual defi cit or defect that can be remediated solely through...intervention by ‘experts’ and other service providers” (Society for Disability Studies [SDS], 2004). The applied fi eld of Disability Studies in Education (DSE) holds to tenets consistent with those identifi ed by the Society for Disability Studies (above). More specifi cally, DSE aims to contextualize disability within political and • social spheres; privilege the interests, agendas, and voices of • people labeled with disability; disabled people; • promote social justice, equitable and inclusive • educational opportunities, and full and meaningful access to all aspects of society for people labeled with disability/disabled people; and assume competence and reject defi cit models • of disability (Connor, Gabel, Gallagher, & Morton, 2008, p. 448). While specifi c guidelines or tenets have been identifi ed, “neither Disability Studies nor Disability Studies in Education represents a unitary perspective” (Taylor, 2006, p. xiii). However, scholars of disability studies agree that disability is a social construct (Connor, et al., 2008, p. 447), accordingly, “disability is not a ‘thing’ or condition people have, but instead [it is] a social negation serving powerful ideological commitments and political aims” (ibid.). The proposition that disability is socially constructed by the enactment of ideology and political aims is often referred to as the “social model of disability.” Social Model of Disability Multiple versions of the social model exist in the literature. The oldest, a neo-Marxist version, is sometimes referred to as the “strong social model” (Shakespeare & Watson, 2001). It differentiates between impairment or functional limitations experienced by an individual, and disability or the marginalization and even oppression of people with impairments as a group. This strong social model critiques the structural and institutional barriers that prevent people with impairments from full participation in all aspects of society (Priestly, 1998). This places disability as located “squarely within society” rather than in individuals. Furthermore, as to whether impairment or functional limitation of some kind is addressed in this model: it is not individual limitations, of whatever kind, which are the cause of the problem but society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure the needs of disabled people are fully taken into account in its social organization (Oliver, 1996, p. 32). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 64 Oliver was infl uenced by the Disabled People’s Movement in the United Kingdom and the publication of the Fundamental Principles of Disability by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation ([UPIAS], 1975). Oliver is speaking to what Priestly (1998) has described as the “material product of socio-economic relations developing within a specifi c historical context” (p. 78). Priestly positions this as a realist account where the “units of analysis are disabling barriers and material relations of power” (ibid.). The strong social model’s materialism sometimes is described as a reductionist account that ignores the interactions between individuals and society and, in fact, disability studies scholars have criticized it for this and other reasons (Gabel & Peters, 2004; Shakespeare & Watson, 2001). However, the strong social model is a useful framework for strategic action in policy because it clearly focuses attention on the institutional structures that disable people by putting up barriers to full inclusion. Priestly (1998) describes another form of the social model of disability as the social constructionist model in which disability is the “product of specifi c cultural conditions,” or the “product of societal development within a specifi c cultural context” (p. 81) where “the units of analysis are cultural values and representation” (p. 78). In other words, culture at-large constructs disability through what is held to be true about normalcy and how truth is represented in cultural symbols, practices, and rituals. Cultural symbols that affect disabled people include disability stereotypes and visual representations. For example, the stereotype of disabled people as weak and incapable can lead to the view of disabled students as “watering down the college curriculum.” Cultural practices include policies, procedures, and traditions that lead to segregation and social isolation. For example, technology policies inattentive to access issues thereby excluding some students from information systems, procedures for obtaining accommodations that require students to selfidentify and that may increase the stigma associated with impairment, or the tradition of postsecondary education as a meritocracy that historically has excluded disabled people from entry. Cultural rituals can also disable people. For example, rituals of standardized testing that serve as mechanisms for gate-keeping into postsecondary programs, and rituals of testing and assessment that may label disabled students who have been admitted to a program as “not meeting program standards.” Applying DS framework to postsecondary policy work The two versions of the social model of disability discussed in the previous section—the material with an emphasis on socio-economic factors and the cultural with an emphasis on symbolism, representation, and value—are useful in postsecondary policy work that aims to address the institutional structures that can disable people. Material structures can be understood as those that are designed to provide resources and/or support to students, for example, scholarships, loans, tutoring, library books and articles, and of course accessible built environments. Cultural structures, the values, symbols, and representations infused throughout