The Hub - Issue 1, January 2020

We’re excited for you to explore the first edition of the new and improved HUB, now a monthly resource of professional information. We’ll highlight issues in the news, legal concepts, research, assistive technology tools, and other timely professional information of importance to our daily work. 

Back to top

Students with type one Disabetes (T1D) often connect with disability resource offices as an important part of managing their health. Since T1D often impacts students academically and a wide variety of accommodations may be appropriate, the College Diabetes Network (CDN) offers the following suggestions: 

• Using a Note Taker or Obtaining Recordings of Classroom Lectures

  • If a student is absent due to a diabetes-related issue or appointment, a note-taker or access to recordings of lectures can help them keep up with the course.

• Consuming Food and Drink

  • Accommodating students with diabetes by allowing them to eat during class may be necessary for students who need to treat low blood sugars during class.

• Performing Tasks Related to Diabetes Management and Care

If a student experiences extreme blood sugar, the ability to treat in class may be critical for both their physical and psychological health. Insulin administration, blood glucose testing, and other diabetes related tasks are safe and do not pose a risk to other students.

• Leaving Class Briefly to Attend to Diabetes Care
  • Students may need to leave class in order to tend to their diabetes. Some students may not feel comfortable testing blood glucose or administering insulin in public. The ability to leave without penalty allows them to manage their T1D in the way that works best for them.
• Medically Excused Absences
  • Occasionally, complications from diabetes such as hypo or hyperglycemia can prevent a student from safely traveling to, attending, or participating in class.
• Testing Accommodations
  • Diabetes management can be time consuming, and if a student experiences high/low blood sugar during an exam (which affects cognitive function), it may take up to an hour to get back in range. Being able to pause or reschedule an exam and resume when cognitive function is restored can be critical to capturing a fair performance. Students should also be allowed to bring their supplies (which may include food) into the testing area.
• Ability to Access Technology
  • Diabetes tech, in all its forms, serves a critical function in the day-to-day management of diabetes and cannot be temporarily removed. Instead of posing a distraction, diabetes technology makes attention and learning possible for the student.
• Establishing a Response System with Faculty Members
  • If a student has a diabetes-related emergency, setting up a response system, usually via email, can help establish a protocol for how faculty can assist. Of course, you’ll want to talk with the student before moving forward with a response system, but your advocacy with faculty on behalf of students with T1D may be essential.

Diabetes regimens require near constant attention and can cause a fluctuating sense of overall well-being. While each student with T1D will have different needs and accommodations, diabetes management can occupy one or two hours of some student’s daily lives. We hope this information will be helpful as you work individually with students and encourage you to be in touch if we can provide additional resources.

CDN will be releasing a resource for those working in disability services in early 2020. You can pre-order your free copy here.

The College Diabetes Network (CDN) is a non-profit organization whose mission is singularly focused on providing young adults with T1D the peer connections they value, and expert resources they need to successfully manage the challenging transition to young adulthood at college and beyond.

Back to top

• In the News: Harvard Ramping up Captioning Efforts with NAD Settlement
  
  
• Resource: College Diabetes Network: Accommodation Considerations
  
  
• Assistive Tech: EquatIO: A Tool to Provide Access to STEM Curriculum
  
  
• Legal Highlight: What Can we Learn From the OCR Letter to Penn State (2018)?
  
  
• Research You Can Use: Evidence of Inclusion on College Websites: Academic Accommodations and Human Support
  
  
• Disability Culture Idea Lab: An Introduction 
  
  
• 2020 AHEAD Management & TRIO Institutes Invitation
  
  
• Spring 2020 Webinar Series

There's still time to join us in Tampa for the AHEAD 2020 Management and TRIO Institutes. In addition to the annual law class, introductory session on access in health sciences, and TRIO institute,  AHEAD's CEO, Stephan Smith, will be offering a two-day class on Mastering Program Planning, Fund Research, and Proposal Composition Strategies that is not to be missed. 

Back to top

2020 Spring Webinars 

Register now! 

• Identifying and Removing Barriers to Access: Using a Framework to Guide Considerations of Complex Requests
• Strategic Outreach: Spreading Accessibility throughout Campus
• Accessibility Requirements in Internships and Externships
• Expanding Accessible / Assistive Technology (AT) Options at Your Institution
• A Disabled American in Paris. Or Was It Nairobi? Reasonable Accommodations in Study Abroad Experiences
• Methods and Strategies for Implementing Assistive Technology 
• The Legal Year in Review
• Assistive Technology for Students with Mental Health Conditions

Rachel Kruzel, St. Thomas University

Assistive or Accessible technology (AT) in conjunction with accessible STEM content to support students with disabilities has been a challenge for many years. Until recently, the topic was brought up regularly on listservs without many good answers. Innovation to support math access was status quo, without much change or many new tools. A handful of options that provide access to students who are blind or low vision or have physical disabilities that impact text entry have been available for years. These tools are usually high cost, take substantial time to learn, and do not prioritize ease of use. Many students with high incidence disabilities who need ways to access the STEM curriculum did not have appropriate tools to support their access.  While students often found work arounds which helped bridge the gap, an elegant solution was not available.  

