|
People with Disabilities and Postsecondary
Education Position Paper
National Council on Disability
Lex Frieden, Chairperson
September 15, 2003
Executive Summary
The National Council on Disability (NCD) undertook
this synthesis in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act (HEA). Students with disabilities, who now are estimated
to represent nearly 10 percent of all college students, currently
experience outcomes far inferior to those of their non-disabled
peers, despite the fact that research shows that they are more likely
to obtain positive professional employment outcomes after degree
completion than their peers. The purpose of this paper is to provide
background that might guide reauthorization of the HEA to better
support students with disabilities to achieve equal postsecondary
outcomes.
Detailed information is presented here on interrelated
issues impacting student preparation and access to postsecondary
education: participation, retention and persistence towards degree
completion; financial aid barriers; difficulties in interagency
collaboration; emerging needs in personnel preparation; and gaps
in the research base guiding policy and practices. There are five
broad areas for policy makers to address in the reauthorization
of the HEA. NCD's recommendations draw from the extant research
and from the direct input of youth with disabilities:
1) Improving Postsecondary Education
Access through the Formation of a Federal Commission. A Federal
Commission is needed to investigate and resolve discrepancies and
issues across secondary and postsecondary institutions and to study
and develop solutions for systemic transition problems for students
with disabilities.
2) Improving Access to Postsecondary
Education by Providing Information on Postsecondary Educational
Support Provision. A national Web-based Assessment Center
and Register of organized data and information on disability supports
and services is recommended to enable students and families to better
anticipate what supports and services will be needed, and whether
they are available, in postsecondary settings.
3) Improving Participation
and Persistence in Postsecondary Education through Formation of
a National Technical Assistance Network. A national network
of technical assistance centers should be established to assist
faculty and disability support programs in postsecondary education
settings, and to provide effective practice models, training of
faculty and support personnel, and technical assistance to programs
and people with disabilities.
4) Improving Financial Aid for People
with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education with New Flexibility.
Amendments to the Higher Education Act are needed to remove
barriers to financial aid for students with disabilities and to
provide funds for research, demonstrations, and training on disability-related
financial aid issues.
5) Addressing Emerging Needs
through Targeted Personnel Preparation and Research. Postsecondary
education personnel preparation should include research and training
on disability-related supports and services and should emphasize
recruiting, educating and providing accommodations to teachers with
disabilities.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education
A. Preparation to Access Postsecondary Education
B. Performance in Postsecondary Education
C. Attainment of Employment Following Postsecondary Education
III. Issues for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities
A. Issues of Access to Postsecondary Education
1. Issues in Preparation for Postsecondary Education
2. Issues in Transition to Postsecondary Education
B. Issues of Student Progress in Postsecondary Education
1. Participation
2. Retention and Persistence
C. Financial Aid Issues
1. Cost and Time Factors
2. Social Security Issues
3. Issues Concerning Eligibility for, and Retention of, Federal
Aid
4. Specific Financial Burdens Associated with Disabilities
5. Financial Aid and the Higher Education Act
D. Issues of Interagency Collaboration and Postsecondary
Education
1. Fragmentation and Inconsistencies in Service
Provision
2. Differences in Service Emphases
E. Emerging Areas of Need
1. Issues of Personnel Preparation
2. Gaps in the Knowledge Base
IV. Recommendations for Policy Makers
A. Addressing Access Issues through the Formation
of a Federal Commission
B. Addressing Access Issues by Providing Information on Postsecondary
Educational Support
C. Addressing Participation and Persistence Issues through the
Formation of a National Technical Assistance Network
D. Addressing Financial Aid Issues through Flexibility
E. Addressing Emerging Needs through Personnel Preparation and
Research
1. Training of Personnel
2. Further Research
3. Further Study in Financial Aid
4. Further Support for Disability Demonstration Efforts
V. Conclusion
References
I. Introduction
Americans of every historical era and demographic
group have recognized the power of education to transform the lives
of people and sustain the life of democracy. Gradual changes in
the labor market have rendered a postsecondary education critical
to professional success. Leadership in the nation's business, information,
and commerce sectors has pointed to the need for highly educated
workers, competent in higher-order thinking and technical skills,
as the nation seeks to thrive in the competitive global economy.
Completion of postsecondary education, including vocational-technical
training, significantly improves the chances of securing gainful
and satisfying employment and achieving financial independence.
Students with and without disabilities who earn Bachelor of Arts
degrees are almost on par in terms of attainment of subsequent employment
(OSERS, USDOE, November 29, 2000; Harris eSurvey, 2000; HEATH Survey,
1998).
Policy and curricular changes at the secondary level
have been supported by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) and Title II of the HEA under the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB). These adjustments have focused on improving academic
achievement and post-school expectations for students with disabilities
with the hope of facilitating access to higher education. Although
supported in secondary education under IDEA, students with disabilities
who succeed in secondary education are not receiving services to
help them prepare for the disability-related challenges they will
encounter during the post-school years. (Brinckerhoff, 1994; Izzo,
Hertzfeld, & Aaron, 2001). Their lack of transition preparation
has potential consequences for those college students who are unprepared
to make financial decisions, learn about legal rights, and self-advocate
for their support needs. Students with disabilities who access postsecondary
education find the provision of assistance is no longer automatic
or standardized under one federal rubric. The Rehabilitation Act
and the ADA do not mandate specific accommodations. Individual institutions
have considerable discretion to interpret the parameters of the
reasonable accommodations required by law. Resources are often inadequate
and disconnected. The type, range, availability of, and terms related
to services are often widely discrepant and poorly integrated while
access to mentors or technological training is either limited or
non existent (Stodden, Jones & Chang, 2002).
In subsequent employment, fewer young adults with
disabilities possessing a Bachelor of Arts degree work full time
when compared with people without disabilities holding the same
degree (National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports, 2002). Individuals with disabilities are more than twice
as likely to live below the poverty line as those without disabilities
(New Freedom Initiative, 2001). Fewer individuals with disabilities
are employed when compared with those people without disabilities.
Of those people with disabilities who are employed, the vast majority
work at low-paying, non-professional jobs, which lack prestige,
come with no security, room for advancement, or significant medical
or retirement benefits (Stoddard, Jans, Ripple, & Krauss, 1998).
Researchers and practitioners in the field of disability
and postsecondary education have amassed substantial data which
is evidence of the great strides made since legislators first recognized
the rights of people with disabilities and also of the value of
their participation in and completion of postsecondary education.
Professionals have also ascertained numerous barriers and gaps in
knowledge that remain. In fact, the knowledge gleaned from data
remains vastly insufficient to the knowledge still to be found.
The relative paucity of research is evidence of the newness of the
field of study, but such gaps in knowledge render the enactment
of policy changes leading to continued progress on an appreciable,
universal scale difficult. Therefore, we recommend that evidence
based research be conducted to provide a comprehensive foundation
of knowledge from which evidence-based strategies may be determined.
We recommend that research:
- Document the importance and value of postsecondary
education for people with disabilities through close secondary
analysis of extant data sets.
- Determine the current status of people with disabilities
in postsecondary education by expanding the National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS).
- Gather data on a national level in order to acknowledge
services and accommodations for postsecondary students with disabilities;
to learn about the ways in which student education, accommodations,
medical and other services are financed; and to understand the
differences in services provided, costs to students, and success
rates from state-to-state.
- Explore the issues that contribute to this current
status through a number of effectiveness studies focusing upon
specific factors that lead to successful outcomes for students
with disabilities.
- Include disability statistics in the data collected
by the Student Aid Recipient Survey conducted by the Commissioner
of Education Statistics, so that analysis of student expenses
and ability to repay loans can include this information (Higher
Education Act Section 131).
The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, therefore,
must contain a mandate to conduct a national study that will yield
a clearinghouse for the collection, classification, and ongoing
dissemination of data regarding the status of people with disabilities
in postsecondary education and subsequent professional employment.
It should include the institutional characteristics and legislative
policies both conducive and preclusive to their positive outcomes.
The study should take a holistic view of this growing population,
recognizing the interdependent relationships between students with
disabilities, natural supports, disability support staff, service
providers, federal funding agencies, secondary and postsecondary
staff and faculty, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers.
At the same time, we further recommend the funding of broad-scale
demonstration and intervention studies aimed at improving outcomes
and success rates of students with disabilities in postsecondary
education and beyond.
Congress is encouraged to review the most promising
evidence based practices arising from previous studies and to enact
the changes in federal policy that will best support the efforts
of students with disabilities. These changes should encompass preparation
for, transition to, access to, retention in, and completion of postsecondary
education. We further urge Congress to consider the recommendations
of this study, as well as those of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities in drafting the reauthorization of the HEA.
II. People with Disabilities and Postsecondary
Education
In order to provide a comprehensive knowledge base
from which recommendations for evidence based practices and policies
may be determined, it is necessary to know the status of people
with disabilities today in postsecondary education. Information
should be included about their status in the settings which lead
up to higher education and follow it - that is, secondary education
and employment environments. The information provided below is evidence
that there has been steady but limited progress in all areas leading
to improved quality of life for this population. However, change
has been slowed by systemic barriers at all educational levels and
complex interactions between the services available. Subsequent
discussion of the issues leading to this current status will clarify
the need for changes in policy and continued research.
A. Preparation to Access Postsecondary Education
For nearly two decades, significant changes have been
reported regarding the practices by which students with disabilities
are prepared for post-school success, including their preparation
for college or university. Among the positive results for students
with disabilities are (NCSPES, 2002; OSERS, 2000):
- The percentage of students with disabilities graduating
from high school with a diploma has risen steadily in recent years
(51.7% in 1994 to 55.4% in 1998).
- The percentage of adults with disabilities who
report completing high school increased significantly between
1986 and 2000 (61% in 1986 to 78% in 2000).
- The number of students with disabilities dropping
out of high school has begun to decrease (35% dropped out in 1994,
compared to 31% in 1998).
Nevertheless, students with disabilities continue
to lag behind their cohorts without disabilities in terms of postsecondary
academic preparedness. The U.S. Department of Education's 21st Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA reported that
a smaller percent of students with disabilities graduated with high
school diplomas from 1996 to 1998, compared to students without
disabilities (US DOE, 1999). Furthermore, the following data indicates
a gap in efforts to provide appropriate and equal opportunity to
this population (NCSPES, 2002).
- Youth with disabilities drop out of high school
at twice the rate of their peers without disabilities.
- At the present time, fully 85% of all high school
dropouts have some kind of disability (US DOE, 1999).
- Students with disabilities are less likely than
their peers without disabilities to complete a full secondary
school academic curriculum, especially in math and science curriculum
areas.
- Youth with disabilities seldom attend or have
any but the most perfunctory involvement in their Individualized
Education Program (IEP) meetings (Abery & Stancliffe, 1996), thus
are rarely prepared with a post-school transition plan.
- When ranked according to how qualified they were
for college admission, students with disabilities were "much less
likely to be even minimally qualified," based on an index score
of grades, class rank, NELS composite test scores, and SAT/ACT
scores (NCES, 1999)
Also of concern is the data that indicates that many
students with disabilities are not being appropriately identified
and served during childhood and adolescent years. The following
statistics may be the result of delay in the diagnosis and identification
of individual disabilities:
- In a recent study, 31% of the participants with
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) indicated that their disability
was first identified at the postsecondary level (NCSPES, 2002).