the postsecondary milieu, are those underlying frameworks and assumptions that infl uence behavior, discourse, policy, and practice. Examples of cultural structures include institutional marketing materials (e.g., who is depicted as a student at the institution?), mission statements (e.g., are access or diversity included and if so, how are they understood and enacted?), and admission and retention policies (e.g., what are the gatekeeping devices and who do those devices exclude?). Examples from the 3C Project Examples from a federally funded development grant—the 3C Project—can be useful in understanding the applications of disability studies to postsecondary policy activism, or policy work that has social justice aims. As an introduction, I briefl y describe the 3C Project (funded by US Department of Education Offi ce of Postsecondary Education grant #P333A080036), whose purpose is to provide a quality higher education to students with disabilities. The 3C Project at National-Louis University (NLU) in Chicago, Illinois, aims to create a model for institution-wide change in access and inclusion for students with disabilities. The three Cs represent the project’s policy foci. Context refers to three contexts of teaching and learning: contexts internal and external to the university, contexts that are both face-to-face and virtual, and contexts that are local and national. Content refers to three types of content knowledge needed to provide students with a quality education: technological content, practical content, and theoretical content. Culture refers to a culture of inclusion for which all community members are responsible. The culture of inclusion entails creating visibility, accessibility, and possibility. In sum, the 3C Project provides support and professional development for administration, faculty, Gabel; Disability Studies Framework 65 and staff to improve their ability to: (1) provide and facilitate contexts that support learning, (2) make content accessible to all learners, and (3) create a culture of inclusion. While it is necessary to involve students in creating a culture of inclusion, the social model of disability emphasizes the responsibility of society at large for dismantling barriers and creating inclusivity, so the 3C Project focuses on the responsibilities of university employees for creating an inclusive community. Policy Model and Process Part I: Policy Streams Part one of the model of policy activism (Gabel, 2008) is borrowed from Weiss’ (1990) scholarship on policy advocacy, a concept of policy making structured by argumentation and political timing in what John Kingdon (2003) calls the “policy primeval soup” (p. 116), where ideas fl oat around disconnected from problems or solutions. It is in this milieu that that ideas become prominent and then fade,” “soften up,” “confront one another and combine with one another in various ways” (Kingdon, 2003, pp. 116–117). The idea selection process, which leads to the development of new policy, depends on what Kingdon (2003) refers to as an open policy window, or that moment at which problems and potential solutions (or alternatives) convene with the political ripeness that creates opportunities for the policy worker to intervene, offer solutions, and infl uence change. At the postsecondary level, the policy soup can start bubbling for

The POSITIVES Scale: Development and Validation of a Measure of How Well the Information and Communication Technology Needs of Students with Disabilities Are Being Met.

Abstract: Data on perceptions of 1354 Canadian college and university students with disabilities about how well their information and communication technology (ICT) needs are being met on and off campus were collected. These formed the basis for the POSITIVES Scale (Postsecondary Information Technology Initiative Scale). The measure contains 26 items which use a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) to indicate level of agreement with each of the positively worded items. The Scale has three factor analysis derived subscales (ICTs at School Meet Student’s Needs, ICTs at Home Meet Student’s Needs, e-Learning ICTs Meet Student’s Needs) and a total score. Reliability and validity are excellent for both English and French versions. Versions that could be completed online, on paper (printable PDF), and within a Microsoft Word document were found to be equivalent. Both the measure and the norms are provided. Skill using information and communication technologies (ICTs) has become mandatory in postsecondary education and the workplace (Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003). For example, literature shows that computer use on the job is linked to higher salaries for employees both with and without disabilities (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2004; Kruse, Krueger, & Drastal, 1996). This makes it important that empirical data about the degree to which ICT related needs of learners with disabilities are being met is made available to decision makers involved in ICTs in postsecondary education. Having a means of gathering of such data will help to achieve this. The use of ICTs, including e-learning, both on campus and in distance education, is ubiquitous (Campus Computing Project, 2008). By now, it is self-evident that for students to succeed in postsecondary education they need to have good access to computer technologies both on and off campus (Green, 2005). As the numbers of students with disabilities in postsecondary education continue to rise both in Canada (Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2006; Tremblay & Le May, 2005) and the US (National Council on Disability, 2003), where a recent large scale study showed that in 2003-2004, 11% of undergraduates had a disability (Snyder & Dillow, 2007), so does