<< TABLE OF CONTENTS (Part 2) >>

1. TURN LEFT ON THE LD HIGHWAY... AND DON'T LOOK BACK!
2. (REPRISE) BEYOND CIVIL RIGHTS

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

<< "TURN LEFT ON THE LD HIGHWAY...

AND DON'T LOOK BACK" >>

I recently had a very thought-provoking conversation with an old friend and colleague. Actually, maybe that should be a friend and old colleague. The fact that she has been in this business many years is central to the conversation we had. She was expressing some heartfelt concern about what she perceives as a shift in mission/focus -- and expertise! -- among disability service providers from what it used to be "in the old days."

As we talked, I realized that I agree with her observations and share her concerns, but I see the reasons behind these invasive changes very differently than she does.

In the early days following the passage and implementation of Section 504, the mission of the fledgling disability service programs was to figure out a way to help students with disabilities access education on a campus that
often was not prepared (physically or emotionally) to incorporate students who were blind, deaf, or in wheelchairs. OK, that's an oversimplification -- but not by much. We focused a huge amount of attention on overcoming architectural barriers, we spoke frequently about changing faculty attitudes, and we struggled to determine what options we had for the blind student in a science lab or a wheelchair user who couldn't use the campus bus system. We got involved in the everyday life of our students (from accessing public transportation to campus, to finding appropriate/safe living quarters, to assisting students with attendant care concerns) because we recognized that many of the students we were serving would be unable to be on campus to take advantage of our educational offerings if we didn't help resolve these concerns. The number of students was generally manageable, even with the meager resources allotted by the institution. One of the biggest problems was always how to get students with disabilities OUT of your office and into the mainstream of college life. The DSS office was the place "where everybody knows your name" and it was a safe haven (sometimes, TOO safe) for students with disabilities who were a bewildered minority on their campuses.

Enter the army of LD students who now swell the rolls of DSS programs across the country. They have no concerns about physical access, and limited concerns about their outside-of-academics life on campus. They focus almost exclusively on their need for academic accommodation, and we suddenly need faculty to actively participate in the accommodation process (as opposed to getting out of our way and letting us do it for many of the earlier populations). In most cases, the resources devoted by the institution are STILL meager (at best), but the numbers are no longer manageable -- at least not in the same way. We have had to develop systems for organizing and delivering services in order to assure the greatest good to the greatest number. One of the biggest problems we face with LD students is getting them INTO our offices in a timely fashion.

Please understand, this is not meant as a condemnation of students with learning disabilities IN ANY WAY. I believe there are legions of students with legitimate learning disabilities who are enrolled at colleges and universities across the country and now are receiving support that allows them to pursue their dreams in a way not previously available. That's terrific. I believe that these LD students have a right to be in college and SHOULD be served through the disability services programs established all those years ago. (NOTE: I mean that literally -- I am NOT a great fan of programs for LD students, separate from the program that serves all other students with disabilities, but that is an argument for another time!) But I think the sheer number of LD students in our programs has brought about changes in our field that are not nearly as positive for EITHER our originally-constituted mission OR for non-LD students with disabilities.

My colleague was lamenting the fact that DSS providers today seem less well trained than they were before to provide support and service to students with low incidence disabilities. My theory is that they weren't all that well-trained then. There were a whole lot of early pioneers in the field who had little or no disability background. But when you have fewer students to deal with, and less "history" to build on, you go out and seek the answers you need to guide your practice. Today, service providers have less time to individualize, and more case law, Letters of Finding, and experienced counterparts to
aid them.

The biggest change, however, comes in the training available -- and required -- for service providers today. Because the number of LD students is so significant, and because there ARE programs that provide academic training in identifying and working with LD students, college and universities are leaning heavily toward having someone available within the DSS office who knows and understands LD. The question, though, is whether that added emphasis on LD expertise comes at the expense of other information.

Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the qualifications requested for the 25 most recent job postings listed on my website. Of that number, four of the jobs were listed as "LD Specialists" or some variation of that title. Four more were listed as "program specialist" or "disability specialist" but the job description was clearly for an LD person. Four were listed as"Associate (or Assistant) Director/LD" and were targeting someone to handle their LD population. There were 11 positions listed for Directors or Coordinators of services, all of which spoke to the need to cover a broad population of students
with disabilities. Within the qualifications listed for those positions, most asked for knowledge and understanding of 504/ADA, several asked for knowledge/experience with adaptive technology, and three specifically mentioned the ability to read psychoeducational testing and documentation.

Only one of the 25 job listings specifically requested expertise in an area of disability other than LD. That one posting was looking for someone knowledgeable about issues of deafness and fluent in ASL (I happen to know that this was posted from a school that has one of those free-standing LD programs; this was a Program Specialist for the non-LD side of the house). The last of the 25 postings was looking for a Disability Specialist who (specifically) would NOT be dealing with LD and ADHD. I called to check. I spoke with the Director of the program, at a large State institution. She is looking for a full-time coordinator of services for students with other-than-LD/ADD because she already HAS a full time person with the LD/ADHD background and her program is large enough to warrant a second full-time service coordinator.