- When declaring a primary disability, 44% of the
participants with an attention deficit disorder (ADD) indicated
that their disability was first identified at the postsecondary
level.
B. Performance in Postsecondary Education
Given the substantial research conducted through the
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
(NCSPES) and other agencies, as well as the implementation of various
legislative mandates and the consequent growing awareness concerning
students with disabilities, there are a number of positive developments
supporting the access and retention of people with disabilities
in postsecondary education and subsequent employment. Among the
positive outcomes of various federal directives and initiatives,
and increased awareness, are (Harris eSurvey, 2000; HEATH Survey,
1998; US DOE, 2000):
- The percentage of college freshmen with a disability
has more than tripled over the last twenty years (3% in 1978 to
over 9% in 1998).
- The number of high school graduates with disabilities
matriculating in postsecondary education has risen from 3% in
1978 to 19% in 1996 (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Dukes & Shaw, 1999).
- One in eleven (or, 154,520) first-time, full-time
freshmen entering college in 1998 self-reported a disability ranging
from hearing, speech, orthopedic, learning, health-related, partially
sighted or blind, or other conditions (HEATH, 1999).
- More than 50% of students with disabilities enrolling
in postsecondary education persist toward a degree or credential.
- Nearly all public postsecondary institutions enroll
students with disabilities (approximately 98% of public institutions
in 1998).
- Most postsecondary education institutions enrolling
students with disabilities provide some level of services, supports,
or accommodations to assist their access to education.
However, despite these above areas of progress - which
pertain mostly to beginning college rather than long term outcomes
- significant complications remain. The Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) mandates that all postsecondary institutions "are required
by law to provide any reasonable accommodation that may be necessary
for those people with an identified disability to have equal access
to the educational opportunities and services available to non-disabled
peers, if requested" (PL 101-336; PL 105-17). The nature of this
language allows variant interpretation and likely causes the differences
in implementation and outcomes seen across the nation (Stodden,
Jones, & Chang, 2001). Recent research reports the following information
(National Survey of Educational Support Provision, 2000; National
Focus Groups of Youth with Disabilities, 2000):
- Youth with disabilities are significantly less
likely to start postsecondary education than are their peers without
disabilities (27% of students with disabilities transition to
postsecondary education compared to 68% of their peers without
disabilities).
- Of all students pursuing postsecondary education,
students with disabilities are significantly more likely to be
enrolled in sub-baccalaureate programs such as two-year colleges
or "other" institutions such as for-profit vocational institutions.
(NCES, 1999).
- Young adults with disabilities in postsecondary
education are less likely to persevere and complete a degree or
certificate than are their peers without disabilities.
- On average, students with disabilities who finish
postsecondary education take twice as long to complete their degree
than do their non-disabled peers, yet special provisions for financial
aid are not in place.
- More than 80% of youth with disabilities who attempt
postsecondary education require some assistance to manage/coordinate
their educational and related services.
C. Attainment of Employment Following Postsecondary
Education
The value of a postsecondary education to youth with
disabilities cannot be over-stated. When this population is not
supported through policies that enhance its chances for success
in college and professional employment, the cost to the nation is
likely to be higher. This is so because of the supplemental and/or
dependent support they may require from others, and the likelihood
that they will need to take out extra student loans to manage additional
costs associated with their disabilities. Yet, the quality of life
for individuals with disabilities is improved dramatically through
increased participation in meaningful employment, community involvement
and social acceptance. However, for individuals who do not obtain
a degree in a postsecondary education program, prospects for finding
meaningful and renumerative employment are increasingly limited.
The barriers within postsecondary education that obstruct
the progress of students with disabilities bring about the following
employment-related realities:
- Individuals with disabilities are more than twice
as likely to live below the poverty line as individuals without
disabilities (New Freedom Initiative, 2001).
- Individuals with disabilities are less likely to
be employed than individuals without disabilities, across all
age groups (NCSPES, 2002). Only 49% of individuals with disabilities
are employed versus 79% of individuals without disabilities (U.S.
Census of Population and Housing, 2000). The employment rates
for individuals with cognitive impairments and significant disabilities
are even lower (Kiernan, 2002).
- 67% of youth with disabilities with a Bachelor
of Arts degree were working full time compared with 73% for people
without disabilities holding the same degree (National Center
for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports, 2002).
- Of those people with disabilities who are employed,
less than one half of one percent are professionals. Instead,
the vast majority of individuals with disabilities who are employed
work at low paying, non-professional jobs which require no higher
education, are associated with less prestige, and provide no security,
room for advancement, or significant medical/retirement benefits
(Stoddard, Jans, Ripple, & Krauss, 1998).
- Working-age adults with disabilities consistently
earn less than do their peers without disabilities.
- Employers are "resistant to hiring workers with
disabilities because of their discomfort in having these workers,
their concerns about costs, or their belief that such workers
do not have the skills to perform particular jobs" (CWD, 2003,
p.1). However, 61% of employers reported the average cost of accommodations
for their employees with disabilities was $500 or less (CWD, 2003).
- Other people's low expectations for people with
disabilities are often internalized. A recent research project
found that people with disabilities "seem to be learning at an
early age that they have only two options-to perform a menial
job or apply for SSI benefits at age 18 rather than aspiring to
higher education or a professional career" (Half the Planet Foundation,
Section V, 2002).
- 36% of employed people with disabilities report
encountering at least one instance of discrimination in the workplace
due to their disabilities (National Organization on Disability,
2000).
- The ADA allows employers to have much more discretion
in the ways in which support can be provided than do secondary
or postsecondary schools. As such, there is a tendency for employers
to provide assistance based solely on cost (NCSPES, 2002), which
can often lead to inadequate accommodations or none at all.
Furthermore, individuals with disabilities who do
not have a college degree are significantly less likely to own a
computer or reap the professional and social benefits of electronic
"networking" than individuals with disabilities who have graduated
from college. While only 12.7 percent of non-graduates with disabilities
own computers, the percentage jumps to 46.5 percent for people with
disabilities who have obtained college degrees. Moreover, only 2.4
percent of people with disabilities who lack high school diplomas
use the Internet compared with 30.2 percent of college graduates
with disabilities who regularly log on (Kaye, 2000). This lack of
computer access is a potentially significant problem for people
with disabilities. Assistive technology is an important tool for
overcoming disability-related obstacles while computer access helps
students learn about self-advocacy and their rights in the postsecondary
setting. Individuals with disabilities who do not obtain a college
degree or a certificate of completion of advanced education are
known to show more restricted participation in community and leisure
time activities, more dependency on parents and federal and state
cash transfer programs, and significantly lower rates of home ownership
(Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003; Snow, Wallace & Munro,
2001; Radnitz, Tirch, Vincinguerra & Moran, 1999).
Many of the negative outcomes for youth with disabilities
described above are the result of problems that have been ongoing
and compounding for decades. Serious gaps remain in the services
and supports provided to this population. It is not through lack
of effort on the part of policy makers, advocates and people with
disabilities that this is so. Myriad issues must be examined to
fully understand what is preventing our efforts to move forward
and produce results in a more timely manner. Careful consideration
must be given to the barriers students with disabilities face as
they transition to and through the environments related to education.
It is also important to understand how these settings connect, or
fail to connect, and exactly how inadequately addressed issues in
childhood build upon each other and present even greater challenges
at the postsecondary level. In preparing to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act, it is important to focus on the positive outcomes
that have been reported for youth with disabilities, and to expand
and enhance the strategies and practices that are known to improve
outcomes.
III. Issues for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities
Barriers exist for people with disabilities in both
secondary and postsecondary educational settings, as well as in
the provision of government-funded support services. Progress has
often been far too slow, hindered by systemic structural and pedagogical
obstacles. There has been consistent but limited progress over the
past decade for youth with disabilities (AYPF & CEP, 2002). Current
practices and policies continue to hinder the progress of students
with disabilities as they seek to access, persist in, and complete
their education in secondary and postsecondary settings. These problems
include: discrepancies in service delivery modules and terminologies;
lack of interagency collaboration, and inadequate funding for resources
and staff development. Ultimately, student employment opportunities
are limited. The issues below are presented in detail to facilitate
and lend clarity of vision to efforts to ameliorate the outcomes
for youth with disabilities in higher education.
A. Issues of Access to Postsecondary Education
Education is the key factor in achieving employment
and thus an enhanced quality of life for people with disabilities.
The right of entry, or access, which is defined in the 1996 Oxford
Dictionary as the "right or opportunity to reach, or enter, or visit",
to postsecondary education is wrought with barriers for youth with
disabilities. One of the problematic areas encompassed is preparation
for and transition to postsecondary education programs. Without
access to higher education, youth with disabilities find restricted
opportunities for meaningful employment and are therefore denied
the higher standard of living that greater numbers of their non-disabled
peers enjoy.
1. Issues in Preparation for Postsecondary Education
In order to access postsecondary
education, students with disabilities must first successfully complete
a recognized program of academic study in secondary education. During
secondary school, the emphasis is often on providing youth with
disabilities with prescriptive, specialized services and supports
focused specifically upon remediating learning or behavior deficits
experienced by the student. Students with disabilities are often
not active participants in the decision making process around the
determination of their supports (Abery & Stancliffe, 1996). They
often leave secondary school without advocacy skills and without
knowledge of the impact that their disability has upon their learning
or of the related modes of assistance which can help mitigate this
impact. Furthermore, they are without an understanding of how to
negotiate postsecondary settings, where the focus is on providing
"reasonable accommodations" rather than on detailing services focused
upon meeting individual needs (Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003; NCSPES,
2002). Therefore, students with disabilities are leaving the secondary
education setting without the essential skills of access to higher
education: self-determination and self-advocacy.
Critical components to postsecondary education access
are the skills of self-determination and self-advocacy. Efforts
have been made over the past twenty years to teach youth with disabilities
these skills (i.e. decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting
and attainment, leadership) based on teacher interpretation of self-determination.
Rather, these efforts should be based on providing real, authentic
opportunities to make decisions and accept consequences (Brinckerhoff,
1994; Izzo et al., 2001). As discussed above, numerous self-determination
projects recently have begun to show more promise, but no longitudinal
data exists that demonstrates the degree of success of these projects
empirically (Wood & Test, 2001). Moreover, the projects were mostly
limited to a particular district or individual school and cannot
contribute to a clearinghouse of evidence-based practices. Thus
the strategy of teaching self-determination, widely believed to
be a promising practice, is not being extensively implemented at
the secondary school level, or even at the postsecondary level.
Without the skills of self-advocacy and self-determination, students
with disabilities seeking secondary education will find this an
extremely difficult goal to achieve.