the need to assure that the growing array of available ICTs on campus is accessible (Konur, 2007; Waddell, 2007). General Use ICTs, E-learning, and Adaptive Computer Technologies Students need to use a variety of general use software such as Microsoft Word for writing papers and e-mail programs as well as software related to their specialties (e.g., for statistical analyses, for virtual science experiments, for language tutorials). To succeed in college or universities, learners must also adapt to the extensive use of e-learning used by faculty (Abrami et al., 2006; Weller, Pegler, & Mason, 2005). This includes PowerPoint presentations in class, web-based discusJournal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 2; 2010 138 sions to further in-class dialogue, and the full range of ICTs that professors use when teaching their courses entirely in the classroom, entirely online, or a combination of both. Students are expected to download materials from course web sites, to access course management systems (CMS) such as WebCT and Blackboard, and to give presentations using PowerPoint. In addition to general use and e-learning ICTs, many students with disabilities also need to acquire and learn to use adaptive software as well as software which allows them to use ICTs effectively. ICTs have many benefits for students with disabilities. These include: the availability of online course notes and course materials; the ability to work at one’s own pace and to work and learn from home; the ease of communicating with peers and professors; the availability of information anywhere and at any time; autonomy and feeling more independent, confident and less stressed; the ability to keep up with the rest of the class; and to use materials in alternate formats (Fichten et al., 2009). Nevertheless, a variety of barriers can interfere with the effective use of ICTs. These include: poor accessibility of needed hardware and software necessary in labs and student work areas; inadequate administrative support and funding for the purchase of adaptive technologies and for disability services staffing and training; lack of awareness and knowledge about adaptive technologies among students with disabilities; unreliable and incompatible hardware and software; the cost of adaptive technologies and their upgrades; difficulties acquiring alternate format course materials; technical problems connecting to websites and course management systems; difficulties encountered using online discussions and activities; poor faculty awareness and support for students who use adaptive tehcnologies; inaccessibility of adapted audio and video clips; ergonomic issues; poor accessibility of course content, PowerPoint and data projection during in-class lectures; inaccessibility of course notes and materials; inadequate technical support for adaptive technologies; lack of technology/ software required for home access needs; poor use of e-learning by professors and their lack of knowledge of how to make e-learning accessible; and time limits on online exams/assignments (Michaels, Prezant, Morabito, & Jackson, 2002; Fichten, Jorgensen, Havel, & Barile, 2005; Fichten et al., 2009). Evaluation of How Well Students’ ICT Related Needs are Being Met An important aspect of increased use of ICTs on campus includes ongoing evaluation of how well these technologies meet the needs of students, faculty and other members of the institution’s constituencies (Educause, n.d.). Evaluation should be carried out for a variety of reasons. These include ensuring a return on investment, measuring penetration and acceptance, and pinpointing areas for improvement (Bullock & Ory, 2000). A neglected topic in such evaluations has been consideration of how well students with different disabilities perceived their ICT related needs being met. It was recently noted by Burton and Nieuwenhuijsen (2008) that, “The instruments currently used to measure issues and concerns about computer-related technologies among the disabled community clearly are inadequate” (p. 105). They recommended that survey items specifically applicable to computer related ICTs for individuals with disabilities be developed. This is especially true for postsecondary students with disabilities, where ICT use is ubiquitous. Recent investigations surveyed junior/community college and university adaptive computer technologists in seven countries, including the USA and Canada (Asuncion, Draffan, Guinan, & Thompson, 2009; Thompson, Draffan, & Patel, 2009). These investigations inquired about adaptive ICT use at postsecondary institutions. While these reports are based on extensive investigations of policies and practices, they did not evaluate the views and experiences of the students themselves. To obtain the student view, the present investigation explored the types of ICTs students indicated using on and off campus. Recently, we developed a scale concerning adaptive ICTs for campus disability service providers (Fossey et al., 2005) as well as a companion measure to evaluate the availability of adaptive ICTs from the students’ vantage point (Fichten, Nguyen, Barile, & Asuncion, 2007). Because of the variety of ICTs used by students with different disabilities, it is important to evaluate not only adaptive technologies, but all types of ICTs, including e-learning, general use products, and those needed for the student’s program of study. Therefore, in the present investigation we developed the POSITIVES Scale, a brief measure to evaluate how well the ICT related needs of postsecondary students with various disabilities are being met in a variety of contexts both on and off campus. Fichten, Asuncion, Nguyen, Budd, & Amsel; The POSITIVES Scale 139

How to Crip the Undergraduate Classroom: Lessons from Performance, Pedagogy, and Possibility.