What does that prove? Simply that the majority of the folks working in DSS programs today are likely to have (and need!) some level of expertise in working with LD students and, secondarily, that there is not much comparable emphasis on having extensive knowledge/experience of other categories of disability on staff. Moreover, in my experience people who are hired for their LD backgrounds RARELY have much information about populations with other, more"traditional" disabilities. In the late 70's, if you didn't know what to do with the student in front of you, you went looking for answers. My fear is that today, if you don't know what to do with the student in front of you in a wheelchair, but you DO know what to do with the next seven students waiting to see you (all of whom have learning disabilities), you are going to try to figure out a way to apply what you know about LD to other populations you serve. For ADD, and even for some students with Psych disabilities, that may work. For many other students with low-incidence disabilities, it just doesn't!!! (My colleague's comment was that "if you only own one hammer, you are going to try to figure out a way to use it in everything you do." I think she hit the nail on the head this time! GRIN)

I can tell you lots of stories about people who spend months developing a "Policy for Course Substitution," and proudly put it in place as an answer to this issue for students with disabilities -- then find that the first person who applies for a course substitution under the new policy is the deaf student looking for a foreign language substitution, or the blind student looking for an alternative to Art Appreciation. When approval of the course substitution request hinges, in part, on "disability-related need as evidenced by psychoeducational testing," you are in big trouble! There are lots of similar examples, but perhaps the most profound is evident in the current DSS mania surrounding the issue of documentation of disability.

In the old days (don't 'ya just hate that?!), we didn't get into
spitting matches about the appropriate professionals to provide documentation, and we didn't have elaborate guidelines in place to use as checklists to see if the student had met his/her burden of proof. We asked for documentation. If it wasn't enough to tell us what we needed to know, we sent 'em back for more. Those days are long gone -- and there is NO WAY you will convince me that the change in attitude AND in practice isn't a direct result of the influx of students with learning disabilities. Granted, there are several other populations of students with disabilities who are with us now and didn't exist then (such as ADD and a growing number of students with Psych disabilities) for whom insistence on significant documentation is logical and appropriate. But the extensive "Guidelines for Documentation of Physical Disability" (or hearing loss, or visual disability) that I see being promulgated and adhered to with increasing regularity are an outgrowth of the "one hammer" theory of practice. We need detailed documentation to be prescriptive in accommodations for LD students, so we are insistent on it for ALL populations in the name of consistency (I didn't say it was logical, just consistent!).

I find the trend doubly annoying because many of the people insisting upon detailed documentation including diagnosis, testing protocols, and medication information haven't the VAGUEST IDEA what they are looking at. In the end, for those areas outside LD, they are going to provide whatever the outside professional recommends because they (admittedly) don't know much about this population and thus defer to the expert. If they were going to do that anyhow, why not go back to the prescription pad documentation?!?

Ironically, an artifact of this LD-specific knowledge possessed by many service providers may be that LD students are being less comfortably served than their non-LD peers among the disabled student population, simply BECAUSE the service providers THINK they know a lot about LD (yeah, I know... THAT is a discussion for another time, too! GRIN). I can name a dozen folks off the top of my head who wouldn't dream of second-guessing a psychiatrist or an audiologist in their recommendations for academic accommodations, but do so on a regular basis when it comes to assigning accommodations for LD students because they do not agree with the clinician's conclusions on the basis of the testing information shown. When did DSS providers move from the role of assessing NEED as a consequence of disability to the role of assessing the disability itself?

Thus, the number of LD students we serve begins to drive our policies and our practices. Providing notes (through notetakers) is a common accommodation for students with learning disabilities. If there are other students who need notes (because of physical disability, visual impairment, deafness), why not use the same system and set it up the same way? Because the REASON for needing the notes is different here, and thus it may be appropriate for the system to be different as well. It may be appropriate for the recruitment and training of notetakers to be different. It may be appropriate to consider alternative ways of getting the notes from the notetaker to the student. Under the
heading of "one-size-fits-all," it seems more expedient to simply develop one system that serves MOST of the students well, and make it do. Hmmm...

There are also things that DON'T get done (that probably should!) for students with low incidence disabilities because they are not needed or appropriate for the LD population (and thus, too often, not recognized by the LD service providers). Transportation issues are critical for many students with physical disabilities, yet are foreign to most LD service providers. I regularly read listserv postings from panicky service providers who are dealing with dozens of LD students with no problems, but haven't any idea how to get that math book done in Braille. Does it really need to be in Braille? They have a mechanism in place to get stuff put on tape. Wouldn't that work?

