STEPS Forward - Inclusive Post secondary Education

PHASE II MS#024d(9)-H01

PRODUCT OF STUDY #9

Cynthia Zafft

University of Hawai`i at Manoa Center on Disability Studies

National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports

A Rehabilitation Research & Training Center

Children's Hospital/University of Massachusetts/Boston

Institute on Community Inclusion

RRTC on Postsecondary Educational Supports for Students with Disabilities

A Case Study of Student-Parent-Faculty-DSO Specialist Units

Postsecondary Education Project

Part I: Introduction and Review of the Literature

Postsecondary education has become an important step into adult life. While 78% of high school graduates enter into some type of postsecondary education, the same is true for only 37% of students with (any) disability (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). A small subset of this group, students with significant 1 disabilities, age 18-22 years, participate at an even lower rate of between 4-17% (Page & Chadsey-Rusch, 1995; Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, & Benz, 1995). These students often remain in special education programs on their high school campus while typical peers move on.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 The project uses the following federal definition. An "individual with a significant disability" refers to an individual:

(i) who has a significant physical or mental impairment which seriously limits one or more functional capacities (such as mobility,

communication, self-care, self-direction, work tolerance, or work skills) in terms of an employment outcome; [and] (ii) whose

vocational rehabilitation can be expected to require multiple vocational rehabilitation services over an extended period of time

(Definitions,

"Postsecondary institutions are important and influential in society. They are part of the continuum of institutions where people not only learn skills and ideas, but also form values and attitudes (The Roeher Institute, 1996, p. 19)." These skills, ideas, values, and attitude define a quality of life most individuals with significant disabilities now forgo. Yet, information regarding individuals with mental retardation who use the vocational rehabilitation system shows participation in postsecondary education correlates with competitive, rather than sheltered, employment (Gilmore, Schuster, Zafft,

& Hart, 2001). Completion of nearly any type of postsecondary education significantly improves the chances of individuals to secure meaningful employment (Gilson, 1996), one of the hallmarks of adult life.

There are several differences between high school and postsecondary education, which confuse students and parents during the transition process. One is the difference in the laws that control the two educational settings. While both settings share some laws, in high school, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 mandates that high school personnel systematically prepare students for adult life (Lukose, 2000). Under IDEA, students are ensured a free and appropriate education. Responsibilities for this are shared between the student, family, and educators with the student eventually (and ideally) taking over control of decision- making as they reach the age of majority. The 1997 IDEA Amendments support the study of outcomes, such as postsecondary education for students with disabilities, to develop a greater base of understanding regarding postschool outcomes.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section 6, PL 105-220, Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Title IV__Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998).rms of an employment outcome; and] (ii) whose vocational rehabilitation can be expected to require multiplevocational rehabilitation services over an extended period of time (Definitions, 3

While IDEA does not apply in the postsecondary education environment, Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (Public Law 93-112) and the American with Disabilities Act (United States Department of Justice, 1990) do apply. These are broader and unfunded mandates which function as civil rights laws, protecting qualified individuals against discrimination. Therefore, within the college environment, individuals must be qualified to attend (for example, meet admission standards). In addition, because it is an adult environment, students are expected to take on the responsibility of accessing assistance through appropriate channels within the institution. For students with cognitive disabilities, this expectation creates a substantial barrier.

In the postsecondary environment, an accommodation system has developed based on Section 504/ADA, case law, and institutional practice. This system assists the student with disabilities to successfully participate in college. Accommodations may include adaptations in the way specific course are conducted, the use of auxiliary equipment and support staff, and modification in academic requirements (Association on Higher Education and Disability, Reprint 2002). Use of support services and accommodations reviewed through a national database, Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) (NCES, 1999) shows that almost all (98%) of the institutions that enrolled students with disabilities had provided at least one support service or accommodation. Most institutions (88%) provide alternative exam formats or additional time, and 77% provide tutors to assist with ongoing coursework. Readers, classroom notetakers, or scribes were provided by 69% of the institutions. Priority registration, books-on-tape and other adaptive equipment, and sign language interpreters were also cited frequently.