Abstract: My work in disability performance studies has taken place within the context of a small liberal arts college over the past decade, and has been more multifaceted than I had ever expected. This essay was originally conceived as part of a panel convened at the Society for Disability Studies Conference in honor of the publication of Beyond Victims and Villains: Contemporary Plays by Disabled Playwrights (Lewis, 2006). I reference this volume, the first published collection of its kind, as a model and catalyst for defining strategies that educators wishing to incorporate disability studies into their campus community life, inside and outside of the classroom, might adopt. In the essay, I outline four such strategies and discuss them, using examples from my own experience: a) “cripping” the canon, b) “cripping” the curriculum, c) enlisting your colleagues in the performance of disability, and d) creating alternative on-campus performances of disability. In 2006, Theatre Communications Group published Beyond Victims and Villains: Contemporary Plays by Disabled Playwrights, edited by disability theater scholar Victoria Ann Lewis. Lewis’s anthology was the fi rst of its kind: As scholars of multicultural drama and women’s playwriting had before her, she looked to the history and current landscape of activism and theater in search of a previously disregarded community, seeking a wider representation of disabled playwrights. While a burgeoning cadre of scholars in disability studies and theater was producing work studying the history, aesthetics, and political/performance strategies of disability theater, very few plays by disabled playwrights were actually available in published form for classroom study and theatrical production. This absence suggests all too well the place disability holds in the theatrical canon and in the larger society of which theater is representative: hidden in plain sight. Ironically, many of the narratives about disability in American culture, as in American theater, have been grounded in a dual, paradoxical identity: the simultaneous erasure and hypervisibility of disability. In other words, the only two options typically

Walking the Walk: Modeling Social Model and Universal Design in the Disabilities Office.

Abstract: Making the shift from the medical model of disability to the social model requires postsecondary disabilities offices to carefully examine and revise policies and procedures to reflect this paradigm shift, which gives them the credibility to work toward such change on the campus level. The process followed by one university is covered in-depth, as well as outcomes and implications. An increasing number of disability professionals in higher education settings are promoting the concept of universal design (McGuire & Scott, 2006; Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger, 2003). The primary focus of these efforts has been on the instructional environment. A review of projects recently receiving federal funding to improve the quality of education for students with disabilities refl ects this same trend as the majority of these project provide resources and professional development to faculty, but do not address the disability service environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Block, Loewen, and Kroeger (2006) suggest that in order to “implement a change in philosophy on campus, staff in Disability Services offi ces must explore and identify changes they can make in their offi ces and departments in order to model the paradigm shift to other institutional staff.” Guzman (2008) challenges disability professionals to incorporate the disability studies perspective into the service model. Though this challenge has been issued to disability professionals, and several professionals are cited as restructuring the service environment, the professional literature is lacking in terms of models of implementation and in terms of the impact that these changes have on the campus environment. Problem Historically, society has viewed disability in a negative light. In this view, the disability is a “problem” that exists within the person and the goal is to “fi x” that person. This medical model view of disability has been central to our culture for so long that it should be no surprise that many people have a negative connotation of even the word “disability.” Project PACE at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), under what was then known as Disability Support Services (DSS), was the leader in moving the campus toward reframing disability and embracing the social model, which posits that disability is an aspect of one’s diversity, and therefore is not something to be viewed negatively (Gill, 1994). Faculty development was conducted in an effort to educate about universal design, and one-onone technical assistance was provided to help faculty and staff make this shift. It became apparent, however, that DSS was not modeling the behavior it was trying to teach, because DSS policies and practices clearly refl ected the medical model of disability. In order for efforts to promote social model and universal design to be credible, the DSS staff needed to take a step back, look inward and make changes that refl ected these Thornton, & Downs; PRACTICE BRIEF 73 core values. The staff recognized the need to explore messages conveyed through the name of the offi ce, mission statement, syllabus statement, letters to professors, documentation and guidelines, and all policies and procedures, and to modify those to be in line with the desired paradigm shift. Students and Location Information The UALR is a metropolitan commuter university centrally located in the state. Only a few miles from the UALR campus is Lion’s World Services for the Blind, the Arkansas School for the Deaf, and Arkansas School for the Blind. UALR has a large percentage of nontraditional students, with the average student age being 28 years. UALR has enjoyed a favorable reputation nationally for the work done by the disabilities offi ce, largely due to innovative grant projects over the last couple of decades. In addition, UALR has a dynamic online