Over the last five years, AT companies have been trying to tackle the issues of accessible math and science content. A few tools have hit the market with various adoption rates and levels of success. A few years ago, Texthelp (the company behind the literacy support tool, Read&Write) created and released a tool that support students and educators in the areas of STEM education. EquatIO is a digital math creation and consumption tool with a variety of features and uses. Available as a downloaded for Windows and Mac computers, as well as within the Google Chrome browser, users can create math within Word, Google Docs, and Forms and have functionality with PDFs and other file formats.

One of the most needed features in higher ed is text-to-speech for math. Students who use EquatIO can have math and science equations read out loud through EquatIO. To date, most other text-to-speech tools lack this ability. In addition to hearing text read out loud, EquatIO supports the independent creation of digital math on a computer. Through the text editor, word prediction, handwriting recognition, dictation, or LaTeX entry, students can write math within Microsoft Word Documents, Google Docs, and other Google tools. Instead of relying on a writer or struggling with handwriting math assignments, students can independently create math on a computer.  

The same tools students use to create content can be used by teachers and educators to create tests, assignments, and projects to help facilitate learning. For disability resources office staff, minimal work needs to be done to give students access to math and science readings. For years, disability resources staff have spent hours creating STEM content that could be read with a student’s assistive technology. Now once a PDF, Word, or other file format is created, the screenshot reader tool within EquatIO can read the equations and problems out loud. Creators can export equations from a document in either MathML, LaTeX, and other file formats to help ease the conversion process. EquatIO saves disability resources offices approximately two-thirds of the time that used to be required to convert a single textbook.

If you haven’t already, take some time to try out EquatIO’s free trial and see if any of your students could benefit by visiting EquatIO by Texthelp

Price: Free trial, prices vary based on license and school size.

Back to top

 

Citation: Costello-Harris, V. (2019) Evidence of Inclusion on College Websites: Academic Accommodations and Human Support. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3)m 263-278

Why is this Study Important?

When prospective students search for information about colleges that might be a good match, where do they look? Many students search online before they ever visit campus, making the campus website an important source of information about disability access and services. In addition to providing information about resources, this online information is important because it also conveys messages about the campuses’ efforts to be inclusive and provide a positive environment for students with disabilities.

Dr. Vanessa Costello-Harris from Indiana University- Kokomo wanted to know more about campus practices posting information about disability-related academic accommodations and human supports. What percentage of campuses had information posted on their website? What were the most common resources that were posted? What were the least common? Were there differences in the website information found at public vs. private institutions? What does this posted information tell us about the campus climate and inclusion for students with disabilities?

Research Methods

Costello-Harris and her colleagues reviewed the websites of a stratified sample of 26 colleges in the Midwest. They used specific search terms to review the websites for disability-related resources and supports. Rather than examining the accessibility of the websites, they were interested in discovering what they termed Evidence of Inclusion (EoI). They coded two types of resources as EoI: academic accommodations and human supports. Academic accommodations were defined by a list of 14 types of resources including items such as priority seating, permission to record class lecture, and extended time on tests. As defined in this study, academic accommodations were supports that typically require a disability diagnosis and documentation. Human supports were defined by 11 specific resources provided through assistance from a person including, for example, a writing center, support groups, or counseling center. These supports were available to students with disabilities but were also typically available to other students on campus as well.

The team of researchers used a defined set of search terms on each website and coded the 25 target resources as present or absent. They used a collaborative process for coding and reaching consensus on items that didn’t clearly fit in a category. After coding was completed, the researchers rated each institution’s EoI on a five-point scale based on the total percentage of the resources posted out of 25 possible supports. Ratings ranged from Exceptional (>90% of the 25 target resources were posted) to Inadequate (<60% of the 25 resources were posted). See the link to the article below for more information about the demographics of the institutions that were included in the study and how the researchers coded the data.

