THE INCLUSIVE UNIVERSITY: LAW AND INCLUSIVE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

This section reviews laws and regulations and their application to inclusive postsecondary education. This includes resources and reviews concerning the new Higher Education Opportunity Act, the ADA, IDEA, Section 504 and other international laws and legislation.


Abram, S. (2003). The Americans with Disabilities Act in higher education: The plight of disabled faculty. Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 1-19.

Few college faculty members are disabled. Yet those who are may face significant difficulties in preserving their jobs. The problem is particularly acute for those who are nontenured and whose contracts are awarded on a yearly basis.


Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD).(2008, September 11). Disability provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Silver Spring, MD: UCEDD Resource Center, AUCD. Retrieved from: http://www.aucd.org/docs/policy/
AUCD_Higher_Education_Oppt_Webinar.pdf

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 was signed into law on August 14, 2008. This is the first reauthorization in nearly a decade of important legislation covering federal student aid and major postsecondary education initiatives in the United States. The reauthorization contains new and revised provisions that will significantly improve postsecondary opportunities and supports for students with disabilities, including students with intellectual disabilities. In addition, there are also key provisions to improve preparation of teachers and professionals in K-12 education. The materials from this webinar provides an overview of these disability provisions and information concerning next steps on appropriations and implementation.


Bensen Lipskar, L. (2001, Spring). Learning disabilities and the ADA: A guide for successful learning disabled students considering a career in the law. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 6, 647-669.

“This article focuses on the issues facing an individual of above average intelligence with a learning disability when deciding to apply to law school and enter the legal profession, in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)” (p. 647).


Cope, D. (2005). Disability law and your classroom. Academe, 91(6), 37-39. Retrieved from: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/cope.htm.

“Yes, you should make appropriate accommodations for disabled students. But before you take anyone’s word for it, you owe it to yourself and your students to learn the current state of the law” (p. 37).


Davies, M. (2003). The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001—The implications for higher education. Education and the Law, 15(1), 19-45.

Concerns the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and its implication for higher education in the United Kingdom.


Davies, M., & Lee, B. A. (2008, June). Student disability claims in the UK and USA: Does the jurisprudence converge? Education and the Law, 20(2), 107-150.

Laws in the UK and the USA protect college students with disabilities from discrimination. The laws of both nations are complex and require institutions of higher education to accommodate qualified students. This article examines the requirements of both nations’ laws with respect to the kinds of inquiries that may be made of students with disabilities, how the institution must go about determining what accommodations are needed, whether the needed accommodations are reasonable and consistent with academic standards or requirements, and whether the institution is required to attempt to accommodate undisclosed disabilities. The article also discusses how the laws in each nation are enforced, addresses the remedies that are available to students in both nations, and focuses on the interpretation of these laws with respect to admission, academic accommodations, nonacademic accommodations (such as housing, student discipline, and co-curricular activities). It also discusses the institution’s duty to students with psychiatric disorders who may engage in self-destructive behavior.


Denbo, S. M. (2003). Disability lessons in higher education: Accommodating learning-disabled students and student-athletes under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 145-203.

The impact of federal disability law on institutions of higher education and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is examined. An overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is provided, with their legislative histories and implementing regulations. The NCAA and its eligibility standards and procedures are examined. The judicial responses to lawsuits brought by learning-disabled students and student-athletes against institutions of higher education and the NCAA are reviewed. A judicial approach is recommended for reconciling the needs of learning-disabled students and student-athletes with the language and intent of the ADA and Section 504. Strategies are proposed that universities and the NCAA can employ to satisfy the rights of disabled students and student-athletes without compromising the academic integrity of their institutions.


Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., Murphy, K., & Dempsey, K. (2002, July/August). ADA-based accommodations in higher education: A survey of clinicians about documentation requirements and diagnostic standards. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 357-363.