master’s degree program in rehabilitation counseling. For all of those reasons, UALR attracts many disabled students from the area and all over the country. Over 35% of students in the rehabilitation counseling program alone have disabilities (G.M. Szirony, personal communication, March 12, 2009). The University is known nationally for its innovative services for deaf and hard of hearing students, including an exemplary speech-to-text program, for creating disability-related professional development videos and handbooks that are utilized around the world, and for the support from administration in disability-related matters. Strategy In an effort to identify strategies for sustaining the changes being made on the UALR campus through a grant-funded program called Project PACE, the Director participated in an online course offered by AHEAD in the spring of 2006 entitled “Acknowledging and Transforming Disabling Environments.” As a direct result of this institute, the PACE Director met with the Director of the DSS offi ce at that time, Susan Queller, to discuss plans for modifying language and practices of the DSS offi ce. A planning retreat of the complete staff was held and this was included as one of the priorities for the offi ce’s fi ve-year plan. Preliminary discussion occurred among the staff regarding the rationale and purpose for this objective. The DSS management team met to establish priorities for change. As recommended in Block, Loewen, and Kroeger (2006), the management team did a preliminary review of the documents and web presence of the offi ce and analyzed them in terms of the messages they were sending, considering whether they refl ected social model or medical model approaches to disability. A cursory review clearly identifi ed a problem with consistency of message and resulted in the establishment of some initial priorities. A strategic planning approach to making changes was implemented to address the concerns that were identifi ed by the management team. This was a questiondriven process which posed the following questions: Who are we? Where are we now? Where are we going? How will we get there? How will we know when we are there? Through this process, the management team identifi ed several layers to address in the process of becoming more aligned with the vision of full inclusion of people with disabilities for the campus community—focusing solely on those areas under the purview of the disability service offi ce. The identifi ed areas of focus might be divided into four over-arching areas—language, policy, process, and practice—though it is acknowledged that some overlap exists between these broad categories. The management team chose as the fi rst priority and this area is thus the primary focus of this practice brief. Second to changing the name of the offi ce to Disability Resource Center (see Table 1), the mission statement was identifi ed as the most critical item to address. The entire DSS staff engaged in a discussion of the importance of changing the language in the mission statement and worked collaboratively to make changes to the language that refl ected current thinking about disability. The former mission statement was written several years prior and the language clearly refl ected medical model thinking. Words like “assisting.” “insure,” “support services,” “special needs,” and “allow” emphasize the disability professional as being the expert who is helping the student achieve access and success. The focus is on the student rather than the environment. Former mission statement: The mission of DSS is to eliminate physical and academic barriers and to fulfi ll the Division of Educational and Student Services concept of assisting students in achieving their educational, career, and personal goals through the full range of institutional and community resources. In addition, the offi ce was established to insure that students with special needs receive support services and accommodations to allow them equal access to all UALR programs, and that they have the opJournal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 1; 2010 74 Old Disability Support Services Problems • The terms “support” and “services” reflect a medical model perspective. They imply that students with disabilities need “support” and keep the focus on the student as the problem rather than placing the focus on environmental barriers. New Disability Resource Center Reasons for change • We want to create an image that is consistent with the other shifts we have made over the years. We are a resource to students and to the campus community and provide services to both. • Often, in fact, our role is to assist the campus community in creating more usable and inclusive environments. When this is accomplished, access for students with disabilities is seamless. • The name “Disability Resource Center” indicates that we are a resource to students as well as other members of the campus community. Through the years we have taken on the role of providing resources and technical assistance even beyond the campus community, in both a routine and very regular way when our colleagues from other institutions call us for assistance and advice, and through programs such as PACE and PEPNetSouth/Arkansas SOTAC. • Some offices are choosing names that place the focus more directly on the environment—such as Center for Educational Access or similar names. We acknowledge that these names do indeed reflect social model in that they place the responsibility for access less on the student and more on the environment. However, some proponents of name changes that remove the term “disability” argue that students steer away from their office because of that term. This is a reflection of the problems of our society and the lack of acceptance of diversity. We want to change the way people think about disability rather than shrink away from the reactions that people have to that term. We hope that through our work, our campus community will begin to see the power that goes along with that term and will embrace the rich his

Supporting a University Student Who Is Deaf-Blind in Writing for the Disciplines.

