Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities

A Forum — September 17, 2004

Background

The worlds of elementary and secondary education and higher education are fundamentally different with respect to educating students with disabilities. Where elementary and secondary education is compulsory and no student with a disability may be rejected, higher education is voluntary and rejects many aspirants. Higher education routinely terminates students with disabilities for substandard academic performance, in contrast to the principal of “no cessation of services” in K-12 education. Students with disabilities also generally do not receive the same level of academic preparation in K-12 preparation as their peers without disabilities and consequently do not go onto higher education in larger numbers.

As students with disabilities move toward equal opportunities in elementary and secondary education, greater emphasis has been placed on equal access to postsecondary opportunities for them. A new report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities, focuses on the special barriers to equal educational opportunity in higher education faced by students with disabilities as they transition to higher education.

Forum Summary

Jamie Merisotis, IHEP President, introduced the forum. Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: A Primer for Policymakers is part of a series of forthcoming studies designed to examine how and why specific groups appear to be slipping through the cracks of the American system of postsecondary education opportunity.

Tom Wolanin, Senior Associate, IHEP, presented highlights of the report, emphasizing the special barriers to equal educational opportunity in higher education faced by students with disabilities. Wolanin argued that K-12 and higher education occupy “different policy planets” when it comes to students with disabilities. There are fundamental differences in the law between these two realms, with different legal requirements and expectations for each.

Regulations for K-12 education (Part D) under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require the provision of “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for all students with disabilities. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 (IDEA) there is a mandate to identify, diagnose, assess, and serve students with disabilities with no cessation of services. The result is that the academic K-12 curriculum is often modified to meet the needs of students. In K-12 education, students with disabilities have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and, if necessary, a modified academic program. Schools are mandated to involved parents. Meanwhile, the higher education portion of the regulations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Part E) state that “discrimination” is prohibited against those who are “otherwise qualified” with “reasonable accommodations” provided by the postsecondary institution. While in K-12 education, the school must identify and assess the student, in higher education the student must identify her or himself and provide an assessment of the disability. There is no IEP in higher education, and an institution’s academic program need not be modified in a “fundamental” or “substantial” way to provide accommodation to a student with a disability. Transition between these different “policy planets” can be difficult, and IDEA now includes transition planning for high school students with disabilities who desire higher education, but it is not mandatory for students to participate in this planning. Wolanin argued that the legislation should be changed to require participation by students with disabilities in the transition planning.

Patricia Steele, Graduate Fellow, IHEP, presented an overview of the data for the report. Data in the report come from multiple sources, and there are many inconsistencies in the data because of differences in survey definitions, methods of survey and sample selection. Nonetheless, Wolanin and Steele used available information resources to point toward key patterns or differences that may have implications for policy.

Due to increased incidence of disability, better diagnosis and classification and improved compliance with the law, the percentages of children under age 21 being served through federally supported programs for youth with disabilities has steadily increased. In 2000, reported Steele, six million children, or 13 percent of K-12 students, were identified as having a disability, with the largest sub-group being students with learning disabilities (46 percent). In higher education, students with disabilities represent nine to ten percent of the population, or about one million undergraduate students. There are challenges in attempting to track students with disabilities transition from high school to postsecondary education. Students may delay entry to college, may fail to self-report disabilities on surveys, or may not seek services in college. In addition, a number of students receive a diagnosis of a disability for the first time while enrolled in college.

Longitudinal data indicate that students with disabilities take, on average, more than five years to complete a postsecondary degree and are more likely to drop out. Graduates with disabilities, on average, face higher levels of unemployment and slightly lower salaries than their peers, with about equal graduate school attendance. Wolanin noted that of those students with disabilities in the primary college-going years, about half did not have the benefit of an Individualized Education Plan transition process because the onset of their disability occurred after they left secondary schools. Other students with disabilities delay higher education, entering on average three years later than students without disabilities.

Once on campus, faculty is key to delivering academic accommodations and ensuring education success for students. However, faculty attitudes and the academic culture are major barriers to the successful implementation of accommodations for students with disabilities. Faculty is also often ignorant about their responsibilities and about how to relate to students with disabilities.

Another barrier postsecondary students with disabilities face is financial. Generally, said Wolanin, students with disabilities have lower incomes than their peers without disabilities, and rely on the same federal, state, and institutional programs that serve low-income students. Therefore, their opportunities have been diminished by low levels of financial aid, particularly grants that affect all low-income students. In addition, it is expensive for students with disabilities to meet to special needs associated with daily and academic life. These additional costs often are not met because financial aid funds are limited, or the financial need of students with disabilities exceeds the maximum awards in various programs. Students with disabilities also often face difficulties in assembling a financial aid “package” from diverse sources because of standard expectations for employment and borrowing that are unrealistic as well as the complex coordination of outside sources of support

Jane Jarrow, Ph.D., Director of Disability Policy and Education for the Council for Opportunity in Education, noted that perhaps the greatest strength of the report lies in revealing the limitations of the data presented in the first chapter. There is no consistency in the data, and it depends on who is collecting the data, for what purpose and from what population. No one view captures all the issues. Policies need to reflect the various unique paths of students with disabilities through the education pipeline.

Discussion

During the question and answer period there was considerable discussion of the significance of the report and surprise at its failure to garner media attention. Forum attendees discussed the importance of providing positive examples of what works with students with disabilities, and the report authors argued for more effective design of curriculum, noting that effective teaching of students with disabilities is really effective teaching for everyone. Attendees stressed the importance of encouraging leadership in higher education to demonstrate that it is in everyone’s interest to educate students with disabilities. The authors noted that there is a level of compliance across all of higher education, but that this is not always the same as rich and full inclusion. While all of higher education has a very long way to go, Wolanin argued community colleges are currently doing a better job meeting the needs of students with disabilities.