A list of accommodations presently under study at the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education Supports (NCSPSES) has been used in this case study and provides a sample of typical accommodations available in postsecondary education (see Appendix A: List of Accommodations Under Study by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education Supports). These accommodations, while familiar to some high school students, are not usually familiar to students with cognitive disabilities.

Studies of accommodations for individuals with cognitive disabilities are rare (McAfee & Sheeler, 1987; Uditsky, Frank, Hart & Jeffrey, 1987; Page & Chadsey-Rusch, 1995; The Roeher Institute, 1996). Most students with significant disabilities participate in programs that are separate from their peers in resource rooms while in high school or "hosted" on the college campus, without full integration into the college environment. Studies of students in more integrated settings note that certain college-wide services have been important: orientation classes, use of tutoring services, use of natural supports (for example, classmates), but that academic accommodations, as such, are not discussed (Page & Chadsey-Rusch, 1995).

These issues, and many others, influence the manner in which individuals with more significant disabilities participate in postsecondary education. This case study examines the experiences of three student participants in a post secondary education project. The inquiry question addressed through semi-structured interviews was: To what extent did three college students use supports and accommodations in college and to what effect? This question was examined through the responses of the three students, a parent of each student, a faculty person whom the student identified, and the coordinator of Disability Support Services at the college.

Part II: Conceptual Model

The goal of the Postsecondary Education Project, developed by the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) and funded through a grant from the Office of Special Education Project (OSEP) of the federal Department of Education (DOE), was designed to assist 25 students with cognitive disabilities, including those from diverse cultures, to choose, gain admission to, enroll in, and successfully complete an inclusive post secondary educational experience, to take place primarily at their local community college. It articulated with several other projects to form a comprehensive model of support to students with very complex transition needs.

In 1998, the ICI developed partnerships with five urban high schools and their local colleges. The primary purpose behind these affiliations was to improve adult outcomes for students with significant disabilities by improving access to postsecondary education, employment opportunities, and development of social networks. The project used promising practices, including a student-centered framework to identify students' strengths and preferences and a collaborative interagency team (Student Support Team), to develop individual services and supports for students who expressed an interest in pursuing a postsecondary education.

The criteria for selecting school districts to participate in the project included geographic distribution, diversity of population, and the district's interest in developing innovative services and supports for students with disabilities preparing for adult life. Common features across each of the five high schools included culturally diverse student populations and reliance on substantially separate life skills classes for students with more significant disabilities. Current vocational services for these students with disabilities ranged from no employment/training options at all to short-term rotations through established work experience sites (e.g., discount clothing stores, hospitals, and fast food restaurants).

These experiences were generally unrelated to student choices or preferences and not available to the student upon graduation. Typically, students exited school and ended up with one of three options a day habilitation program, a sheltered workshop slot, or sitting at home waiting for services. In all cases, postsecondary education options were not viewed as a possibility for students with significant disabilities and therefore, no encouragement or supports were provided in that area.

The nature of the model took into account the unique aspects of each student, including their aspirations for the future, family wishes, and cultural background. The foundation of the model was based on five guiding principles: (a) individual student vision and preferences directed decision- making, (b) use of inclusive options and settings that reflected a natural proportion of students with and without disabilities, (c) development of services and supports that emphasized individual needs and preferences, (d) no special program (e.g., no designated classes or series of classes which segregate students with disabilities) was developed, and (e) collaboration between all parties

(student, family, school and college, adult service agencies) was necessary. On- going collaboration usually took place at a monthly Student Support Team (SST) meeting.

Establishment a Student Support Team (SST)

Each participating high school developed an interagency Student Support Team composed of a wide range of individuals, including college personnel (usually the Disability Services person but sometimes including the department coordinator and dean for the division), high school special educators and School-to-Career staff, Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) transition service coordinators, and additional members (i.e., Independent Living Center (ILC) counselors), based on the students' needs and desires. The role of the SST was to arrange person-centered planning for each student and then help in locating resources and financing for follow through on the student's plan. Students gave frequent updates to the SST.