The expansion of the number of students requesting accommodations in postsecondary settings compels clinicians to become knowledgeable about the legal definitions and documentation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the law is relatively new, courts and regulatory agencies have only recently begun to clarify what constitutes a disability. In this study, 147 clinicians completed a questionnaire developed to assess their understanding of the law and the diagnostic approaches they used to justify claims of learning disability (LD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychiatric disability. Whereas the clinicians agreed on certain points (e.g., the right of institutions to formulate specific policies regarding documentation), they substantially disagreed on several fundamental issues. Clinician consensus was lowest on items that asked about the basic intent of the law, the metrics for assessing impairment, and the criteria for assessing ADHD in adulthood. Judged against the legislative history of the ADA and the body of regulatory rulings and legal decisions, many clinicians’ responses showed a need for clarification regarding the distinction between special education law and the antidiscrimination intent of the ADA. The respondents also expressed a nearly uniform wish for more training in this fast-growing area of clinical practice.


Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students. Disability & Society, 16(4), 597-615.

This article describes the findings and examines the issues arising from a small-scale investigation into the experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students at a university in the United Kingdom, and makes recommendations for policy and practice. Methodology involved semi-structured interviews with participants to reveal individual experience and analysis of relevant documentation from the university to examine the rhetoric underlying their experience. Factors that create a positive experience for disabled students, and those which effect discriminatory practice and marginalisation are identified. The implications of the findings for policy and practice are discussed, and conclusions drawn including: the need for a central policy which supports the philosophy of an accessible learning environment for all students; central co-ordination to implement the policy with practical guidelines to departments; ongoing monitoring and evaluation procedures which involve disabled students; staff training and awareness; student advocacy.


Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmark, L., & Reber, A., (2009). Postsecondary education for individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 35-45.

Participation of students with disabilities in postsecondary education has been increasing steadily in the past two decades. Many of these students need reasonable accommodations and other assistance in order to stay enrolled and graduate with a degree. However, recent studies indicate that faculty in higher education have little knowledge about legislative mandates regarding their obligation in serving students with disabilities. When faculty members are ignorant of the legislative mandates pertaining to students with disabilities, accessibility to learning may be compromised. Lack of disability legislative knowledge may also lead to a failure to provide reasonable accommodations and may ultimately result in litigation. This article provides an overview of legislative mandates, examines relevant litigation, and discusses practice considerations regarding the participation of students with disabilities in postsecondary settings.


Kelly, J. P. (1999). Consistency & cooperation: The lessons of Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Law and Education, 28(2), 319-316.

Kelly examines “Guckenberger v. Boston University” as it progressed and considers how the case reflects certain presumptions about both higher education and the learning disabled in the US.


Kibria, G. (2005). Professional and legal challenges of teaching students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 1(1), 57-62.

With the passage of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students with disabilities have legal supports for ‘reasonable accommodation’ with respect to physical accessibility, programs, and services. As a result, the number of students with disabilities who are enrolling at the postsecondary level has increased dramatically. The paper focuses on the challenges that faculty and administration have to face in meeting the needs of students with disabilities in postsecondary education and the reasonable accommodations that they could adapt to make education more meaningful to students with disabilities.


Kiuhara, S. A., & Huefner, D. S. (2008). Students with psychiatric disabilities in higher education settings: The Americans with Disabilities Act and beyond. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(2), 103-113.

College students with psychiatric disabilities face multiple challenges. Judicial rulings under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 have generated outcomes that are sometimes more harmful than helpful. To reduce discrimination against persons with disabilities requires, among other things, a cultural shift in how psychiatric disabilities are viewed. This article examines (a) challenges that students with psychiatric disabilities face on higher education campuses; (b) the definition of disability under the ADA, with a focus on major life activities that may be substantially limited for people with psychiatric disabilities; (c) the implications of judicial rulings under the ADA for students with psychiatric disabilities; and (d) recommendations for accommodating students with psychiatric disabilities in higher education settings.


Knapp, S. D. (2004,). Disability access at SUNY campuses: 10 years after the ADA. Albany, NY: United University Professions’ Disability Rights and Concerns Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.uupinfo.org/reports/disability.pdf.
This report from the UUP Disability Rights and Concerns Committee responds to a UUP Executive Board charge to “monitor campus implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and make recommendations regarding disability rights.” The Committee surveyed UUP bargaining unit members in 2000. Our findings are reported in sections: “Campus Accessibility”; “Reasonable Accommodations”; “Attitudes and Behavior toward People with Disabilities”; “Age and Disability”; “Expenses”; and “The Just Community” (p. 2).


Konur, O. (2000). Creating enforceable civil rights for disabled students in higher education: An institutional theory perspective. Disability & Society, 15(7), 1041-1063.

The Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, building on the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, have been relatively effective in securing enforceable civil rights for disabled students in higher education in the United States. In contrast, the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 and any related previous pieces of legislation have persistently excluded these students in the United Kingdom, making, by default, any discrimination against them legal. However, the Government has started the legislative rule making process to include higher education under the new legislation, based on the final report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment of House of Commons and the final report of the Disability Rights Task Force. The paper argues that close examination of these reports as well as the Government’s most recent consultation paper, ‘Rights for Disabled People in Education’, reveals a path which is unlike the path that followed during the rulemaking process leading to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In other words, it is likely that disabled students would continue to be subjected to potential discrimination despite the inclusion of higher education under the new proposed legislation and despite special disability funding provided to universities for disabled students. Disability civil rights advocates have an important role to play in the current rule-making process to create enforceable civil rights for disabled students in higher education.


Konur, O. (2006). Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 351-363.

As the number of disabled students in higher education has increased in recent years, teaching them in compliance with public policy while maintaining academic standards has become a crucial issue. The access of disabled students to programs and to the curriculum are two separate but inter-linked features of such policies. This paper reviews the key features of the major four anti-discrimination laws and outlines the key adjustments to the curriculum for these students that are needed in response. It then outlines and discusses the current research on these adjustments. Four curriculum adjustments are explored: presentation format, response format, timing, and setting. The policy and practice of the curriculum adjustments have implications for academic staff. Research priorities are set out in relation to the attitudes of disabled students, academic staff, managerial or support staff, and non-disabled students.


Kurtz, A. (2011, October). An analysis of disability-related provisions in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act: What universities and policy makers should know [Policy Brief]. Orono, ME: University of Maine, Center for Community Inclusion and Disability Studies, in collaboration with Maine CITE Coordinating Center. Retrieved from: http://ccids.umaine.edu/blog/publication/heoa-policy-brief/.

The purpose of this October 2011 policy brief is to provide state agencies, postsecondary institutions, and policy makers with an overview of changes in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) affecting the access to education of postsecondary students with disabilities and the way teacher education programs at Institutions of Higher Learning (IHEs) prepare general and special educators to teach students with disabilities. Specifically, this analysis reviews disability-related terminology new to this revision of the HEOA, access to instructional materials for students with print disabilities, changes in access to financial aid for students with intellectual disabilities, model demonstration projects both for students with print and intellectual disabilities, and new requirements for teacher preparation programs. Implications of HEOA for Maine’s postsecondary institutions, Maine policy makers, and Maine students with disabilities are discussed.


Lellis, J. C. (2011). Silence on the stomping grounds: A case study of public communication about disability in the 1990s. Disability & Society, 26(7), 809-823.

This case study describes the manner in which the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – the first state-funded institution of higher education in the United States – publicly addressed the disability civil rights movement just before and after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. An analysis of archived documents, reports, and correspondence among administrators coupled with a review of news coverage in two of the most prominent news sources on campus indicated that there was no attempt to create and sustain significant public communication efforts about disability. Public communication focused on accessibility issues and rarely acknowledged the significance of the disability civil rights. The potential benefit of public communication about disability issues is discussed as it relates to higher education’s obligation to assume social leadership.


Levy, T. I. (2001). Legal obligations and workplace implications for institutions of higher education accommodating learning disabled students. Journal of Law and Education, 30(1), 85-122.

Levy explores higher education institutions’ legal obligations to accommodate students with learning disabilities and the courts’ review of those accommodations. Although disabled students undoubtedly benefit in terms of their ability to excel academically as a result of the liberal approach followed by most institutions of higher education in considering requests for accommodation, it is less clear whether these liberal constructions of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are really beneficial to disabled students in preparing them for future careers.


Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1999, August). Statistical analysis report: An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education [NCES 1999-046]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999046.pdf.

“Key legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has prompted numerous questions regarding access, support, and accommodations for students with disabilities in postsecondary education institutions. These institutions are required by law to provide reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for these students. However, there have been no nationally representative data available from postsecondary institutions about the enrollment of students with disabilities and the support services and accommodations these institutions provide to students with disabilities. Moreover, since no information has been available about the recordkeeping and reporting capabilities of postsecondary institutions regarding students with disabilities, it has been difficult to assess the extent to which postsecondary institutions can provide information about these students.