Abstract: Bhattacharyya (1997) finds that universities must scramble to accommodate students who are Deaf-blind “because of limited literature regarding post secondary education for Deaf-blind students and the fact they have not yet experienced serving this unique population.” This Brief focuses on a supportive collaboration between an Academic Language and Learning (ALL) tutor, a B.A. student with Deaf-blindness, and her interpreter.

A Paradigm Shift on Providing Alternative Formats of Textbooks.

Abstract: Providing services to students who qualify for textbooks in alternative, useable formats is a staple of many Disability Services Offices throughout higher education. This practice brief seeks to examine how current trends, along with a department’s willingness to evaluate its departmental, professional, and institutional cultures, can impact this process and a department’s greater mission. Literature Review When people with disabilities face discrimination, they are stereotyped and trapped in roles by societal expectations. They often face discrimination because they are perceived as people eligible for special privileges, such as altered hiring standards, giving the appearance that achievements are tainted (Smart, 2001). Because disability is often portrayed in a negative light, individuals may withdraw from an important part of who they are (Michalko, 2002). This form of self-denial could lead to a retreat from friendship, kindness, love, affection, and other desirable social attributes, for fear of rejection and further separation (Firestone, Firestone, & Catlett, 2003). The disability community has spent decades forming strategies to promote its demand for civil rights. This struggle consists of destroying stereotypes, capturing support and strategically building coalitions with other groups through identifying differing needs and agendas (Switzer, 2003). The landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 established the precedent that separate is inherently unequal (Goldman, 1991). Being aware of and actively fi ghting against separate but equal practices on college campuses allows Disability Service Providers an opportunity to further the push for Disability Rights. Problem It is benefi cial for disability-related offi ces to review practice, policy, procedures, and relationships both within their individual departments and in relation to other areas of their institutions. During a vetting process about textbooks in alternative formats and the role of the University Bookstore, several key issues arose. First, providing textbooks in a traditional print format to all students except students with disabilities (SWD) is a separate but equal practice and is in direct contrast to the principles of Universal Design Theory (Center for Universal Design, 2008). Second, the relationship between the University Bookstore and the Offi ce of Disability Services (ODS) did not mirror those with other key constituents on campus such as Residential Living, Facilities Management, or the Faculty Resource Center. Third, aspects of Western Carolina University’s (WCU) culture lent themselves to an open review and discussion about policy and procedures. Finally, a focus on advocacy and modeling instead of service providing was the preferred approach when working with SWD. Students and Location Students affected by the processes being addressed are those eligible for alternative text formats, such as texts in Braille, digital formats, or audio formats. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 22, No. 3; 2010 198 This is applicable to students with visual impairments, certain learning disabilities, and particular mobility impairments. The population is not limited by any demographic other than disability. WCU is a comprehensive regional university with a student population of approximately 9,000 in the mountains of western North Carolina. Strategic Reasoning Providing the same service to two categories of students each in their own unique location is an example of a separate but equal practice. A primary role of any offi cial university bookstore is to provide usable textbooks for the students on that campus, but if a student with a signifi cant visual impairment purchases a traditional textbook from the university’s bookstore, that textbook is not functional. Additional steps are then required to convert the text to a usable format. While it is possible for the student to convert his/her own textbook, he/she is more likely to approach the school’s ODS for conversion services, due to the sizable investment of time, money, and equipment. This dynamic makes ODS the de facto purveyor of usable textbooks for SWD. No other offi ce on campus offers textbooks to the students they serve. For example, do Multicultural Affairs Offi ces provide textbooks for minority students, or do women receive their textbooks from the Women’s Center? Why would that be different for SWD? An offi cial university bookstore providing usable textbooks to all students except students with print disabilities is not only a separate but equal practice, but also contradicts key principles of Universal Design. Universal Design is “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, 2008). There are three principles of Universal Design that apply to the provision of textbooks in alternative formats: Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use, and Perceptible Information. “Equitable Use” is the designing of goods or services to be usable by as many clients as possible without altering means of use, and without segregation or stigmatization of users. “Flexibility in Use” is the design of goods and services in formats that provide access with as little modifi cation as necessary. “Perceptible Information” is the presentation of pertinent information in a manner in which the user can access and use it (Center for Universal Design, 2008). The Center for Universal Design is located on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. In keeping with the principles espoused by the Center, there has been a formalization of the partnership between the North Carolina State University Bookstore and the Disability Services Offi ce. The crux of the arrangement is that the bookstore maintains an institutional membership to the Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic to assist in the provision of purchased texts in alternative formats. (C. Branker, personal communication, November 6, 2008). This example gives credibility to the concept of formalized partnerships. An institution of higher education, like many larger organizations, is comprised of many smaller groups or offi ces. While the end goal is the same for all members of the community, student learning and developmental growth, each department has its own mission and area of expertise. In many instances, ODS serves as a referral and resource to other offi ces in their missions. Examples of this include residential living, facilities management, and in various ways for faculty. In these partnerships, the divisions choose to serve all students, including SWD; and ODS does not attempt to duplicate the services provided by these specialists. Why does the partnership between university bookstores and ODS differ? Encouragement for the partnership between ODS and the offi cial university bookstore can emanate from an institution’s culture. In discussions with other professionals within the fi eld, a common thread emerged. Institutional culture was often seen as a limiting factor or inhibitor in the evaluation and implementation of new policies and procedures. Making a conscious effort to be aware of and engaged with the pillars of an institution’s culture can help to alleviate this barrier. These pillars are the decision makers, and building relationships with them can result in decreased professional isolation, increased engagement across departments, and a cooperative environment in which evaluation and innovation are encouraged. Two examples specifi c to WCU were the textbook rental program and the call for innovation and risk taking from the top levels of administration. WCU is one of a minority of higher education institutions that use a textbook rental program. The program applies to undergraduates only and is accompanied by a fl at fee that covers the primary text for each course up to 18 credit hours. Supplemental textbooks are purchased separately. Ownership of rented texts remains with the university. As with any rented property, the decision to modify resides with the owner and not the renter. Alexis & Kaufman; PRACTICE BRIEF 199 At the beginning of each academic year, the Chancellor and Provost hold an open forum to discuss the upcoming year. In this address, both top administrators made an open challenge to the staff and faculty of the university to be innovators, risk takers, and to engage in collaborative relationships across colleges, divisions, and departments. After attending the forum, ODS contacted the Chancellor and Provost to describe the efforts and reasoning behind a partnership between the ODS and the bookstore and how it benefi ts the university’s constituency. This information was shared to highlight the efforts of ODS to heed their call and to garner support. After establishing one’s position within the institution, it is benefi cial to examine the role fulfi lled within the profession. Service providing is an essential component of any ODS, but should this be the dominant modus operandi? In the absence of service providing, the main focus turns to advocacy and student development. Being able to implement outreach activities both on and off campus provide the staff of ODS the opportunity to reduce social stigmatization of persons with disabilities. Reducing stigmatization then leads to increased avenues to access and an openness to engage in disability culture. A campus that embraces this philosophy will be more welcoming and comfortable for SWD, enabling them to actively and fully participate in all aspects of campus life, which provides for greater growth and a natural student experience. Through outreach activities and taking on projects like transferring responsibility for providing alternative textbooks, the ODS is modeling behavior that refl ects personal empowerment and self advocacy. Observed Outcomes After garnering support from t