Even with the implementation of promising programs,
students with disabilities may find it difficult to achieve high
academic standards due to the failure of many secondary institutions
to provide adequate or appropriate curriculum (Berliner & Biddle,
1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Hatch, 1998). According to Stodden, et
al, there is a tendency for secondary schools to place students
with disabilities in special classrooms where they may receive substandard
secondary curricular content (Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003; Stodden,
Galloway, & Stodden, 2003). For instance, the highly prescriptive
service system covered by IDEA, in which professionals and parents
often make decisions, hinders the opportunity for students with
disabilities to develop and practice their self-determination and
self-advocacy skills (Izzo & Lamb 2002). As mentioned earlier, students
are simply observers of the IEP and transition process, and do not
gain knowledge about their disability. This problem is exacerbated
by other institutional factors which include problems with disability
identification in secondary institutions (Thurlow, 2001), poor use
and application of promising technology (Burgstahler, 2002), poor
coordination and management of supports and services (Whelley, Hart,
& Zafft, 2002) and lack of clarity among professionals and families
about the necessary supports and accommodations to provide (Stodden,
Conway, & Chang, 2003).
Furthermore, many academic and career counselors lack
the necessary skills to provide guidance to students with disabilities.
State-standard based curricula and assessment measures that are
designed without input from special educators are likely to needlessly
increase challenges to students with disabilities and their teachers
(Stodden, Galloway, Stodden, 2003). Teacher concerns such as inadequate
professional development, excessive paperwork, and attrition specifically
resulting from these problems, are likely to negatively impact the
achievement of students with disabilities (AYPF & CEP, 2002). Oftentimes,
secondary school students are left with inadequate direction and
counsel due to a lack of coordination among teachers and counseling
staff. In addition, teachers, career counselors, administrators,
family members and students themselves possess low expectations
and a limited sense of opportunity (Stodden, Jones, & Chang, 2002),
consequently leaving students with a sense of failure before they
have even begun to explore their interests and aspirations.
When supports and services are available, too often
such services are primarily focused on the students achieving a
single academic outcome rather than a continuum of outcomes leading
to a successful transition (Izzo & Lamb, 2002; Stodden, Conway,
& Chang, 2003). Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on
the definition of "successful outcomes." For example, if obtaining
a GED or high school diploma is viewed as a successful outcome,
then the preparation process may be viewed as stopping with the
completion of high school. Most notably, many special education
services offered in secondary school are not offered in postsecondary
education institutions. Hence, the selective process of developing
certain skills or goals is unlikely to ameliorate the ability of
students with disabilities to face upcoming challenges in their
transition to and participation in postsecondary education.
2. Issues in Transition to Postsecondary Education
The National Council on Disability, in its study on
transition, stated that endeavors to promote a smooth transition
from secondary to postsecondary education have not met the goals
of federal laws and initiatives, such as IDEA and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act. The Council attributes this to a number
of factors, including the methods of transition planning, which
does not involve the students themselves, as well as inadequate
allocation of resources (NCD, 2000). Also, evidence shows that there
is a failure of secondary and postsecondary schools to establish
paths of communication and concert their efforts. Doubtlessly adding
to the difficulty of the task, state and local education agencies
across the United States are currently experiencing a shortage of
qualified personnel to serve children and youth with disabilities
(AYPF & CEP, 2002). According to the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities, some 3000 more teachers are needed to teach special
education in higher education. (www.c-c-d, September 3, 2003).
Further complicating current secondary school transition
efforts is the lack of awareness among educators and parents regarding
the policy contrast between IDEA at the secondary level and ADA
and Section 504 at the postsecondary level. Many secondary schools
lack a formal structure to assist students in planning to adjust
to the highly discrepant laws governing secondary and postsecondary
education (Stodden, Galloway & Stodden, 2003). They do not tailor
the delivery of services and instruction toward strengthening the
links between secondary and postsecondary education. The result
is that students themselves, parents and other natural supports
are often "caught unawares" when the level of service provision
drops off and/or is not automatically extended following high school
(Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003). The lack of knowledge about differences
in their rights, services, and funding has the effect of discouraging
or possibly even barring students with disabilities from higher
education.
As they endeavor to access postsecondary education,
students may find that circumstances vary significantly from college
to college, and from state to state. Each college provides differing
levels of and types of support. Some institutions employ a single
counselor to take responsibility for disability issues. In such
institutions, staff members provide advice and letters to professors
verifying that a student request for accommodations is justified.
Little else may be provided. At other schools, multiple staff members
coordinate services and accommodations for students with disabilities
so that the educational environment provides supplementary support
and additional staff is prepared to teach them about self-advocacy
(Youth Advisory Committee NCD, 2003).
In conclusion, the challenge to locate and advocate
for services and accommodations can be quite frustrating. The various
systems feature limited resources, inconsistent terminology, disconnected
agencies, inconsistent laws, and conflicting eligibility requirements.
This is difficult to manage, even for the most self-determined student
(Whelley, Hart, and Zafft, 2002). Ultimately, without a functioning,
successful transition program from secondary to postsecondary education
youth with disabilities find themselves burdened with additional
disadvantages.
B. Issues of Student Progress in Postsecondary Education
The passage of IDEA and other laws, such as the Rehabilitation
Act in 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, are
largely responsible for the increase in postsecondary education
enrollment among students with disabilities over the past three
decades (HEATH, 1999). Statistic shows, however, that the retention
rates in postsecondary education among students with disabilities
have been considerably low (Stodden, 2001). Part of the overall
reason for lack of retention is the limited attention given by academic
institutions to the needs of people with disabilities during their
participation in higher education. Critical to the success of these
students are factors that influence their general aptitude. This
section addresses issues in the performance, persistence and retention
of people with disabilities in postsecondary education.
Full student participation is critical for the progress
and achievement in postsecondary education. Inability to contribute
and participate in the overall learning process is detrimental to
the accumulation of knowledge. On the other hand, factors affecting
persistence and retention are generally tantamount to students'
vulnerability in their transition, failure, cessation, and early
suspension in their attendance in higher education. Addressing issues
of performance, persistence and retention is vital to the empowerment
of students with disabilities in completing their postsecondary
education. Currently, responsibility for the provision of assistance
to students with disabilities at the postsecondary level is much
less clear and unequivocally defined. For instance, the Rehabilitation
Act and the ADA state that students must be accommodated "within
reason" and that these accommodations should be at the expense of
the institution (Rosenfeld, 2002; Thomas, 2000). Resources in higher
educational institutions are often inadequate, leaving disability
service units in the position of having to make decisions based
upon budgetary considerations rather than upon proven effectiveness
(NCSPES, 2000). Often times these concerns in providing assistance
to youth with disabilities are treated as a low level priority among
academic institutions (NCSPES, 2000). Moreover, there are no current
mandates regarding what kinds of accommodations should be provided,
where and by whom, and no minimum standards of support provision.
As a consequence, institutional drawbacks have a major impact on
the quality of performance in the progress and achievement of people
with disabilities.
1. Participation
For most students, participation in postsecondary
education is not limited to being physically present in a lecture
hall. It is the possibility to ask questions, to discuss ideas with
classmates, to have a critical conversation with professors about
papers, to reflect upon readings, to explore the library, to have
access to information in accessible formats at the same time as
their non-disabled classmates, to work on a research project, to
have coffee with friends, to participate at campus social and cultural
events, and really take part in the college experience. A quality
education is about coming away from each campus experience having
gained knowledge about, and insight into, a wide variety of human
experiences and disciplines. Most critically, it is about being
able to do these things without the kind of hardship that exceeds
that of the typical student during the postsecondary educational
year.
For most students with disabilities, however, the
concerns amplify as issues surrounding their probable lack of skills
in self-advocacy and determination, social life needs, availability
of educational assistance, differences in academic requirements,
and limited preparation to postsecondary education become a primary
pre-occupation (Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001). In many
ways, these concerns become stumbling blocks to the pursuit of higher
education. As one would expect, problems arise when there are institutional
inadequacies in providing services that would accommodate people
with disabilities. Background characteristics associated with their
socio-economic status, financial factors, race, availability of
supports, parental background, and distance from their school are
often involved.
One factor affecting participation of people in postsecondary
education is the limited availability of educational and related
supports within academic institutions. As mentioned earlier, inadequate
preparation in self-advocacy and self-determination plays a vital
role in the success of all students in higher education. Once a
student enters higher education, the lack of student input and selective
emphases in servicing students may leave disabled students at a
disadvantage in exercising self-advocacy skills. Most supports do
not cater directly to the individualized needs of students with
disabilities. For example, teacher-centered, instead of student-centered,
curricula have been for years a dominant approach in teaching at
the postsecondary level. In this case, the learning process defeats
opportunities for students to further their practice of using knowledge
amassed. Limited implementation of a student-centered approach thus
becomes a critical issue in imparting knowledge that contributes
to the survival of students with disabilities at the postsecondary
level.
For students who disclose their disabilities and present
appropriate documentation to support services offices, Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates postsecondary institutions
to provide reasonable accommodations to ensure full access to program
offerings (Frank & Wade, 1993; West, Kregel, Getzel, Zhu, Ipsen,
& Martin, 1993). However, postsecondary schools have no legal obligation
to help students with disabilities transition into their institution.
Educators and institutions typically define their role with students
more clearly in preparing them to succeed in future education and
employment settings (Seigel & Sleeter, 1991). Furthermore, disability
service staff members are often caught between the need to protect
the rights of the students and adhere to the needs of the postsecondary
institution. Postsecondary administrations require consultation
by staff members who also must adhere to particular state and federal
guidelines. The lack of consensus on the nature of supports to be
provided can be difficult for staff as well as for students who
seek accurate and complete information to determine which institutions
and organizations are best prepared to meet their needs.
Another factor affecting participation in postsecondary
education is the absence of any minimum standards of disability
support provision. Many of the challenges students with disabilities
face are connected to necessary services and accommodations related
to their specific disabilities. The lack of standardization of support
services among academic institutions tends to result in differing
levels and types of service and supports, and often students are
left to manage complicated and unguided procedures. Some institutions
have single academic or counseling service staff members who take
on disability issues as a small portion of their job description,
and they basically provide advice and a letter to professors verifying
that a student's request for accommodation is justified. Meanwhile,
in other schools, multiple staff people, coordinated services, and
accommodations are in place for students with disabilities (NCD's
Youth Advisory Committee, 2003).
2. Retention and Persistence
Another critical issue in the achievement of students
with disabilities in postsecondary education depends on their ability
to keep abreast of their classmates. Retention and persistence are
discussed interchangeably in the literature. The concept of retention
and persistence is based on continued student attendance in school
and consistent progress in class hours, declaration of a major,
and their progression toward desired goals. Although the ultimate
goal for many students is to complete higher education, success
becomes problematic when the basic infrastructure and services are
limited or not available.
As discussed earlier, the lack of, or limited access
to and availability of support is a major factor that eventually
discourages or excludes many students with disabilities from continuing
their schooling. For instance, a national survey developed and distributed
to postsecondary students with disabilities by the National Center
for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) found
that while supports such as testing accommodations, note-takers,
personal counseling, and advocacy assistance were requested and
extended with some regularity, disability specific scholarships,
assessments and evaluations, real time captioning, assistive technology,
and study abroad opportunities were rarely offered to students with
disabilities (Stodden, Whelley, Harding & Chang, 2001). Furthermore,
this study found that 50 percent of the respondents indicated that
their institutions did not offer accessible transportation on campus
for students with disabilities and many campuses still featured
architectural barriers (Stodden et al., 2001). The survey revealed
that equal access and reasonable accommodations are still an issue
for individuals with disabilities attempting to persist in higher
education, and often the most basic needs pertaining to their activities
of daily living, including physical access, are unmet.