In response, this study, requested by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education (ED), provides nationally representative data from 2-year and 4-year postsecondary education institutions about students with disabilities. Specifically, the survey, undertaken by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) using the Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), includes information about (1) enrollments of postsecondary students with disabilities, (2) institutions enrolling students with disabilities, (3) support services and accommodations designed for students with disabilities, (4) education materials and activities designed to assist faculty and staff in working with students with disabilities, and (5) institutional records and reporting about students with disabilities. Information contained in this report is restricted to those students who had identified themselves in some way to the institution as having a disability, since these are the only students about whom the institutions could report. Note that students who identify themselves to the institution as having a disability are a subset of all students with disabilities, since some students with disabilities may choose not to identify themselves to their institutions” (p. iii).


Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Section 504: Differences in the regulations for secondary and postsecondary education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 81-87.

Secondary schools and postsecondary institutions differ in their obligations to students with disabilities under the regulations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This article presents several of the key differences between Subpart D, which applies to secondary schools, and Subpart E, which applies to postsecondary institutions. Implications of these differences for the transition process are discussed.


Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 273-281.

The newly reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 contains several significant changes that will directly impact students with learning disabilities (LD) who are preparing for transition to postsecondary education. These modifications include transition planning, reevaluations, new criteria for the diagnosis of LD, and the summary of performance requirement. This article presents an overview of pertinent changes in each of these key areas, as well as discussion of how these modifications will impact students in transition. Recommendations are offered for secondary and postsecondary personnel regarding these changes.


McGuigan, S. (2009). Documenting learning disabilities: Law schools’ responsibility to set clear guidelines. Journal of College and University Law, 36(1).

In his freshman year of college, Tommy was diagnosed with a learning disability. A school psychologist, using two primary test instruments for adults, determined that, while Tommy’s aptitude was strong, he displayed significant weaknesses in several areas and suffered from a Mathematics Disorder, DSM-IV-TR, 315.1 & a Disorder of Written Expression, DSM-IV-TR 315.2. The college’s office of disability services granted Tommy accommodations, including lengthy assignments broken down into smaller components, extended time for written tests, and a peer notetaker. Tommy blossomed, successfully graduating from college with honors. After six months in the workforce, Tommy decided to apply to law school.


McLean, P., Heagney, M., & Gardner, K. (2003, July). Going global: The implications for students with a disability. In R. James & K-H. Mok (Eds.), Globalisation and Higher Education [Special Issue]. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 217-228.

Equitable educational access is a hallmark of truly international universities, and higher education institutions operating in an international context have a responsibility to incorporate the principles of equity and justice espoused under international conventions. This paper considers the implications of internationalisation for students with a disability, it focuses on study abroad, exchange and international students travelling to Australia, and Australian students travelling to universities outside Australia. The paper considers the curriculum implications of the internationalisation of education for students with a disability and utilises Murray-Seegert’s (1993) ecological theory of diversity to explore the ways cultural factors affect opportunities for inclusion of students with a disability in the higher education sector. The authors also examine the effect of the advance in information technology, the implications for inclusive curriculum, and the complexities inherent in cross-cultural expectations on students with a disability.


Oakes Wren, A., & Vassar, J. A. (2010). The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments: Implications and protections provided for higher education’s faculty, staff and students. International Journal of Management in Education, 4(1), 80-94.

In 1999, the US Supreme Court made several court decisions that impacted the legal, business and academic world by ruling that a physical or mental impairment is not a disability under the law when mitigated or corrected by medication or other remedial measures. The results of these decisions served to exclude impaired employees from Congress’ intended protection under the original ADA law. In passing the ADA amendment, Congress hoped to construct an amendment which would result in court decisions that would better reflect Congress’s original intentions. This paper reviews the court cases that Congress hoped to overturn with the ADAAA, and then specifically discuss new provisions included in the ADAAA. Finally, this paper discuss specific probable impacts on educational institutions of higher learning along with several suggestions that are offered to administrators on how to deal with employment situations in light of the new provisions in the act.


Olkin, R. (2002).The rights of graduate psychology students with disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 1(1), 67-80.