Person-centered planning

Ideally, person-centered planning should start around age 14 or earlier in the transition process, because it is an especially useful vehicle to encourage students to start thinking about life after high school. Through this facilitated process, the student (with the help of friends and family members) identifies likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, preferences, and areas of potential interest for the future. The results of this planning process can be used in the Individual Educational Program (IEP) process to set direction regarding which courses to take, what career pathway to follow, and the kinds of ext racurricular activities to pursue in high school and college. All three students participated in person-centered planning, one student at age 18 and two students at age 21.

Part III: Research Method

Sample Selection

Students chosen to be interviewed for this case study participated in the Postsecondary Education Options Project with support from their high school SST. The target population for the project was high school students, age 18-22 years, with significant cognitive disabilities (e.g., mental retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury). This summary presents the results of the semi-structured interviews of "three units" (one per student) consisting of a student, a parent (one student's parent did not end up participating while both parents of another student participated), an instructor chosen by the student, and the director of Disability Services at their college. Several students were approached and final units were chosen based the ability to interview unit members. Two of the students attend the same high school.

A few details about student project participation may illustrate the experiences each student brought to the case study (all names in this study have been changed). At the time of these interviews, two of the three students (James and Katie) had exited high school and received high school diplomas. These two students graduated from a high school that traditionally awarded standard diplomas to students who met their IEP goals. This will not be true in the future because issuance of diplomas will only occur after students pass a state-wide proficiency exam. The third student will complete high school in one more year. All three students used academic accommodations while in college. In fact, students in the Postsecondary Education Options Project used many accommodations for the first time when they reached college (Project Effectiveness Data, unpublished). See Table 1 for student classes and point of graduation.

Table 1. College classes taken by students and point of graduation, if reached.

James College 1

Spring 2000 Intro to Computers (audit)

Fall 2000

Intro to Computers (credit) as a graduate

Spring 2002 Computers in Business (credit)

Fall 2001

Intro to Office Assistant (credit)

Spring 2002 Keyboarding 1 And Webpage Design (credit)

Katie College 1

Spring 2000 Basic Reading and Writing

Fall 2000

Physical Safety and First Aid

Spring 2001 AmericanSign Language 1

Fall 2001

Intro toComputers (credit)

Ama College 2

Still in HighSchool

Spring 2000 College Success and Intro to Culinary (credit)

Fall 2000

Basic ReadingAnd Writing 1 (credit)

Semi-structured Interview Instrument

Qualitative methods are particularly suited to study phenomenon in situations where there is little understanding (Bory & Gall, 1989) and, therefore, one of these methods, semi- structured interviews, was chosen for this study. In addition, since existing instruments did not match the unique features of the project, semi-structured interview questions were developed to focus on relevant items of interest related to the inquiry question (See Appendix B: Interview Instruments). Surveys were checked for readability levels with some adjustment of language to about grade 6-7 readability (This was above one student's independent reading level but was influenced by such words as "accommodations."). Permissions slips, directions, and survey questions were read aloud to all participants and repeated, as needed.

Each interview format (student, parent, DSO personnel, and faculty) contained five parallel questions and one or two role-specific questions (see Table 2 below and Appendix B: Interview Instruments). In addition, a brief survey of accommodation usage, developed by the Center on Postsecondary Education Supports at the University of Hawaii, was used as a review list for students, parents, faculty, and Disability Services personnel. With the exception of one interview, all were taped and transcribed. One interview was recorded using notes because there was no electrical outlet for the recorder and batteries appeared insufficient.

Table 2. Interview questions by role Interview Question

S= Student P = Parent F = Faculty D = Disability Services

Describe your participation in the project. S/P/F/D

What concerns or worries did you have at the start? S/P/F/D

What academic accommodations did you (your child, the student) use? S/P/F/D

How did you arranging accommodations? S

What experience did you have with faculty regarding accommodations? S/D

What advice do you have for others (students, parents, faculty, or DSO specialists)? S/P/F/D

Other thoughts? S/P/F/D

What concerns do you have for the future? P

What difficulty do students with cognitive disabilities have accessing accommodations? D

Interview Process

All participants were interviewed by the author at a place of their choosing. Interviews were taped in all but one case, which was recorded by hand. Written notes were taken during the interview process, primarily as a way to give respondents time to reflect. The author also participated as an educational coach for two of the students and so had direct classroom observations of two of the three faculty members. The third faculty member was observed in her informal one-to-one interactions with the student in the college writing lab.