Several studies confirmed these findings of institutional
inadequacies and found that most postsecondary institutions are
not at par in assisting youth with disabilities (Stodden, Conway,
& Chang, 2003; Whelley, Hart, & Zafft, 2002). A major problem encountered
is the insufficient quantity of staff members handling huge caseloads
to accommodate disabled students. According to Gajar (1998), there
are insufficient resources to serve the large numbers of youth with
disabilities accessing postsecondary education that require case
management assistance with their education and related support needs.
Postsecondary educational institutions often do not provide per
capita funding for disability support services, so as increased
numbers of youth with disabilities enter the various institutions,
budgetary and faculty resources for support become thin and impact
decisions.
The understaffed conditions that exist in many academic
institutions undermine the provision of appropriate support to people
with disabilities. Educational supports and services are rarely
individualized according to a student's needs, and more often supports
are offered as a menu of programs, associated with disability type,
rather than being student specific. The services and auxiliary aids
offered range from sign language interpreters, assistive technological
listening systems, captioning, readers, audio recordings, taped
texts, brailled materials, adapted computer terminals, and more.
Yet, evidence suggests that students with disabilities are unaware
of the availability of services, and do not access them. In the
case of technological supports, the lack of proximity or the individualized
configurations and accommodations needed make utilization of the
technology impractical or unfeasible. Furthermore, they also may
be limited in number or availability, as are sign language interpreters.
One respondent to a research inquiry said that her campus had three
FM systems for student use in classrooms, and she was not permitted
access to them because staff said the other students' hearing losses
were more severe than hers (NCD's Youth Advisory Committee, 2003).
Another factor affecting persistence and retention
is that faculty members and other academic personnel in postsecondary
education settings are often unaware of disability needs and supports.
The limited awareness of the needs of people with disabilities prevents
staff members and other academic personnel from providing the most
suitable approach to enhancing the access and ability of students
to learn. Moreover, the lack of proper background in managing students
with disabilities needs may invite further misunderstanding, conflict
and eventually lead to students dropping out. One reason for this
lack of knowledge is the absence of training on the part of the
staff members, which will be discussed later in this paper. Finally,
when universities or colleges do not provide accommodations and
services, students with disabilities pursue postsecondary education
at risk of failure. Consequently, their grades and scholarship access
are reduced, or they may pay for the services themselves, thus increasing
their cost of attendance in postsecondary education (the sum of
which is the starting point for calculating student need for financial
aid) (NCD's Youth Advisory Committee, 2003).
What is reflective of these institutional shortcomings
is the negative effect on the self esteem of students with disabilities.
A questionnaire disseminated by HEATH (1999) on self-efficacy -
a belief in one's ability to obtain the desired ends - found that
students with disabilities markedly "rate themselves lower in measures
of self-esteem, emotional health, and academic or physical ability"
(Izzo & Lamb, 2002; Martin and Huber-Marshall, 1995; Wehmeyer, 1998).
When respondents were asked to assess their own talents, fewer students
with disabilities as compared with other students ranked themselves
above average or higher on a wide range of abilities (HEATH, 1999).
If found to be indicative of a sizeable number of students with
disabilities, this comparative lack of self worth might serve as
both antecedent and outcome of the poor status in rates of access,
retention, and completion of postsecondary education, as well as
restricted participation in extra-curricular learning opportunities.
Career opportunities come more easily when one has
an academic degree. But for students who have disabilities, completion
in postsecondary education is a bigger challenge when their ability
to participate and persist is impeded by varying issues and impediments
in the system. Many educational programs require students to spend
a period of time in an internship or practicum to obtain their baccalaureate.
Without the proper accommodations, students with disabilities fail
to participate in many internships and academic activities required
for completion of their studies. However, because of the lack of
integration and other issues mentioned above, students may decide
not to pursue such courses of action. Likewise, their choice not
to participate in any of these academic activities prevents them
from building social networks in the community essential in achieving
employment in the future.
C. Financial Aid Issues
During this difficult economic period of unavoidable
budget cuts in federal programs, there is no doubt that education
is an expensive proposition for any student involved in higher education.
The cost of higher education in America is an increasingly expensive
proposition and has in fact become too onerous for most students
and their families to handle without the procurement of financial
aid in the form of scholarships, grants, or loans. This section
discusses issues most affecting students with disabilities in the
area of postsecondary education and finances, and concerns two main
elements: cost and time.
1. Cost and Time Factors
Cost presents a major barrier to students with special
needs in their quest to complete a postsecondary education. Time
is a factor because the extended period necessary for some students
with disabilities to complete their degree adversely affects the
final cost of their education and delays the start of their wage-earning
years. The ability of many highly qualified students with disabilities
to access and pursue their studies hinges on their ability to finance
themselves through the completion of a degree in a college or university.
The cost of postsecondary education and various services and supports
limit their access to advanced studies. Students with disabilities,
who are faced with larger costs than the average student without
disabilities to begin with, are at the most risk because of possible
federal budget cuts and because they may not fit the criteria for
many forms of financial aid.
According to recent University of Washington statistics,
costs for four-year institutions for all students ranged from $9,744
per year for public institutions to $24,343 per year for private
institutions. A four-year education could cost from $41,000 to $104,000
in 2001-2002 (Doit@u.washington.edu, July 2, 2003). Fully two-thirds
of all traditional undergraduate students graduate with some debt.
Indeed, access to postsecondary education would be impossible for
many, and likely most, students with or without disabilities in
the absence of significant loans and aid packages. Budget cuts may
affect students directly or indirectly through reductions in college
services and financial aid, Vocational Rehabilitation programs,
Medicaid, insurance, and various aids for disabilities. Uninsured
services and supports affect out-of-pocket expenses and may further
drain the resources of disabled students.
Time directly impacts and restricts their access to
many federally funded scholarships, loans, work-study awards, and
grants. Students with disabilities often need more time than typical
students because full time schedules may be more than they can realistically
tackle. Time also directly influences the cost and success of students
with special needs in the postsecondary environment. Students with
families of their own are also at risk because they may not be able
to meet the added cost of raising their children along with educating
themselves or completing their degrees within the traditional four
year time frame.
Education for people with disabilities is more expensive
than for students without disabilities and renders existing inequalities
between the non-disabled and students with disabilities greater.
An inverse relationship exists between the rising cost for students
with disabilities in postsecondary education and the problematical
lack of federal funding for which they qualify. Rigidly constructed
guidelines in federal funding also directly impact the ability of
students to access and complete a degree in higher education. According
to a National Postsecondary Student Aid Study conducted by National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1995-1996, only 48 percent
of students with disabilities received financial aid, as compared
to 59 percent of students without disabilities. Because funding
directly targeting students with disabilities is rare, this population
is less likely to receive aid through traditional federal channels:
i.e. grants, loans, and work-study (NCES, 1999, Doit@u.washington.edu,
July 2, 2003). Furthermore, of those students with disabilities
who did manage to obtain aid, the sum was smaller ($5,100 versus
$6,500)than it was for their counterparts without disabilities while
their costs were much higher. In its report entitled Improving the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
Making Schools Work for All of America's Children (1995) the National
Council on Disability drew the following conclusion:
Many families and students perceive the cost of
college to be an impossible obstacle. Family members testified
that they had already spent large sums of money in acquiring a
better education for their children in special education programs,
indicating that they needed information concerning the types of
postsecondary financial aid available to them. Testimony reflected
that the level of financial aid awarded to students with disabilities
at the university level was disproportionately low when compared
to the rest of the student body. Increased information from postsecondary
programs would provide more students with disabilities with opportunities
to access financial aid. (NCD, 1995, p.140)
2. Social Security Issues
Most students with disabilities are eligible for Supplemental
Security Insurance (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
and the Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS) program, although
financial aid officers may not be aware of Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) and SSA funding and their legal obligation to students (Doit@u.washington.edu,
July 2, 2003). SSI and SSDI have restrictive eligibility requirements
which may hinge on any of the following criteria: medical disabilities
as opposed to intellectual ones, severe disabilities, low employment
earnings, and a two year waiting period for Medicare funding (Berry
& Jones, 2000). For example, only individuals with severe medical
disabilities are included, and these individuals must demonstrate
that they are unable to earn more than $700 per month in gainful
employment. Individuals receiving SSI and their family members are
not permitted to save for college as most students and parents do,
unless they are willing to accept losing their eligibility for SSI
and related services. The individual state tax-free college savings
plans (the 509 plans), from which funds may be withdrawn only for
education related expenses, are considered resources under SSI and
may cause students to lose SSI eligibility. In some states, people
on SSI are allowed to have $2,000 in savings. If they establish
an account, they can save an additional $2,000, but only if a VR
counselor agrees that the account will enable them to achieve a
specific employment goal. That means setting a low goal, because
a total of $4,000 is not sufficient to pay for transportation, tuition,
books, medical expenses, and living expenses. Students receiving
SSI, Medicaid funding or state VR benefits may not be permitted
to participate in college work-study without losing benefits. Some
students, who would probably succeed in college, may not get VR
benefits because VR usually serves those with the most severe disabilities
first and there are insufficient funds for everyone. Mature students
with families are no longer eligible for the Earned Income Exclusion
(EIE) and may have difficulties surviving in postsecondary education
in such conditions.
Insurance is yet another barrier. Students with disabilities
may still be qualified for both SSI and SSDI, if, and only if, additional
criteria are met (Berry & Jones, 2000). According to their study,
medical insurance is "usually" available to qualified applicants.
Researchers found that: "In most states, individuals receiving SSI
benefits are also eligible for Medicaid health insurance" (Berry
& Jones, 2000). There are no statistics regarding the percentage
of students with disabilities who are adversely affected by the
lack of medical insurance, but the disadvantages of the lack of
insurance are obvious. Effectively, those students with disabilities
who reside outside of these states where they would be eligible
for coverage may not qualify for insurance and associated benefits
(Berry & Jones, 2000). It would seem that insurance for these students
would be an essential component of their financial aid, especially
in the case of severe physical disabilities. Coupled with the rising
costs of services and support, as well as medical costs, the inability
to secure insurance and benefits may prove to be a disempowering
factor for students with disabilities and may prevent them from
pursuing a degree. The fact that not all federal and state programs
of aid for people with disabilities are accessible at all institutions
also may well affect some students adversely. Federal programs that
support individuals with disabilities may also involve a long waiting
period and/or intricate application procedures.
3. Issues Concerning Eligibility for, and Retention
of, Federal Aid
All students are by law equally eligible for many
funding opportunities including work-study, grants, loans, and scholarships,
although some of these may prove to be unfeasible given the scope
of disabilities and conflicting requirements. Students with disabilities
may be eligible for disability related federal or state programs
offering financial support. However, these often include prohibitive
stipulations concerning the time taken to complete a degree, the
possibility of saving money for college, and work. In many cases,
students with disabilities do not qualify for traditional or typical
financial packages. Firstly, disabled students may be ineligible
for academic or National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
scholarships because their disabilities prevent them from attaining
high scores on the SAT or because they have difficulty writing essays,
or cannot participate in a sport. If exempted from the SAT, the
exemption exam could affect acceptance in chosen universities and
majors.