Students with disabilities in graduate school have requirements additional to those of non-disabled students, and face barriers to retention and graduation. This paper addresses the issues facing students with disabilities in clinical graduate programs, and outlines a dozen specific rights for students with disabilities. The legal and social contexts for considering these rights are examined. Three legal tenets (separate is not equal; equality versus equity; assumption of innocence until proven guilty) are discussed as they apply to disability. Twelve suggestions for making the application process more accessible to persons with disabilities are offered.


Pardeck, J. T. (2001). Using the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a tool for helping social work faculty develop cultural competence in the area of disability. The Clinical Supervisor, 20(1), 113-125.

This article develops the theme of the importance of viewing disability as a part of cultural diversity. The ADA is offered as a tool for helping social work faculty develop cultural competence in the area of disability. Particular emphasis is placed on affirmative approaches for increasing the number of students with disabilities in social work programs. Teaching social work faculty and support staff about disability etiquette is offered with examples of various disabilities. The article encourages social work programs to offer training on disabilities for faculty and support staff.


Pardeck, J. T. (2002). A commentary on the admission and retention of students with disabilities in social work programs. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 1(3), 3-13.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the federal law upon which the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is built. Both laws are designed to prevent discrimination against students with disabilities. This commentary offers a comparison of section 504 with the ADA. An analysis of the case law under Section 504 is also presented; this analysis provides guidelines that universities and colleges will have to follow under the ADA. The implications of the ADA are offered for social work programs in the areas of admission and retention of students with disabilities.


People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education: Position Paper. (2003). Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. Retrieved from: http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm
.

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.


Proctor, B. E. (2001). Social policy and its application to students with learning disabilities in U.S. institutes of higher education. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(1), 38-59.

This paper reviews current social policy and its application as it relates to the education of students with learning disabilities (LD) attending US institutes of higher education. The purpose of the paper is to differentiate between the legal rights of students with LD in primary and secondary settings versus those in higher education; to review definitions of LD and eligibility criteria in colleges and universities; provide an overview of common services provided to LD college students; and to summarize the results of several follow-up studies on LD students who attend postsecondary institutes.


Ranseen, J. (2000, August). Reviewing ADHD accommodation requests: An update. The Bar Examiner, 69(3), 6-19. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/
user_docrepos/690300_Ranseen.pdf
.

“With the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1992, requests for accommodations on the bar examination have grown steadily. While bar examiners may be better equipped than other testing organizations to understand the legal ramifications of this legislation, they have still been caught up in the general confusion about definitions and procedures that so often envelops introduction of a new law. No amount of legal sophistication could prepare them to grapple with the tide of requests based on psychiatric diagnoses, especially attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities. It was within this context that i was hired as a consultant to various state bar examining authorities to explain diagnostic evaluation issues related to adult ADHD, to make recommendations regarding accommodations requests submitted by examinees, and to assist in development of review procedures for submission of these requests. My experience as a consultant has challenged me to bridge the divide between psychiatry and the law in ways that I did not anticipate. It has forced me to look more closely at issues critical to clinical practice. For instance, what are the essential features of ADHD among post-secondary students and how should clinicians verify these features? How should clinicians determine that ADHD symptoms are associated with “impairment” sufficient for “disability”? Does current ADHD research truly help us understand the functional impact of symptoms and how this impact can best be ameliorated, particularly within the academic environment? Does medication treatment alone ameliorate ADHD symptoms that affect test-taking skill?” (p. 6)


Ranseen, J. D., & Parks, G. S. (2005, March). Test accommodations for postsecondary students: The quandary resulting from the ADA’s disability definition. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 83-108.

Legal wrangling precipitated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has resulted in courts adopting a narrow view of disability. This narrow categorical disability definition is in conflict with current mental health and educational practice that presumes an inclusive view of disability. Test accommodations for licensing exams based on learning impairments provide an example of the conflict generated by legal versus mental health views of disability. Mental health practitioners often support test accommodation requests for students who do not meet the ADA’s strict threshold for disability determination. Mental health practitioners must understand the ADA definition of disability, and test organizations need to examine goals and alter standard practice in a manner that is fair and equitable independent of learning impairments.


Rothstein, L. (2004). Disability law and higher education: A road map for where we have been and where we may be heading. Maryland Law Review, 63, 122-161.

