Responses

Michael Discussion:

As the laws stand now, students with disabilities have a right to a full participation in a college or university's educational program. The result of legislation from the last forty years is that colleges have seen an increase in students with various disabilities. Accommodations are required by law, such has extended time, note takers, waiving a language requirement, etc. However, modifications are not legally required at the college level, e.g., students with disabilities are required to write a six page paper and other students a ten page paper. Therefore, students with disabilities need to perform academically with only accommodations in place and not modifications. 

This week's discussion prompt asks our opinion on whether or not institutions should be legally obligated to provide services that remove barriers for students with disabilities and if there should be limits on the extent of the services provided. The first part of the question has been answered for us by the courts. The courts have decided that institutions of higher education are obligated to provide accommodations. In most cases the accommodations are reasonable and fair. The second part of the question about the extent to which the services should be provided leaves room for disagreement and is where lawsuits probably arise.  

The answer to the extent of the services provided depends on the nature of the disability. At a certain point there is a limit to the accommodations that can be provided. To avoid a lawsuit it may be best to allow the student to reach his/her own conclusions about their ability to succeed in a certain major or program.  Note that I referred to a major or program. I am not suggesting that the student has no place in college, but that students with disabilities need to match the academic program to their skill set. And students with more severe disabilities may not be able to attend college because the amount of accommodations needed to be successful may not be possible.  However, if the student or his/her parents start to demand unreasonable accommodations that would make the academic quality of the student's education questionable the school must, at a certain point, say no and deny certain accommodations. There is a limit within reason.  

Part of the confusion arrises from the fact that in K-12 schools students are allowed modifications. In some cases the modifications are rather generous. If parents and students do not realize that the same accommodations are not available at the college level they may think college is more accessible than it is. 

Ross Discussion:

University of Texas v. Camenisch, was an early case involving a student in need of sign language interpreter services. According to Kaplin & Lee, the university denied the student’s request because he “did not meet the university’s established criteria for financial assistance to graduate students and should therefore pay for his own interpreter” (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p.394). The student in this case alleged that the university had violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to Kaplin & Lee, this regulation “does obligate institutions to provide such services, and this obligation apparently is not negated by the student’s ability to pay” (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p.394).

If institutions are legally obligated to provide services that remove barriers for students with disabilities then the institutions must be financially prepared to provide those services for their students. I disagree with a student being denied a request because they do not meet criteria for financial assistance. If the institution is not receiving enough federal and state funds to cover and meet the regulations that they have put in place, then the institution needs to look elsewhere for funds to provide these services to students. “Funding may come from the institution’s regular budget, from mandatory fees, from revenues generated by charging for the service, from government or private grants, or from donates and earmarked funds” (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p.390-391). I think that institutions should be obligated to provide services for students with disabilities, because cases like University of Texas v. Camenisch makes me think that if they are not required or obligated to do so then they will not.

I also think that students need to be proactive in receiving the services that they need. They can do so by “presenting documentation of their disability to DSS offices” (Summers, White, Zhang, & Gordon, 2014, p.). There is a process in place and it should be followed, so that students don’t go without the tools that they need to succeed in higher education. Apparently, the change from high school to college is great because “students and their parents are often surprised to find that the IEP that served to guide accommodation in high school is not sufficient documentation in postsecondary institutions” (Summers, White, Zhang, & Gordon, 2014, p.). I think that the extent or limit to the accommodations provided to the student should be those which are included in their IEP, if their current needs are not met by that IEP then it should be reevaluated and then the institution will know what new or additional services the student is currently in need of.

References

Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals (2nd ed.). San   Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Summers, J. A., White, G. W., Zhang, E., & Gordon, J. M. (2014). Providing support to postsecondary students with disabilities to request accommodations: A framework for intervention. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 37(3), 245-206. doi:1048787

 

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390. (1981). Retrieved from   https:supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/451/390/case.html