Secondly, most financial aid awards and loan programs
come with a minimum-credit stipulation and expire in four years
(HEATH, 2003). This credit stipulation may significantly affect
those students with intellectual or severe physical disabilities.
Students with disabilities often find a full, 12-hour course load
unfeasible due to lower levels of preparation and less rigorous,
academically focused curricula in secondary school (HEATH, 2003).
Full-time study may be impossible for bright, well-educated students
who have low stamina, must spend many hours per day on self-care,
and need extra time to read textbooks because of learning disabilities,
or need to meet with professors for extra help or clarifications
when information is not accessible. A lack of academic preparation
is not necessarily the reason disabled individuals take a reduced
course load of 6 or 9 hours, disability-related reasons are often
the cause. Data shows that students with disabilities often take
twice as long as students without disabilities to finish their degrees.
Likewise, some traditional forms of financial aid
feature work-study components that disqualify students with disabilities
for whom employment concurrent with academics is not possible. Work-study
programs that require 10-20 hours of on-campus employment may be
too time-consuming for students who have intellectual or severe
physical disabilities (Doit@u.washington.edu, July 2, 2003). Other
students cannot participate in work-study or work off campus because
they require extra time to study or access facilities because of
learning disabilities, blindness, or deafness. In addition, campuses
also may be unwilling or unable to make job accommodations that
enable students with disabilities to participate in work-study or
other forms of university or college employment. Students who are
forced to turn down or are refused work-study must either take out
student loans or reduce the credit hours they carry in order to
lower expenses. Thus, they must increase their number of terms in
college and their living expenses per credit completed. Some students
with disabilities are extremely reluctant to take out student loans
due to concerns about their ability to repay them because they may
be physically unable to work. It is often impossible for them to
defer loan repayment for disability related reasons and students
with severe functional impairments or unpredictable illnesses do
not take out many loans. Presently, there is scant data on the methods
by which the students with disabilities who either do not qualify
for financial aid, or do not receive sufficient packages, finance
postsecondary education.
Those carrying reduced course loads may end up paying
more tuition per credit than full-time non-disabled students pay.
Certainly the necessity of taking limited courses will cause a major
added expense to a four-year education. Some students must pay more
per credit, particularly at four-year universities that refuse to
lower the student tuition bill in accordance with their reduced
credit hour loads. Federal scholarships and grants such as the Pell
Grant are limited to four years and carry no provision for students
who need an increased number of semesters to complete their work.
The inflexibility of disseminating practices by institutions and
federal regulations controlling the distribution of grants and loans
present a barrier to students with special needs. Likewise, graduate
school assistantships that provide tuition funds may not allow for
students whose disability causes them to take medical leave and/or
require additional semesters to complete their degree. Currently,
no data is available on the added expense to students with disabilities
who must work more slowly towards their degree.
4. Specific Financial Burdens Associated with Disabilities
Compounding the problem of accessing financial aid
is the reality that students with disabilities are often encumbered
by financial obligations associated with their disability. For instance,
students and their families may be responsible for the acquisition
and maintenance of special equipment, medical expenses not covered
by insurance, transportation, and salaries for aides. Specialist
physician visits, personal care attendants, medications, nutritional
supplements, special diets, healthcare-related travel, rehabilitation
services, academic readers, sign-language interpreters, tutors,
captioning, FM radio systems, hearing aids, special housing needs,
consultations with educational psychologists, and assistive technology
expenses are examples of the added cost-barriers to the college
experience.
5. Financial Aid and the Higher Education Act
Most people do not know that the Higher Education
Act enables college financial aid officers to increase students'
financial aid packages to match their out-of-pocket disability related
expenses. The Department of Education allows for provisions that
require extremely confusing calculations. There should be an option
for students to disclose disability-related expenses on the Department
of Education Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA), so that colleges
and universities can use this information when determining the amount
of a Pell Grant, as is required in HEA, Title 4, Subpart 1. Section
401 of the HEA, Part 3a, states that if more than $2,700 is appropriated
for a basic Pell Grant, the amount of a grant should equal $2,700
plus "[1/2 x (Maximum Basic Grant - $2,700)] plus the lesser of
a) the remaining 1/2 of such excess, OR b) the sum of tuition, dependent
care expenses, and disability expenses."
It is also important for the FAFSA to provide an opportunity
to declare significant disability related expenses because of the
mandate in Title 4, Part F, Section 471, which defines the Cost
of Attendance. This section states that institutions should allow
for reasonable disability related expenses that are not paid for
by other assisting agencies when defining a student Cost of Attendance.
According to the Youth Advisory Committee of the National Council
on Disability (YAC), students are not presenting this legal information
to college financial aid offices when asking for increased aid due
to disability issues. College financial aid officers and students
with disabilities may not be aware of this feature of the HEA, since
so many schools state there is no special planning for disability
related expenses when putting financial aid packages together.
Ultimately, it is the student's responsibility to
find and coordinate resources with the help of the financial aid
office of his or her university. Many financial aid offices do not
make provisions for special cases. In addition, the general lack
of knowledge about financial resources such as SSI and Vocational
Rehabilitation funds is detrimental to the success of students with
disabilities who could benefit from the funds.Differences in state
policies (particularly state Vocational Rehabilitation policies)
and the fact that not all universities and colleges participate
in all funding opportunities, render the search for educational
funding more challenging than it should be. Federal loan and grant
programs usually require that the student be full-time, which is
not always a possibility for young adults with disabilities. The
same full-time requirement may mean that disabled students may not
be eligible for scholarships or work study. In addition to the inaccessibility
of supposedly available federal and state funds, there is a general
paucity of financial aid programs specifically targeted to disabled
students.
D. Issues of Interagency Coordination of Supports
and Postsecondary Education
Significant progress in postsecondary education for
people with disabilities has been accomplished through careful planning
and collaborative efforts of students and service providers. However,
many students still face the challenge of uncoordinated services
as offered by varying agencies and different funding sources. Consumers
are left confused, not knowing which supports will work for them
or how to obtain them. The dropout rate at the postsecondary level
reflects the frustration experienced by people with disabilities
attempting to coordinate and access services or programs that would
expedite their accommodation. This section of the paper presents
issues affecting students with disabilities in the area of interagency
coordination in postsecondary education. As noted earlier, the provision
of educational and related services and supports necessary for people
with disabilities in postsecondary education remain fragmentary,
marked by inconsistencies across types of services from one provider
to another, with each agency continuing to function independently,
and often without knowledge of the mission and philosophy of other
agencies.
1. Fragmentation and Inconsistencies in Service
Provision
Despite federal and state efforts to improve the quality
of postsecondary educational outcomes among students with disabilities,
service systems remain fragmented across agencies and are difficult
to access. At times, the array of programs offering services can
be contradictory, restricting, and disempowering. Service decisions
are often agency driven or dependent upon the availability of service
slots, so that planning for smooth and consistent student participation
and support provision in a program of study is impossible. Inconsistencies
across agencies can be so complicated that it is difficult to prepare
students to plan and advocate for their disability needs when the
support environments they face vary significantly.
Compared to secondary education settings, students
with disabilities often experience a reduced level of disability
services and accommodation in postsecondary education. Students
often have to initiate and coordinate their own support services
on campus with the help of faculty, librarians, counselors, teaching
assistants, and other staff members. The lack of and/or limited
assistance in negotiating paperwork and eligibility requirements
often lead to failure in accessing basic needed disability services.
For students transferring from two-year to four-year postsecondary
institutions, accessing services even becomes more difficult when
the level of support services is not comparable or varies even further
from that provided in secondary schools (Burgstahler, Crawford,
& Acosta, 2001). Moreover, staff members in four-year colleges may
lack disability specific information and often fail to communicate
ways of assisting students with disabilities in transferring from
two-year to four-year schools.
When educational supports and related services overlap
or contradict one another, important and needed assistance becomes
confusing and inaccessible to students. The lack of awareness of
the many different existing services hinders postsecondary students
with disabilities in finding appropriate assistance given their
specific needs. As one study shows, only 8.3 percent of postsecondary
students with disabilities participate in SSI and SSDI disability
programs. In general, postsecondary students with disabilities,
when compared to students without disabilities, receive less financial
aid and are unable to participate in assistance programs due to
lack of awareness about SSI or SSDI disability benefits, work incentive
programs (Berry & Jones, 2000).
The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system, despite
its mission to provide assessment, counseling, guidance, job placement,
employment support, and postsecondary educational supports to individuals
with disabilities preparing for employment, is often difficult to
access (US General Accounting Office, 2003). Over the years, the
scope of the Vocational Rehabilitation mission has changed as the
policies influencing the agency have evolved. VR services offered
during postsecondary education now vary extensively from one state
to another, and even from one counselor to another, while remaining
in line with the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (Spiers &
Hammett, 1995). Some state VR programs limit funding to associate
degrees while others pay for undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
Some pay only a few hundred dollars per term towards tuition; others
pay for the full cost of tuition and books. Some state VR programs
are pushing students to obtain their SSA Tickets to Work while others
do not participate. Some programs are able to provide consistent
guidance from a single Vocational Rehabilitation counselor throughout
postsecondary education; others have high staff turnover and students
get conflicting advice from a succession of counselors. Thus, planning
for the disability needs of students and the actual supports students
obtain in making the transition to postsecondary education vary
extensively depending on what state or community they live in and
what college they attend (NCD's Youth Advisory Committee, 2003).
The person with a disability, his/her family, and friends are primarily
responsible for coordination of their educational and employment
supports and are, consequently, often overburdened and unable to
maintain an active postsecondary experience or course load (Acosta,
2003).
Expanding, improving, and coordinating educational
services and related supports during transition periods for people
with disabilities in postsecondary education could increase student
progress toward the completion of certificates and degrees, leading
to more successful adult life outcomes. Unfortunately, the effect
of the lack of coordination within and across federal and state
assistance programs is that there is no clear and definitive approach
to ameliorate the condition and facilitate the eventual success
of students with disabilities (Frank & Wade, 1993).
2. Differences in Service Emphases
Service provision begins and ends with providing a
very specific accommodation in response to a very specific circumstance
(Brinckerhoff, 1994; Izzo et al., 2001; Rosenfeld, 2002). However,
many postsecondary educational institutions and service agencies
are under no obligation whatsoever to identify or to assess students
with disabilities. Most focus on meeting the letter of the law rather
than upon what individuals with a disability indicate are their
accommodation wants and needs. Educational supports and services
offered are often not well integrated with instruction in the classroom
and are structured to focus upon the postsecondary institutions'
own particular goals, mission, priorities, and particular programmatic
need areas (NCSPES, 2000).