“This Article takes a retrospective view of higher education disability law judicial decisions and opinions from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. It also reviews generally Supreme Court decisions to evaluate the status of disability policy with respect to institutions of higher education. This review will be used to offer a road map to where national policy is headed with respect to disability discrimination issues in the context of higher education” (p. 123).


Sarnoff, S. (2001). Ensuring that course websites are ADA compliant. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 18(3), 189-201.

This paper explores how social work course websites can meet recommendations for ADA compliance. It addresses the current and expected rules for compliance, the types of disabilities that require accommodations and the accommodations that each requires. It discusses the software and hardware features and options available to students with disabilities. It also discusses software available to web authors to create accessible websites and identify noncompliant features. Following these guidelines will enable students with disabilities to fully benefit from online courses-and will offer benefits to users who do not have disabilities, as well.


Scott, S. S. (1997). Accommodating college students with learning disabilities: How much is enough? Innovative Higher Education, 22(2), 85-99.

Individuals with learning disabilities are attending institutions of higher education in greater numbers than ever before. In attempts to accommodate these students in the classroom, faculty often face the ethical concern of balancing the rights of students with learning disabilities with the academic integrity of the course, program of study, and institution. In order to dispel misinformation, a brief description of learning disabilities and federal law is provided. The ethical concern of “how much is enough?” is examined, and recommendations are provided for the informed and active participation of faculty in accommodating college students with learning disabilities.


Sparks, R. L., & Javorsky, J. (2000). Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodating the learning-disabled student in the foreign language curriculum. Foreign Language Annals, 33(6), 645-654.

Examines special issues surrounding foreign language (FL) requirements for students classified as learning disabled (LD). Focuses on why students experience FL learning problems, the problems with the definition of and diagnosis of LD, whether research supports traditional assumptions about LD and FL learning, whether students classified as LD should be permitted to substitute courses for or waive the college FL requirement, and implications of research.


Stone, D. H. (1996, May). The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on legal education and academic modifications for disabled law students: An empirical study. Kansas Law Review, 44, 567-600.

“Law schools face the challenge of providing disabled students with reasonable accommodations in their academic setting in a fair and equitable manner. Disabled law students continue to demand academic modifications in course examinations by claiming to be persons with mental or physical disabilities. Law schools are also beginning to see requests for extension of time for degree completion, priority in course registration, and authorization to tape record classes, all by virtue of an entitlement under the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Persons with a wide range of disabilities are seeking academic modifications from their law schools. What disabilities are most often represented? Are persons with learning disabilities inclined to seek additional time in completing their final exams? Are students with a mental illness more or less inclined to self-identify and seek similar reasonable accommodations? For those disabled students who are provided with additional time to complete their course examinations, how much additional time is fair and equitable? Should law schools provide readers for blind students and sign language interpreters for deaf students, or modify classroom equipment for physically disabled students?
When law schools consider providing reasonable accommodations in academic programs to their disabled students, what is the role of the law school professor in approving the requested modification? How does anonymous grading affect a disabled student’s request for an academic modification? Do most students who seek an accommodation have the request honored? Is there an administrative appeal process within the law school community? For those disabled law students who desire an academic modification, what, if any, medical, psychological, or educational documentation is required? Do law schools have written policies and procedures for addressing requests by disabled students?

A fundamental issue underlying the provision of reasonable accommodations within a law school setting is the future impact such an accommodation may have when the disabled lawyer subsequently represents a client in a legal proceeding. Do law schools provide a disservice by offering an “advantage” to a disabled law student when as a lawyer, no such “benefit” is provided? Do law schools, under the mandate of the ADA, recognize that providing academic modifications to disabled students has a significant impact beyond legal education, affecting the bar admission process, bar examination, attorney grievance and disbarment procedures, and employment of lawyers in the work place in general?

The empirical data contained in this Article is submitted to serve as a backdrop for purposes of elaboration and comparison of these and other questions. Eighty law schools from across the country were surveyed to obtain data and elicit their opinions on such questions relating to academic modifications. The significant number of disabled students seeking an academic modification in their law school education warrants such inquiry. Law schools continue to grapple with disabled students’ claims for fair and equitable treatment, as well as the desire to avoid a backlash from the nondisabled students who want to avoid providing disabled students with an unfair advantage in the law school setting.