Some Key Findings

• The researchers concluded that overall, campus ratings demonstrated poor levels of Evidence of Inclusion (EoI). Less than half (46%) of the campuses posted 17 or more of the 25 specific resources needed to acquire the rating of Adequate on the EoI scale. 
• Resources in the major category of human supports were more commonly found than postings of academic accommodations. This was true across the websites of both public and private institutions. Nearly all campuses reported resources for study strategies/tutoring, writing center, and counseling services. The least reported human support was routine check-in meetings. Within the category of academic accommodations, extended test time was the most frequent subcategory identified, and was posted by over 90% of public and private campuses. The second most posted academic accommodation was providing materials in alternate format. The least posted academic accommodation was flexibility with class discussions.
• Public institutions received higher EoI ratings than private institutions; 74% of public institutions vs 54% of private institutions were rated as adequate (i.e., posting 80% of the target resources). Public institutions posted the academic accommodations of priority seating, modified deadlines, and audio recording of lectures at much higher rates than private colleges. Public institutions also posted greater numbers of human supports including the areas of advocacy/mediation, readers, and support groups for students with disabilities. Limitations The author noted the important distinction that the presence of a human service or academic accommodation on the website does not equate to actual services at the institution. So while the sample of postsecondary institutions included in this study was rated as demonstrating poor levels of EoI, this does not necessarily mean that the campuses are not offering a full range of accommodations and supports. In addition, the researchers coded the websites for a prescribed list of academic accommodations that may or may not reflect the full range of individualized accommodations that are offered on a case-by-case basis.

Actionable Steps

The researchers bring an interesting lens to this review of college websites. Rather than the traditional focus on the accessibility of the websites and the usability of online materials, they ask us to consider the messaging behind what information is and isn’t provided. While the rating scale of EoI used by the researchers implies that “more is better,” the reality for disability resource professionals is perhaps slightly more complex. How much information about specific accommodations is helpful to post on the website? Is an exhaustive list viewed as a “kitchen menu” by students and parents alike? Is there a reasonable selection of academic accommodations and supports that convey a welcoming campus climate while still communicating that the actual accommodation conversation and decision-making with the student is highly individualized? The findings of this study encourage us to take another look at the messaging of our office and campus websites. Consider these areas:

• What message does your campus website convey about campus climate and inclusion for students with disabilities? Consider the information about academic accommodations and human services that are currently provided online. What conclusions would a prospective student draw about the climate on campus for students with disabilities? Are there resources readily available? Does the campus clearly have experience providing access and supports for students with disabilities? Findings of this study suggest these questions may be particularly important for private colleges and universities to consider.
• Are there barriers to student self-advocacy that result from the information that is or isn’t posted on the website? Do prospective and current students have the information they need to take on the self-advocacy required at the college level? In addition to information about resources and supports, are campus procedures for mediation or grievance procedures easily located online? While we hope these procedures are rarely needed, making these processes readily apparent to students supports a campus climate where student voice is valued.
• How successfully does the website frame inclusion and access as a campus-wide expectation? Is it easy to locate information about inclusive practices or accommodations across campus including, for example, in residence life, in study abroad programs, in student organizations or honor societies? Would students with disabilities from marginalized groups, such as racial or gender identity minorities find the online resource and supports equally supportive?

Want to know more about the methods, outcomes, and limitations of this research? You can access the article online at JPED, 32, issue 3. Scroll down to issue 3 and select your format of choice.

Have you published a research article or read a research study that informed your work? E-mail Sally Scott (sally@ahead.org) with suggestions for future research summaries!

Back to top

Jamie Axelrod, Northern Arizona University

I was excited when AHEAD asked if I would be willing to coordinate a new column to focus on summarizing Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Letters (OCR) and court decisions. Many of you know I find these letters and rulings interesting. What I like most is following how OCR and the courts analyze the issues that come before them. I can then employ a similar style of analysis to different situations that are presented to me. Over time I discovered that this is not just a technical exercise. To the contrary, it has been a very practical way for me to facilitate good outcomes for students and support my institution’s mission.

 For this first installment, I thought it would be good to highlight a letter on a topic we are all talking about but also use it as an opportunity to highlight common elements contained in most OCR letters. The topic is animals. More specifically, service animals and emotional support animals. The letter is OCR Complaint No. 03-18-2103 to Pennsylvania State University.

 The first section of most OCR letters includes a statement of the allegations the complainant is making against the institution. In this case it was that Penn State had a policy about service animals which inquired about the nature and severity of a person’s disability as well as excluding service animals from specific areas of the University. The complainant also alleged that Penn State had a policy regarding emotional support animals which restricted them to University housing. The latter allegation is certainly something we are all looking for guidance on.

The next section of these letters contains a statement of the applicable legal standards that OCR enforces and is using to conduct its analysis. I reference this section of letters regularly. It is an excellent restatement of the basic requirements of Sec. 504 and the ADA. Sometimes, when I can’t recall specific wording from the regulations, I will open an OCR letter, and there it is. It also serves as a great reminder of our responsibility to ensure access for students. This letter references the non-discrimination requirements of both statutes as well as the specific requirements of Title II of the ADA in regards to service animals. It highlights that those requirements prohibit a public entity from enquiring about the nature and extent of an individual’s disability when it comes to service animals. It also restates the two permissible inquiries that public entities can make: 1) if the animal is required because of a disability, and 2) what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. It points out the limited circumstances under which a public entity can exclude a service animal.