The absence of coordination of educational and related
services and supports sends conflicting information to students
with disabilities. They are forced to fit their needs into an existing
array of services across different agencies, thus often overlooking
services essential to an individual student's needs. The sluggish
rate of participation of people with disabilities in postsecondary
education, in spite of the existence of Vocational Rehabilitation
programs, is partly due to the lack of involvement of VR in preparatory
planning for transition to postsecondary institutions. Further,
a lack of coordination among postsecondary administrators, disabilities
services personnel, and instructional faculty regarding accommodations,
funding, and assistive technologies during postsecondary education
is very common (Gilmore, Bose, & Hart, 2001). One of the resulting
consequences is that individuals who receive postsecondary supports
from VR are less likely to receive Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and are less
likely to need Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
E. Emerging Areas of Need
Within the major issues of access, participation,
financial aid and interagency collaboration some common emerging
needs are evident. Foremost among these is the critical need for
personnel in all instructional and disability-related areas to be
better prepared to provide support, services and accommodations
at the postsecondary level, and at the preparation level leading
to college or university. Also critical is the need for a comprehensive
database regarding levels of access, persistence, and completion
by people with disabilities in postsecondary education to better
guide changes in policy and practice.
1. Issues of Personnel Preparation
Personnel instructing and providing services, supports
and accommodations to students with disabilities and their families
are often trained at colleges and universities. They prepare for
their careers in the schools of education, sociology, psychology,
medicine, law, and more. It is within these training programs that
institutions of higher education need to make a systematic effort
to equip future instructional and related support personnel to address
the full spectrum of needs students with disabilities must have
addressed in order to achieve quality adult lives. Professors of
special education must be recruited and trained to serve some 48,000
students in higher education (www.c-c-d.org,
September 3, 2003).
Issues of access, such as preparation, transition
and admission to college for students with disabilities need to
be part of the knowledge base of those trained in all disability-related
fields of study at colleges and universities. Current training programs
for teachers and counselors for the high school level do not always
provide adequate knowledge about how students' needs and supports
in the secondary school environment link to their needs and supports
in postsecondary and beyond. Rather, training tends to focus on
the assistance students require only at the high school level, leaving
many to assume that personnel trained at the postsecondary level
will assist students as needed when they enter college. Personnel
training at the postsecondary level needs to prepare educators,
counselors and other support staff not only to think of the long
range goals of their students, but it must prepare them in methods
of collaboration so they can work with others who support students
with disabilities. Students with disabilities should also be recruited
to these programs, thus providing mentors and role models for young
people with disabilities preparing for postsecondary education and
professional careers.
Related to the issue of postsecondary training of
personnel is the issue of the lack of higher education teachers
and the insufficient teaching preparation college and university
faculty receive (www.c-c-d.org,
September 3, 2003). In order for students with disabilities to fully
participate in, persist in, and complete a postsecondary education,
those who are poised to be most influential to their success - their
instructors, advisors and tutors - must be better prepared to assist
them. As do their counterparts at the secondary level, they frequently
lack sufficient knowledge about proven instructional methods that
better support diverse learning needs. Also, not all instructors
are currently benefiting from adequate in-service training in information
and assistive technologies that would enable them to render their
curricula and classrooms more accessible to students with disabilities.
Moreover, increasing awareness of the many financial, bureaucratic
and personal barriers presented to students with disabilities as
they pursue higher education would doubtlessly help faculty to offer
appropriate accommodations and, ultimately, play a stronger role
in the success of all their students.
Finally, self-determination has been discussed as
a research-based strategy that students can benefit from at both
the secondary and postsecondary levels so that they are better prepared
to assist themselves through college or university and employment.
However, this can only happen if instructors at all levels are educated
about self-determination, and shown how to integrate it into their
curricula, where it is likely to have the most impact (Yuen, 2003).
2. Gaps in the Knowledge Base
The overall importance and value of postsecondary
education for people with disabilities is not currently supported
by sufficient quantitative research. Little data is available about
how successful preparation practices can be implemented across the
nation. Interagency collaboration strategies to assist students
as they transition to college and persist towards degree completion
have not been studied to such an extent that the evidence-based
practices which will serve all institutions of higher education
well can be identified. Information about the accommodations college
students with disabilities receive, who funds them, or how students
with disabilities from diverse communities manage to succeed in
college and to pay for the services they need is still not readily
available.
Conspicuously lacking is the voice of students with
disabilities in the research base. Not enough information is gathered
directly from students. Student input and data are needed to learn
about the services and accommodations that postsecondary students
with disabilities desire and receive; the ways student education,
accommodations, medical and other services are financed; and the
differences in services provided, costs to students, and success
rates from state-to-state. Studies that focus upon specific factors
and circumstances that lead to successful outcomes for students
with disabilities are also needed. For example, the manner in which
the activities of daily living impact the lives of postsecondary
students should be examined in regard to added costs and constraints
on their time. Diversity issues which affect students with disabilities
as they pursue degrees or diplomas including socio-economic factors
such as acculturation, language, family obligations, and dynamics
are not adequately documented.
Additionally, studies of the successful practices
of other countries have not been undertaken to discover ways in
which U.S. systems could avoid "reinventing the wheel." The way
in which some countries are able to offer better levels of service,
and strategies that could be utilized in American systems indicates
a potential fertile ground for further research and ultimate improvements
to our current policies and practices.
IV. Recommendations for Policy Makers
Much important work to address the needs of individuals
with disabilities to access, persist, and complete postsecondary
education has already been done. We know a great deal about the
progress youth with disabilities have been making. Young people
with disabilities represent a significant portion of the population
and have proven they have greater capabilities than ever expected.
When public education systems made it possible for them to participate,
youth with disabilities did just that. They engaged in general education
classes, took standards-based achievement tests, graduated high
school, enrolled in college, and sought employment. In short, when
presented the opportunity, people with disabilities responded so
whole-heartedly that the system that hoped to serve them often found
it under-prepared to do so.
We also know which efforts have supported the progress
students with disabilities have been making. When offered meaningful
and coherent transition services, this population excels. Those
who have been fortunate enough to participate in transition support
programs have readily done so, and shown great promise of long-term
success as a result. Similarly, those who have been served well
by vocational rehabilitation programs have demonstrated better achievement.
Students with disabilities outside the U.S. have also shown that
adequate financial support goes a long way to ensuring successful
adult outcomes for diverse populations.
Clearly, we know much about the barriers that hinder
the achievement of students with disabilities. We know that high
schools do not adequately prepare students for higher education
and professional employment. We know students and families cannot
prepare themselves to succeed in systems about which there is inadequate
information and inconsistency of support offerings. We know that
such systems, as diverse as they are, operate independently of one
another and with limited accountability, cannot hope to efficiently
address the growing demand for support. We know, too, that gaps
remain in the research base needed to carefully guide further progress
in this area.
In short, we know enough to target the areas where
gaps remain in our knowledge, our practices and our policies, and
to build on the progress already made. Moreover, we know that Congress,
through reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, has the power
to attend to these gaps, and create a seamless system to improve
the educational outcomes for all students with disabilities. The
following recommendations are designed to help policy makers achieve
this goal.
A. Addressing Access Issues through the Formation
of a Federal Commission
A major access hurdle to postsecondary education for
students with disabilities lies in the transition and coordination
of their supports and services as they seek to apply to postsecondary
education and pursue degrees and/or diplomas. The establishment
of a Commission on Access to Postsecondary Education for People
with Disabilities is required to further investigate the interagency
barriers that are encountered as people with disabilities seek access
to postsecondary education. The proposed Commission should be crafted
to be included under the new Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
in the Department of Education, in a manner similar to the proposal
for the Commission on Universal Design and the Accessibility of
Curriculum and Instructional Materials found in Senate bill 1248
(IDEA reauthorization). The Commission could investigate and resolve
the discrepancies and issues found across the different agencies
and accompanying policy that affect people with disabilities as
they transition across the secondary and postsecondary education
years. It is proposed that the Commission function for a two-year
period with the task of undertaking a comprehensive study of the
status of people with disabilities in preparation for, access to,
and persistence and completion of postsecondary education. This
study should reveal the basis of interagency barriers and issues
experienced by people with disabilities seeking access to postsecondary
education. The activities of such a Commission would seek to resolve
a number of interagency coordination issues so that students leaving
secondary school would not have to manage their educational supports,
related health, employment, transportation and housing needs without
expert guidance.
Another barrier to be addressed by the Commission
would be the use of consistent language across federal legislation
supporting people with disabilities in postsecondary education.
The policies surrounding the provision of supports in federal legislation
such as IDEA, HEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Workforce Investment
Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act must be re-examined
for inconsistencies in language, responsibilities, and requirements.
At the time of reauthorization of these laws, such inconsistencies
should be analyzed with the purpose of streamlining and improving
the provision of supports to individuals with disabilities as they
traverse secondary, postsecondary and employment environments.
B. Addressing Access Issues by Providing Information
on Postsecondary Educational Supports
Students with disabilities and their families are
often not well informed about the needs that will later arise as
they transition from high school to college, or how to address these
needs. Specifically, they are not aware of their own support needs
to succeed in postsecondary education or of the supports and services
provided by specific postsecondary education programs. This mismatch
of disability needs and supports provided is a major contributor
to failure and lack of persistence by people with disabilities in
postsecondary education. In order to better prepare families and
students with disabilities for postsecondary education, comprehensive
and accessible information is essential. Specifically, a National
Web-based Assessment Center and Register of organized data and information
on disability supports and services as provided at different institutions
of higher education is recommended. Such a service has long been
requested by parents and youth with disabilities seeking to choose
a postsecondary education program that can best meet their disability
support needs. Information that is critical for consumers involved
in selecting an institution that provides supports that match their
disability related needs would then be available to them.
Because of the tremendous inconsistencies in the
provision of supports and services and the lack of a minimum standard
of support provision across postsecondary education programs, it
is vital that people with disabilities have a mechanism to find
programs that provide appropriate services and that they be informed
about the technological aids. Such a register would provide information
to assist students with disabilities and families in making most
of the important decisions when they select a postsecondary education
program. Currently, HEATH, an information and technical assistance
program funded under IDEA, does not provide such a service to parents
or youth with disabilities. The Higher Education Act can be amended
to support this in Section 303 (c), Sections 741, 742, 743, 744,
and 745.
C. Addressing Participation and Persistence Issues
through the Formation of a National Technical Assistance Network
Many students do not continue in their postsecondary
studies because they lack support to address and manage their disability
needs. As previously discussed, the range and type of services,
supports, and accommodations (including technology) provided to
people with disabilities at postsecondary education settings, varies
extensively across different types of programs across all states.
There is a critical need to work toward a minimum standard of quality
support provision for all people with disabilities across all postsecondary
education programs. Specifically, it is recommended this critical
need be addressed through the development and funding of a national
network of Technical Assistance Centers, one in each state to work
with the postsecondary institutions in that state.
Given the current wide variation in the range and
type of educational and related supports made available to people
with disabilities, this technical assistance network would support
the development of a minimum national standard of support provision.
The network would seek to build a national standard of educational
support provision across all higher education institutions and could
address the inconsistencies in instructor preparation in postsecondary
education. Minimum standards of information and training for all
instructional and support personnel could be established. A specific
goal of these centers would be to work collaboratively with faculty
development and disability support programs in postsecondary education
settings, and to provide effective practice models, training of
faculty and support personnel, technical assistance to programs
and people with disabilities, and information. The centers could
also help bridge the gap between secondary schools and postsecondary
schools by enabling college personnel to collaborate more closely
with those teachers, counselors and other professionals who support
student preparation for entry into postsecondary education.