This Article discusses and analyzes court decisions in the area of reasonable accommodations in the academic arena in order to understand the impact of the ADA and the direction courts are heading as they tackle this difficult and important area of law. Finally, this Article offers recommendations regarding fair and equitable reasonable accommodations for disabled law students in the academic setting” (pp. 567-568).


Thomas, S. B. (2000). College students and disability law. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 248-257.

This article briefly reviews Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and identifies the criteria that are used to determine whether a student is both “disabled” and “qualified.” Then, specific areas of admission, accommodation, and dismissal are examined. Finally, guidelines are presented that may be used by professors and administrators in their efforts to provide qualified students with disabilities with nondiscriminatory access to higher education.


Thompson, A. R., Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(3), 166-180.

A study examined faculty members’ knowledge of disability laws and recent legal decisions affecting higher education. The participants were 400 faculty members representing all 12 colleges and schools and all ranks within a Southeastern university. The faculty members responded to a 25-item survey designed to gauge their specific knowledge of disability laws and recent legal decisions. Results indicate that less than 18 percent of the participants were familiar with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and only 50 percent were familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 17 of the items, 30 percent or more of participants responded wrongly or did not know what the laws mandate. Faculty members knew less about academic adjustments for students with visual disabilities than any other category of survey items and only marginally understood items that addressed the responsibilities of the student, the faculty member, and the university. The implications of this study are discussed.


Tucker, B. P. (1996, Summer). Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 to colleges and universities: An overview and discussion of special issues relating to students. Journal of College and University Law, 23(1), 1-41.

Gives an overview of the obligations of postsecondary institutions toward students with disabilities under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Asserts that, although these statutes assist students with disabilities in becoming integral members of society, the attitudinal barriers they face remain formidable.


United States Government Accountability Office. (2009, October). Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives: HIGHER EDUCATION AND DISABILITY: Education Needs a Coordinated Approach to Improve Its Assistance to Schools in Supporting Students. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1033.pdf.

Research suggests that more students with disabilities are pursuing higher education than in years past, and recent legislative changes, such as those in the Higher Education Opportunity Act and Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, have the potential to increase the number and diversity of this population. GAO was asked to examine (1) what is known about the population of postsecondary students with disabilities; (2) how postsecondary schools are supporting students with disabilities; (3) what challenges, if any, schools face in supporting these students; and (4) how the Department of Education is assisting schools in supporting these students. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed federal survey and some state data; conducted site visits; interviewed agency officials, disability experts, school officials, and students; and reviewed laws, regulations, and literature.

Highlights of this GAO report are available at http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d1033high.pdf.


Vest, J. M., & Murrmann, S. (1993). The newest industry challenge: Transforming Americans with Disabilities law into workplace practice. Journal of College & University Foodservice, 1(3), 19-32.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the most extensive piece of legislation to bar discrimination against the disabled and necessitate changes to accommodate disabled customers and employees. In order to make ADA truly workable, employers must be knowledgeable about the law, and more importantly, seek to implement its requirements. The purpose of this article is to help foodservice managers get started on an important aspect of the ADA implementation process—employee training. Two diagnostic scales for assessing managerial knowledge of law and attitudes toward the disabled are introduced and their application to training program development is explained.


West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E. E., Ming, Z., Ipsen, S. M., & Martin, E. D. (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 456-467.

College and university students with disabilities were surveyed to determine their levels of satisfaction with accessibility, special services, and accommodations at their schools. In addition, students were requested to identify barriers to postsecondary education, improvements in services, and other concerns. Respondents generally, expressed satisfaction with the services that they had received. However, the majority indicated that they had encountered barriers to their education, including a lack of understanding and cooperation from administrators, faculty, staff,, and other students; lack of adaptive aids and other resources; and inaccessibility of buildings and grounds. Recommendations were made for improving the delivery of services and self-advocacy of students with disabilities.


Wilhelm, S. (2003, April). Accommodating mental disabilities in higher education: A practical guide to ADA requirements. Journal of Law & Education, 32, 217-237.

“This article does not challenge the philosophical underpinnings of the ADA in its application to mentally handicapped individuals in higher education. An enlightened society must make educational opportunities available to all of its citizens. The aim here is more practical. Offered instead is an examination of the law and cases involving mentally disabled students so as to assist institutions of higher education in developing guidelines and policies for accommodating students” (p. 219).