Yesterday, as I was working on this article, I got a call from a service provider at a Midwestern community college. She is the only person working with disability issues on her campus (she is not only the DSS provider, she serves as their de facto ADA Coordinator, too, since no one else knows anything about it). She was hired because of her academic and experiential background in learning disabilities. She called because the institution has decided to build a residence hall for the campus, since they are getting more and more students who would like to attend who are not immediately local to the area. The powers-that-be on her campus have decided that they have so few students in wheelchairs on campus that there isn't any need to be concerned about an elevator in the yet-to-be-built 3-story structure. The service provider knew this was wrong and that it shouldn't (couldn't?) be done. But she didn't have the vaguest idea how to make that case to the administration, where to look for backing for her concerns, or WHY exactly it was wrong. When I told her to begin by checking ADAAG, she asked me to spell "ADAAG." I find that frightening, coming from the resident expert on disability for that campus. At least she had the good sense to ask questions. I find even more frightening the thought that someone else might have let it go entirely!

I don't mean to sound angry or disgruntled about the level of expertise or professionalism of the legion of LD-experienced service providers who have joined the DSS ranks over the years. They deserve our respect. They have brought to the profession a kind of expertise we didn't have -- and badly needed-- in order to provide quality support for many students with disabilities now enrolled in higher education. I just hope THEY remember that the students they serve are not the only students with disabilities now enrolled in higher education.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

There was a second piece to my conversation with that experienced colleague. We talked about how the changing profile of service providers, combined with an ever-increasing focus (and fear!) of lawsuits, seems to be redirecting our efforts on behalf of students with disabilities. It seems that more and
more folks believe that if something isn't REQUIRED under 504/ADA, then it must be FORBIDDEN under 504/ADA and is something that shouldn't be done. I don't believe that the laws were ever intended to suggest LIMITS of what could/should be done, but I do believe that an emphasis on academic accommodations(without equal consideration of other needs) has shifted us into that "minimal compliance" mode in an effort of avoid charges of "over-accommodation." I'll probably have more to say on the subject in future newsletters, but for now I thought it might be appropriate to reprise this article from Volume II of the DAIS Newsletter. JEJ)

<<< BEYOND CIVIL RIGHTS (REPRISE) >>>

(Excerpt from DAIS Newsletter, Volume II,
No. 7)

As the keynote speaker for the 1998 AHEAD Conference, John Hockenberry presented an interesting perspective on the future of the disability rights movement. No. That isn't quite right. He presented an interesting perspective on why the disability rights movement may not be (at this juncture in our history) the best foundation on which to build toward the acceptance and inclusion of people with disabilities in our society. The following is nothing more nor less than MY interpretation of his message, offered for your consideration...

Hockenberry talked about the history of civil rights movements in general, and of the disability rights movement (with its Section 504 and ADA mandates) in particular. He drew parallels between the fight for equal rights for persons with disabilities and the similar battles fought by minorities and women in this country. And he noted that the civil rights protection offered to those groups that have preceded us brought them a long way -- and then stopped. Everything you read about the Glass Ceiling in corporate America, all the backlash we hear about Affirmative Action programming, and the distressing reports of limited availability of affordable health care and education to these "protected" populations bring us back to the same conclusion. The concept of civil rights -- of equal access -- is a philisophical goal, NOT a strategy for achieving equity. We need a better strategy.

Throughout the history of this country, we have seen systemic change occur only when the populace believed that it was in their own best interest to change. Ramps leading to buildings mean that wheelchair users can get in the door -- universal design that INCLUDES ramps mean than everyone can get in the door. Hockenberry's message, as I understood it, was that it is time we started to look toward including all people, regardless of disability, because we are stronger as a society the more people we have fully participating. Yes, people with disabilities have traditionally been excluded from opportunities available to others. Yes, we have laws that require change to mitigate those circumstances. And, yes, those laws have brought us to where we are today. But people with disabilities will never achieve parity so long as we focus on what is OWED to us for past indiscretions. Society's guilt at past failures and obligation under current law can get us a lot we didn't have before -- but it won't
get us where we want to go.

Let's bring this discussion back to the realm of postsecondary
education. What does it mean to include persons with disabilities as a strategy toward strengthening our institutions instead of an obligation to discharge? It means that every time the conversation about a request for accommodation begins with, "Are we obligated to provide..." or "Do we have to..." or "Where does it say that we must...", we have already taken a step back. Can we replace those questions with, "Is it reasonable to ask..." or "Is it appropriate to provide" or "Should we choose to...", instead?

When I was in college 25+ years ago, the vast majority of students enrolled in higher education were of traditional college age. They were full-time students between the age of 18 and 22, and had come straight out of high school. Today, the percentage of traditional students has shifted downward dramatically, especially at two-year institutions. Class schedules at such institutions are adjusted to allow for work schedules and family responsibilities. Daycare facilities are often provided, financial aid formulas have been adjusted, and institutions readily encourage students to use on-the-job experience to enhance their classroom learning.

Perhaps institutions of higher education can use their own appropriate and welcomed response to the changing demographics of traditional/nontraditional students as a model for embracing nondisabled/disabled students in their planning, policies, and procedures. Perhaps the strategy we need to adopt in order to move in a positive direction is to recognize students with disabilities as a population to be added to our mission and focus in higher education, rather than viewing their presence as an inconvenience or obligation. Perhaps...

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

(End of Part 2)