The centers could be modeled after the current University
Centers for Excellence, funded in each state through the Administration
on Developmental Disabilities within the Department of Health &
Human Services (DHHS). A clause could be drafted into the re-authorized
Higher Education Act, Sections 303 and 762, which would award a
grant to an institution of higher education in each state. This
institution would take on the task of collaborating with all existing
postsecondary education programs in the state to upgrade the provision
of services, supports, and accommodations provided to people with
disabilities. The authorization of this national network could be
addressed through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education (FIPSE) with complementary legislation added to the Higher
Education Act in Section 741.
D. Addressing Financial Aid Issues through Flexibility
It is crucial that the Higher Education Act reflect
that there are increased costs when students have a disability and
that they need additional flexibility and opportunity to acquire
loans and generate income. The Act should seek to remove barriers
to financial aid, such as student loans, work-study, and other income
opportunities so that students have a better opportunity to support
themselves while in college. It should also earmark research, demonstration,
and training funds to study financial issues such as flexible admissions
policies, financial aid eligibility, and eligibility for receiving
services, assistive technology, and benefits counseling in four-year
college settings. However, measures and standards of achievement
should be met and kept by students receiving such aid so that the
system of grants and aids cannot be manipulated by students who
drop classes but continue to collect aid without completing courses
with a passing grade.
The selective use of financial incentives by public
and private colleges for enrolling, supporting, and graduating students
with disabilities could be a highly effective strategy if addressed
through amendment of the Higher Education Act. The NCD Youth Advisory
Committee recommends funding demonstration projects to ensure students
with disabilities receive a quality higher education. Extending
these grants to improve the college teaching of people with disabilities
should also include the dissemination of the projects' findings
and outcomes to reach the broader educational community. Specific
sections of the Higher Education Act which can be amended to support
these kinds of efforts are: Title IV, Sections 401, 402, 403, 404A,
404B, 404C, 404D, 404E, 404F, 404G, 404H, 406A, 406B, 406C, 406D,
406E, 415E, 408, and 419(N).
E. Addressing Emerging Needs through Targeted Personnel
Preparation and Research
The area of training and preparation of personnel
involved in teaching and supporting students with disabilities in
secondary and postsecondary education has been shown by research
to be one of concern. As part of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, Title II of the HEA has been reauthorized and provides grants
for the improvement of teacher quality. The goals of Title II are
to enable states to provide highly qualified teachers, reduce class
size, improve flexibility, and provide incentives, with federal
funding meted out on the basis of the child population of each particular
state. It provides for national contests, recruiting of teachers,
furnishes grants for technology, and training of former members
of the military as teachers, among other areas. The reauthorized
HEA could go one step further to establish guidelines and performance
standards that would have national ramifications in the area of
training.
1. Training of Personnel
Instructors, counselors, financial aid advisors,
and other agency and institutional support staff are in need of
better training and support to address the needs of students with
disabilities before and during their postsecondary education years.
Postsecondary institutional accountability in the HEA under Title
II would be one way to ensure this. Specifically, Section 202, Section
203, and Section 204 could allow for funds to address the need to
train various support personnel. Professional development could
also integrate interagency, multi-level personnel to gain expertise
in assistive technology and information technologies and methods
to incorporate such training into their support role for people
with disabilities (US General Accounting Office, 2003).
As for teacher preparation, institutions which offer
teacher training programs should require that all future teachers
be trained in evidence-based curricula, including differentiated
teaching methods which have successfully addressed the needs of
students with disabilities. Title II of the HEA should further expand
accountability measures to ensure that teacher preparation programs
and other support personnel training programs prepare all general
educators and administrators to be proficient in working with students
with disabilities. The NCD's Youth Advisory Committee suggested
that new language should be added to the HEA to support professional
development in special education. This language could be linked
to individual State Teacher Quality Enhancement and Improvement
Grants. Moreover, an emphasis on recruiting, educating, and providing
accommodations to public school teachers with disabilities should
be included in the Teacher Recruitment Grants, which provide funds
to states for the development of partnerships consisting of scholarship
programs, special services to teacher trainees, and further supports
during the first three years of teaching.
In order to attract good teachers to special education,
the NCD Youth Advisory Committee and the Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities recommend that loans be forgiven for those professionals
committed to working with underserved populations (www.c-c-d.org,
September 3, 2003). Legislative action has already been taken to
include loan forgiveness for public service employees, including
specialists working with infants and toddlers with disabilities,
and others who work in public service in a profession that is experiencing
a critical lack of qualified personnel and serves a low-income or
needy community (Rep. George Miller's bill: HR 1306, Miller Bill,
March 18, 2003). Language supporting these recommendations for assisting
in the preparation of special education teachers could well fit
into this category within the HEA, Section 204, Section 753, and
Section 754.
2. Further Research
The study of people with disabilities and their transition
to and status in postsecondary education is a fairly recent area
of investigation; thus, large gaps in the knowledge base exist.
A National Longitudinal Transitional Study is needed to gather data
on and directly from people with disabilities as they: prepare for
higher education; access and transition to higher education; participate
and persist at the college and university level; and complete postsecondary
education in preparation for professional employment. Such a study
must be comprehensive and focus upon critical gaps in the knowledge
base. Both primary and secondary analysis of data collected should
take place to fully inform all stakeholders and direct future evidence-based
practices.
Over the past five years, the National Center for
the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) at the
University of Hawaii has generated a significant amount of information
in the following key areas: (1) how youth with disabilities are
prepared and transition from secondary school to postsecondary settings;
(2) how people with disabilities are supported and progress within
higher education; and (3) what issues and needs they have as they
seek to advance into subsequent employment. Using this information,
it has been possible to ascertain the status of the field and to
focus on gaps in the knowledge base, as well as to begin the work
toward eliminating some of the barriers that continue to hinder
and frustrate people with disabilities in postsecondary environments.
At this point in time, however, the knowledge base remains incipient
and inadequate as a foundation for meaningful progress.
It is recommended that Congress commission and fund
a national longitudinal study to be used as a basis to establish
a comprehensive, user-friendly, and continuously maintained online
clearinghouse. This clearinghouse would be used for the procurement
and dissemination of information regarding access, retention, and
postsecondary completion issues as well as the transition to professional
employment. The proposed study should address factors contributing
to the success of people with disabilities as well as evidence-based
solutions to barriers and complicating issues that persist. The
reauthorized Higher Education Act should authorize and include funding
for such a study to complement the National Longitudinal Transition
Study (authorized and funded within IDEA) in order to collect data
on and from people with disabilities in postsecondary education
and employment.
The proposed study should: (1) document the value
of postsecondary education for people with disabilities; (2) determine
the current status of people with disabilities as they transition
to, access, and complete postsecondary education and progress into
subsequent employment; (3) assess factors which contribute to the
success or failure of students with disabilities in postsecondary
studies, including the impact of factors such as race, poverty or
socio-economic status, diverse cultural status, and other intervening
variables; (4) provide data on current "knowledge gap" areas, such
as: availability of financial aid; provision and coordination of
related supports; and integration of people with disabilities into
generic services and supports on postsecondary education campuses.
Specifically, this national study could be addressed under Fund
for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), or in the
Higher Education Act in Section 741, and could be implemented in
collaboration with the new Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
3. Further Study in Financial Aid
Additional research is also needed to learn about
the ways differing sources of funding work together or create barriers.
Studies are needed to investigate: Vocational Rehabilitation and
SSI regulations preventing students from participating in work-study
and paid internships; SSI and Medicaid resource limitations preventing
them from saving for school; the impact of financial aid packages
from school on SSI income; and Vocational Rehabilitation agencies
pushing students to set low goals by stating they will only fund
the first two years of college. Compatible funding sources which
exist in some states need to be examined to inform other states
of their successful strategies.
Also necessary is an increased study of the expenses
students with disabilities face, and the best ways to document them
for financial aid officers, to assist colleges in complying with
the disability provisions of the Higher Education Act. This could
lead to expanding the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
to allow students the option of disclosing out-of-pocket disability-related
expenses. Studies are needed to evaluate college financial aid officer
preparation for working with students with disabilities; for example,
the extent of financial aid officers' familiarity with disability
issues, the funding sources available to students with disabilities,
and the colleges' legal obligations under the Higher Education Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act could be ascertained.
More financial aid opportunities specifically targeted
to students with disabilities, as well as increased information
concerning all financial aid is needed. Additional information regarding
the ways in which financial aide eligibility requirements become
an obstacle for students with disabilities may be a first step towards
providing equal access for all students to scholarships, grants,
and loan programs.
Finally, part of this research should include a comparative
study of those students with disabilities who are challenged by
their socioeconomic status, their race, or their familial obligations
and how this impacts their ability to meet the financial requirements
of higher education. These needs for further research could be addressed
in section 762(b) (2) (B) of the Higher Education Act.
4. Further Support for Disability Demonstration
Efforts in Postsecondary Education
Over the last four years, a number of demonstration
projects authorized under Title VII of the Higher Education Act
have focused upon improving the disability awareness of faculty
and other support personnel within higher education. Currently these
projects are a token effort to improve the attitudes and knowledge
of higher education faculty, thus improving the access and persistence
of people with disabilities in postsecondary education. It is recommended
that the current disability demonstration projects be continued
and expanded so that a larger number of institutions are able to
benefit from the program. Further, it is recommended that those
evidence-based practices that have been developed as a part of the
funded projects be disseminated widely to similar programs that
were not able to participate in the demonstration activities.
Currently, a number of disability and diversity demonstration
and capacity building projects are funded under the Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) as authorized within
the Higher Education Act. It is recommended that priority be placed
upon the funding of projects under FIPSE which are focused upon
students with the greatest need, including those students with disabilities,
who may be in poverty and/or of diverse cultures seeking to access
postsecondary education.
V. Conclusion
What will it mean to Congress to support the proposed
changes to the Higher Education Act recommended in this paper? Congress
has the power to greatly enhance the "human capital" represented
by people with disabilities across this nation. Reauthorizing the
Higher Education Act to better address the needs of youth with disabilities
will mean economic reform for adults who are unemployed, under-educated
and under-represented at all levels of society. Implementing the
strategies above will allow Congress to lead the way in improving
the quality of life, augmenting the workforce, increasing the earning
and production potential of individuals with disabilities, and advancing
the ideals of democracy and equal opportunity for all citizens.
Acknowledgment
The National Council on Disability wishes to express
its appreciation to Robert A. Stodden, Ph.D., of the University
of Hawai'i at Manoa, Center on Disability Studies, for the drafting
of this document.
References
Abery, B., & Stancliffe, R. (1996). The ecology of
self-determination. In D.J. Sands & M.L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination
across the life span: Independence and choice for people with disabilities
(pp.111-145). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Acosta, J. (2003). Employment barriers for individuals
with disabilities transitioning from postsecondary education to
the workplace. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Agran, M. (Ed.) (1997). Student-directed learning:
Teaching self-determination skills. Pacific Grove, CA: Cole Publishing
Co.
Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1996). Standards amidst
uncertainty and inequality. The School Administrator, 53(5), 42-47.
