Are Dis isability Services A Turn-Off f to our Stu tudents? Tim ime for Dis isability Services to Reinvent It Itself Association on Higher Education and Disability July 21, 2017 Manju Banerjee, Ph.D. Loring C. Brinckerhoff, Ph.D. VP of Educational Research and Innovation Director, Education Policy Landmark College Educational Testing Service manjubanerjee@landmark.edu lbrinckerhoff@ets.org Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 1
Agenda • Implications of recent findings – The State of LD (2017) • Models of postsecondary disability services (DS) • Traditional DS operations – brief overview • Barriers to accessing disability services • Is it time to rethink the DS model? • Diminishing value of disability documentation • Possible solutions Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 2
Findings fr from State of f LD Report: Understanding the 1 in 5 (2 (2017) • 1 in 5 children in the U.S. have learning and attention issues such as dyslexia and ADHD. Some receive services and accommodations; many do not • Of the 1 in 9 undergraduates (11.1%) who disclosed any kind of disability to their college in 2011 – 2012, only 1 in 20 (4.8%) reported having learning disabilities even though it is the largest disability category for K – 12 students. • In postsecondary schools, fewer than 1 in 20 students with disabilities identify themselves as having SLD. Source: http://www.ncld.org/transitioning-to-life-after-high-school Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 3
Findings fr from State of f LD Report: Understanding the 1 in 5 (2 (2017) • 24% informed their college they have a learning disability • 7% did not inform their college even though they still considered themselves to have a learning disability • 69% did not inform their college because they no longer considered themselves to have a learning disability • Low self-esteem and stigma help explain why only 1 in 4 students with LD tell their college they have a disability; and why only 1 in 20 young adults with LD receive accommodations in the workplace. Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 4
Im Implications of f NCLD Findings • Many students with disabilities who could and probably should access disability services in college are not doing so. WHY IS THAT THE CASE? - Wanting a fresh start and discontinue legacy of special education - Stigma and sense of shame - Perception that accommodations are no longer needed - Hidden barriers posed by DS offices Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 5
Models of f Postsecondary ry Disability Services • Compliance model – primary focus is guided by ADA • Service model – primary focus is accommodations and some level of support services, including recommendations for study strategies • Comprehensive model – soup-to-nuts approach which includes services for students, as well as, faculty and staff ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Centralized vs. Decentralized approach • Student Affairs vs. Academic Affairs Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 6
Typical DS Responsibilities • Institutional compliance with ADA and Section 504 • Service delivery • Disability related conflict resolution • Disability awareness, orientation, and training • Resource on disability issues – internal and external • Database repository • Research Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 7
Operational Responsibilities • Student intake • Disability documentation review • Determine and deliver accommodations • Consult and coordinate with multiple campus constituencies • Information dissemination, including website information Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 8
Hidden Barriers • Policies and protocols that are cumbersome to students • Need for scheduling and multiple appointments and wait time • Deadlines for services – either enabling or too strict • Too much case-by-case approach that can create confusion • Staff rotation and lack of consistency for the consumer • Disability documentation review inconsistencies • Other barriers? Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 9
Dis isability Documentation Review In Inconsistencies Has the importance of disability documentation in determining accommodations waned among postsecondary service providers, given heightened weight to past history and self-report ? Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 10
Website Survey of Disability Service Offices • 25 postsecondary institutions based on: - G oogle search of top 10 …. - Colleges recognized for their LD support programs - Personal experience in DS services for 30+ years Banerjee, 2017 Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 11
Documentation Guidelines (L (LD) Information about documentation guidelines for LD on postsecondary institution websites is varied from generic to quite prescribed . Generic Broad statements about the components of a documentation There maybe a mention of ADA compliance and commitment to students Prescribed List of requirements that documentation must include Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 12
Examples of Disability Documentation Guidelines from Postsecondary Websites Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 13
Disability Documentation, , Shelf-Life and IE IEPs • More institutions ask for a 3 year recency compared to a 5 year recency requirement • Some mentioned adult norms and others didn’t --- no clear pattern • None noted IEP/504 Plan as acceptable documentation, BUT did ask for it to be submitted. • Many asked for IEP/504 Plan as verification of prior accommodations Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 14
Let’s look at the IEP Verification Implication • Postsecondary institutions are looking at IEP accommodation as “proof of use ” not validation of disability • Under Every Student Succeeds Act – ESSA (2015), 25 states have been using college entrance exams (SAT, ACT) as their accountability for HS College and Career Readiness (CCR) of their students • ESSA creates impetus for IEP and 504 teams to include accommodations that will be used on “locally selected, nationally recognized assessment” such as SAT, ACT etc.; compounded by SAT/ACT school approval protocol • 2015 DOJ technical guidance document notes that documentation should be reasonable and ….. Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 15
Documentation Guidelines Im Implication • Documentation Guidelines are becoming more of a “wish list” than what is actually provided in the documentation • Process can be fairly subjective based on DS personnel • Training and documentation literacy of DS personnel is needed Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 16
Accommodation Process • The process for receiving accommodations is being influenced by what the student has received in the past. • Website description of process hasn’t changed, but many institutions are now describing accommodations as an interactive/collaborative process between DS personnel and the student Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 17
Examples of Accommodation Request Process How to Register with SSD • The documentation can be sent to us one of the following ways: • Faxed to (123) 456-7890 • Emailed to ssdoffice@xyz.edu • Brought to our office at ………………… Once our office receives the paperwork you will receive an email confirmation and be assigned a disability coordinator. You will be asked to contact your disability coordinator to set up a meeting. During the initial meeting, the registration paperwork will be done. Your disability coordinator will determine your eligibility for services and identify reasonable and appropriate academic accommodations . Please note that University Policy is two weeks’ prior notice for any academic accommodation. Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 18
Lin indstrom, W. . & Lin indstrom, , J J (2017). College Admissions Tests and LD and ADHD Documentation Guidelines: Consistency with Emerging Legal Guidance. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 1-11. Authors looked at documentation guidelines used by college admissions tests (SAT, ACT, ETS) in light of: - ADA AA (2008) - GAO 2011 - LSAC consent decree (2014) - Best Practices Panel (2015) recommendations: • History • Qualified evaluators • Within 5 years • Professional judgement is okay Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 19
Review of f Literature Regarding Disability Documentation - Lindstrom & Lindstrom (2 (2017) 41- 60 % of college students receiving disability services for LD do not meet any LD diagnostic model < 50% of qualified evaluators adhere to DSM ADHD criteria Symptom exaggeration and suboptimal effort during evaluations is common 15% for LD; 13% - 25% for ADHD and LD Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 20
Fin indings Regarding Dis isability Documentation and Testing Agencies - Li Lindstrom & Li Lindstrom (2 (2017) Authors looked at the following testing agencies: • Undergraduate Exams • SAT • ACT • Graduate Exams • GRE • MAT • GMAT • LSAT • MCAT • PCAT • OAT • DAT Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 21
Findings • Looked at 22 variables regarding disability documentation: - Guideline structure for LD and ADHD documentation - Definition of disability - Statement of comparison group - Qualifications of evaluator - History of Accommodations - Quantitative and Qualitative data Banerjee and Brinckerhoff, 2017 22
Recommend
More recommend