OCR letters then move into “Findings of Fact.” This is the place where OCR will indicate what they found in relationship to the complainant’s allegations. In this section, the nuances of individual case-by-case circumstances are outlined, and, often, the specifics that really matter. While this case was fairly straightforward, there was an important wrinkle. OCR found that the University’s policy on service animals required individuals who wanted to use a service animal to engage in a “reasonable accommodation” process to determine the nature and extent of the person’s disability to decide if they could bring the service animal on campus. Here OCR’s guidance was straightforward. Pointing back to the legal standards, it indicated that this is not a permissible practice and that the institution is limited to the two outlined inquiries. OCR was quick to point out that Penn State was already in the process of reviewing this policy.

The most important piece of guidance was related to emotional support animals. This guidance about requests for animals is helpful. The letter also presents a reminder of the need to coordinate and understand all the “policies” or processes your institution uses. OCR clearly indicates that Penn State “does not have a policy on ESAs.” However, it found the following statement in the form for requesting an ESA in housing: “ESAs are limited to student housing and they are not allowed in places of public access.” OCR extrapolated from this sentence that Penn State did not consider requests for ESAs outside of housing. It is important to note that OCR did not comment on the processes for requesting an ESA in housing, presumably because it does not enforce those regulations. It did, however, take the opportunity to comment on the broader issue of requests to bring ESAs to other areas of campus. The guidance is clear and had not appeared openly in previous letters (in an earlier letter to Delaware Tech. it was redacted).

OCR would expect the University to engage in a reasonable process with a student, which would include reviewing ESA requests on a case-by-case basis, and reviewing accommodation requests as it would for other types of accommodations.  

While OCR isn’t dictating what the outcomes should be in such a process, it is making clear that it believes colleges and universities must consider such requests similarly to other requests.  

Back to top

Tammy Berberi, University of Minnesota Morris

Introducing…

The concept for this column emerged in community at the 2019 AHEAD Start Academy, held in Minneapolis. As I talked with new Disability Resource professionals, it became clear that many are interested in planning and promoting disability culture on their campus; they also lack the resources to get started, whether for lack of time, budget, or knowledge of disability culture resources. A chance to mentor your colleagues, this monthly column is meant to spur good thinking, collaboration, and confidence: small ideas that can bring about a positive change in how disability is understood by everyone in your campus community.

What is disability culture?

Disability culture as a modern political, artistic, scholarly, and activist concept emerged nearly four decades ago, one of the happy results of the disabled civil rights movement. Turning deficit thinking on its head, it represents an active rejection of paradigms that have long served to dehumanize, cure, and to isolate, asserting instead the strengths, tenacity, and ingeniousness of disabled people and their communities. Emerging qualitative research on identity development suggests an unsurprising link between the presence of disability culture on college campuses and a deeper sense of self-acceptance, belonging, and self-efficacy among students with disabilities. Beyond this, what Simi Linton has called ‘claiming disability’ (1998) is a deeply political act, and one with a surprising ripple. Disability culture can be credited with technological as well as community innovation, with marked evolution in the language we use to describe ‘embodyminded’ difference, with shifts in the emotions we assign to encounters with disability, within ourselves and in another. It invites new ways of thinking about beauty, intelligence, success, and relationships and, in its insistence upon interdependence, challenges fundamentally the individualism that continues to define achievement (for students as well as faculty and staff) on our campuses, and in American society as a whole. Disability culture is nothing short of a game-changer.

How to submit a column

With any luck, this is the only column I will write. I welcome your wisdom, and I am here to help you develop ideas you would like to share with your colleagues. Columns are limited to 500 words in length – flexible - and should be written in everyday, digestible language. Here are some questions to frame your contribution. You need not address all of them in order to inspire!

• Describe a successful disability-related event held on your campus in as much logistical detail as you can:
  • What was the event?
  • What was your total budget?
  • Who were your co-sponsors? (which departments, which local campuses, etc.)
  • Was the event part of a course?
  • Were students involved in the planning process, or hosting guests?
• Situate the event among disability-related resources and programs on your campus
• Situate the event within what you understand about the relationship between disability culture and a positive campus climate, student identity development and success, disabled faculty empowerment, etc.
• Assess the impact on individuals and on campus culture, reporting feedback, anecdotes, etc.
• Discuss joys shared and lessons learned.

If you would like to author a column for the Disability Culture Idea Lab, email me (berberit@morrs.umn.edu) to let me know. I am accepting pieces about two months in advance and will serve as primary editor, working with AHEAD staff and supporting you in order to finalize for piece for publication.

Back to top