Berry, H. & Jones, M. (2000). Social Security Disability
Insurance and Supplemental Security Income for undergraduates with
disabilities: An Analysis of the National Postsecondary Student
Aid Survey (NPSAS 2000, p. 6). Retrieved from http://216.239.41.104/search?
q=cache:sliF_d8GJhgJ:www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase3/12.pdf+jones+
1999+work+incentive+act+social+security+financial+aid+disabilities&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post
school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1994). Developing effective self-advocacy
skills in college-bound students with learning disabilities. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 29(4), 229-237.
Burgstahler, S. (2002, January). Universal Design
of Distance Learning. Journal of Information Technology and Disabilities,
VIII (1) Available from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/burgstahler.htm
Burgstahler, S., Crawford, L., & Acosta, J. (2001).
Transition from two-year to four-year institutions for students
with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21 (1). Retrieved
from http://www.cds.hawaii.edu/dsq/_articles_html/2001/Winter/dsq_2001_Winter_05.html
College Opportunity for a Better America Act, H.R.
1306, 108th Congress. (2003).
Dukes III, L. L., & Shaw, S. F. (1999). Postsecondary
disability personnel: Professional standards and staff development.
Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 26 - 31.
Educational Resource Information Center (2001). Teaching
specific skills allows youth to take charge of their own transition
planning. News Brief. Retrieved July 8, 2003, from http://ericec.org/osep-sp.html
Frank, K., & Wade, P. (1993). Disabled student services
in postsecondary education: Who's responsible for what? Journal
of College Student Development, 34, 26-34.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1998) Peer-assisted learning
strategies (PALS). Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/pals
Gajar, A. (1998). Postsecondary education. In F. Rusch
& J. Chadsley (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school
to work (pp. 383-405). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Gilmore, D., Bose, J., & Hart, D. (2001). Postsecondary
education as a critical step toward meaningful employment: Vocational
Rehabilitation's role. Research to Practice, 7, 1-5. Retrieved July
25, 2003 from http://www.communityinclusion.org/publications/text/rp29.html.
Gilmore, D., Schuster, J., Zafft, C., & Hart, D. (2001).
Postsecondary education services and employment outcomes within
the Vocational Rehabilitation system. Disability Studies Quarterly,
21 (1), 64-76.
Half the Planet Foundation: The disability resource
network. Disability Policy in the 21st Century: Moving on Up. (2002).
Retrieved from www.halftheplanet.org/departments/ think_tank/real_jobs.html
- 24k
Hart, D., Gilmore, D., Zafft, C., Bose, J. (2003).
The current status of postsecondary education services, individuals
with disabilities, and the vocational rehabilitation system (Phase
II, Study 5). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Manoa, Center on
Disability Studies. Retrieved July 25, 2003 from http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase2/pdf/020d(1)-H01.pdf
Hatch, T. (1998). How comprehensive can comprehensive
reform be? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 518-522.
HEATH Resource Center (2003). Creating options: A
resource on financial aid for students with disabilities. Washington,
DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and
Human Development. Retrieved June 19, 2003 from http://www.heath.gwu.edu/PDFs/2003%20Finaid%20Document.pdf
Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities
in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation,
and outcomes, NCES 1999-187. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics. Izzo, M. V., Hertzfeld, J. E., & Aaron, J. H. (2001).
Raising the bar: Student self-determination + good teaching = success.
Journal of Vocational Special Needs Educators, 1-28.
Izzo, M. & Lamb, P. (2002). Self-determination and
career development: Skills for successful transition to postsecondary
education and employment. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/Publications/Pdfs/self_determination.pdf
Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special
education: Building reciprocal family-provider relationships. Paul
H. Brookes: Baltimore
Kantrowitz, M. (2003). FinAid: The smart student guide
to financial aid. Retrieved July 21, 2003 from www.finaid.org.
Kaye, H.S. (2000). Computer and internet use among
people with disabilities. Disability Statistics Report (13). Washington
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research
Kiernan, W. (1996). Rehabilitation, job training,
and post-secondary education: Opportunities and challenges. Bethesda,
MD: American Association of University Affiliated Programs.
Kiernan, W. (2002). Service integration trends, practices
and challenges from a systemic perspective. Paper presented at the
National Capacity Building Institute: Coordination and Management
of Supports and Services. Boston, MA.
Kochhar, C. New Vocational Rehabilitation law revitalized
transition services. Journal for Vocational Special Needs, 20(2),
3-11.
Martin, J. E., & Huber-Marshall, L. (1995). Choicemaker:
A comprehensive self-determination transition program. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 30(3), 147-156.
Miller, R., Lombard, R. & Hazelkorn, M. (2000). Teacher
attitudes and practices regarding the inclusion of students with
disabilities in school-to-work and technical preparation programs.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center on Community Integration,
National Transition Network.
National Center for Education Statistics (1999, June).
Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile
of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Trends
in Educational Equity for Girls and Women (NCES Publication No.:
2000-030). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available:
www.nces.ed.gov National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports. (2000). Quarterly Summary Report: October 1, 2000 to December
31, 2000. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Center on
Disability Studies.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports (2000a). Technical report: postsecondary education and
employment for students with disabilities: Focus group discussion
on supports and barriers to lifelong learning. National Center for
the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES). Honolulu,
Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports (2000b). Technical Report: National survey of educational
support provision to students with disabilities in postsecondary
education settings. National Center for the Study of Postsecondary
Educational Supports (NCSPES). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai`i
at Manoa, Center on Disability Studies.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports. (2001). Quarterly Summary Report: October 1, 2001 to December
31, 2001. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Center on
Disability Studies.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational
Supports (2002, July). Preparation for and support of youth with
disabilities in postsecondary education & employment: Implications
for policy, priorities and practice. Proceedings and briefing book
for the National Summit on Postsecondary Education for People with
Disabilities, presented in Washington, DC, July 8, 2002. Retrieved
June 3, 2003 from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/summits/july2002/default.htm
National Council on Disability. (2000, May). National
Disability Policy: A Progress Report: November1, 1998 - November
19, 1999. Retrieved July 25, 2003 from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/1999/policy98-99.htm
.
National Organization on Disability/Louis Harris &
Associates, Inc. (July 23, 1998). Harris survey of Americans with
disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
National Organization on Disability/Louis Harris &
Associates, Inc. (2000). Harris survey of Americans with disabilities.
New York: Author. Retrieved July 25, 2003 from http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=1077
.
National survey of education support provision to
students with disabilities in postsecondary education settings.
(Tech. Rep., June 2000). University of Hawai`i at Manoa, Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center. Retrieved from http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase1/037-H01.pdf.
The National Summit Proceedings Supporting Individuals
with Disabilities across Secondary, Postsecondary Education & Employment,
July 8, 2002, National Press Club Wash, DC. Sponsored by the National
Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES),
University of Hawai`i at Manoa.)
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (2001)
Report to Congress on the Implementation of Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Washington D.C.; Author.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(2000). IDEA Lessons for All! Retrieved November 29, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA25th/
Rosenfeld, S. J (2002). Section 504 and IDEA: Basic
similarities and differences. Learning Disabilities Online. Retrieved
from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/legal_legislative/edlaw504.html
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, John
J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. (2003, March) Misconceptions
about hiring workers with disabilities linger among nation's employers-demonstrating
need for policies to promote understanding, opportunity. Retrieved
from http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/Resources/Publication/94/RestrictedAccesspressreleaseMarch27.pdf
Self-Determination Synthesis Project (2003). Self-determination
exemplar sites. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved
July 8, 2003 from http://www.uncc.edu/sdsp/exemplar_sites.asp
Siegel, S., & Sleeter, C.E., (1991). Transforming
transition: Next stages for the school-to-work transition movement.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 14(1), 27-41.
Spiers, E., & Hammett, R. (1995). Students who are
deaf-blind on campus (HEATH Resource Center Document No. ED393252).
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
State Council on Developmental Disabilities (2003).
About developmental disabilities: Receiving services in California.
Retrieved July 10, 2003 from http://www.scdd.ca.gov/about_developmental_disabilities/obtaining_cal_services.htm.
Stoddard, S., Jans, L., Ripple, J. & Kraus, L. (1998).
Chartbook on work and disability in the United States: An InfoUse
report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research.
Stodden, R. A. (2001). Postsecondary education supports
for students with disabilities: A review and response. The Journal
for Vocational Special Needs Education, 23(2), 4-11.
Stodden, R. A., Conway, M. A., & Chang, K. (2003).
Professional employment for individuals with disabilities. Retrieved
from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/feb2003/papers/txt/PROFESSIONAL%20EMPLOYMENT%20.txt
Stodden, R.A., Galloway, L.M., Stodden, N.J. (2003).
Secondary school curricula issues: Impact on postsecondary students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 9-25.
Stodden, R. A., Jones, M. A., & Chang, K. (2002).
Services, supports and accommodations for individuals with disabilities:
An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary education,
and employment. University of Hawaii-Manoa, Center on Disability
Studies. Retrieved February 15, 2002, from http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/capacity/papers/StoddenJones_formatted.htm
Stodden, R., Whelley, T., Harding, T., & Chang, C.
(2001). Current status of educational support provision to students
with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 16, 1-10.
Thomas, S. B. (2000). College students and disability
law. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 248-257.
Thurlow, M.L. (2001, March). Secondary Education Standards
and Academic Preparation. Available from National Center on Education
and Transition Web site, http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/institutes/feb2003/speakers/speaker03.htm
Turbull, H., Turnbull, P., Wehmeyer, M., & Park, J.
A Quality of Life Framework for Special Education Outcomes. Remedial
and Special Education 24(2), 67-74.
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, (2000) Washington:
Government Printing Office, 2001. Available from Census Bureau Web
site, www.census.gov/
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2001).
Executive Summary of the New Freedom Initiative. Available from
New Freedom Initiative Web site, http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/
U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). Federal Actions
Can Assist States Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth. Washington,
D.C.: Author
Wehmeyer, M.L., 1998. Self-determination and individuality
with significance to disabilities: Examining meanings and misinterpretations.
Journal of the Association for People with Severe Handicaps, 23(1)
5-16.
West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ipsen,
S., & Martin, E. (1993). Beyond section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment
of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children,
59, 456-467.
Whelley, T. (2002). One example of a policy entrepreneur
in postsecondary education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 22(4),
224-229.
Whelley, T., Hart, D., & Zafft, C. (2002). Coordination
and Management of Services for individuals with disabilities in
the transition from secondary to participation in postsecondary
education and employment. Paper presented at the Capacity Building
Institute, Honolulu, HI.
Wonacott, M. (2002). Vocational Rehabilitation. Trends
and Issues Alert, 31, 1-2.
Wood, W. M., & Test, D. W. (2001). Self-determination
synthesis project: Final performance report. Charlotte: University
of North Carolina Press.
Youth Advisory Committee to the National Council on
Disability (2003). Record of Personal Meeting (Teleconference, January
24, 2003). Available from National Council on Disability Web Site,
www.ncd.gov
Yuen, J. (2003). Creating a balance of power: Engaging
postsecondary students with disabilities in a way that honors the
disability culture and is student-centered. http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/products/phases/phase2_02.asp?studyNumber=20 |