In general, interviews were conducted with only one member of the unit present. In an interesting turn of events, two of the students were in the room during the interviews of their parents. During the course of the project, students had been encouraged to participate in all discussions rather than wander off, which was a typical way in which students became disconnected from decision-making. To counteract this, project staff would ask students to stay at all meetings, particularly meetings that included their parents. To ask students to step out of their living room for administration of the interview questions to their parents was not in keeping with this concept. Surely, this impacted the parents' responses but seemed unavoidable at the time. For example, when asked about worries for the future, one parent looked to see if her son was paying attention and then quietly said, "Will he be able to get a job some day and support himself? I'm hoping that all these classes are heading toward"

Transcription and Condensation Process

All interviews were transcribed by the author from tapes. One tape was of poor quality but field notes enhanced the accuracy of transcription. Errors, however, most likely exist in the transcription. Individual transcripts were condensed into tables of concepts and quotes for each question (see Appendix C: Question Summaries by Individual). Thematic tables were also developed for each role (see Appendix D: Thematic Tables by Role Student, Parent, Faculty Member, and DSO Personnel). Many interesting issues were discussed by participants. These issues will be touched on in the result section, however, this study focuses on those ideas that directly address the inquiry question.

Part IV: Results

In terms of effectiveness, all three students were taking classes for credit and were passing with grades of C or better at the time of the interviews. Two students were taking their most difficult courses and were not sure how well they would do. Grades are a fairly standard college effectiveness" measure, but they do not identify why a particular student is successful.

In addressing use of academic accommodations and supports, the following general inquiry question was used: To what extent did three college students use supports and accommodations in college and to what effect? This grand tour question was broken down into four subsidiary questions:

-- How did interviewees tend to define academic accommodations and supports?

-- What academic accommodations and supports did the students identify as helpful?

-- What academic accommodations and supports did members of the student's support system (parent, faculty, DSO specialist) identify as helpful?

-- How closely did responses compare within "units" (student-parent- faculty-DSO specialist) and between individuals with the same role (student compared to student, parent to parent, etc.)?

Students tended to find the term "academic accommodations" difficult to operationalize ("What are they?" and "I'm not sure what you're talking about."). As soon as the example "extended time for testing" was given, all three students could identify the term and describe procedures for accessing accommodations. Parents, like students, needed an example of an accommodation before recognizing the term. Parents tended to blur lines between high school, college and privately arranged supports, such as the personal service of educational coaching. For example, one parent noted that the educational coach even emails the student and parent at home:

Parent: "She (coach) emails me once in a while she emails both of us, so I know what's going on."

Interviewer: "and you know she is not attached to the college?" (In fact, the student and parent are paying for coaching services.)

Parent: "Oh, yeah." (slight look of confusion)

Parents also tended to connect many issues to accommodations, like learning how to use public transportation. One parent noted:

"Notetakers were helpful, at least at the beginning. Help with transportation was really helpful. You sort of tutored her in the beginning helping her find the organizations there (at college), that was helpful"

Confusion about what is and is not an accommodation might be expected during transition because of the interlocking nature of activities and the arbitrary boundaries set up by institutional systems.

Faculty members, depending on their relationship with the general college support network (e.g., DSO, general tutoring services, advising) administered accommodations differently and saw accommodations, not as discrete, prescribed actions, but as the service of accommodation. One faculty member, who teaches part-time in a college content area (rather than in developmental education), described how she addresses accommodations:

"I really don't use the college back-up. I have never used the testing service. I think extended time for testing is important but I do that. I just stay on with the students. It's my class. I would like to know where they are having trouble. You can't see that with just the results of the test. I think extended time is important for most students. The average student will have trouble remembering if they are under the pressure of time. It effects their participation."

Another faculty member, teaching full-time in a content area, viewed academic accommodations as part of a broad network of support:

"I think our college has a good structure to work with. We have counselors, we have tutors, we have peer tutors, we have AD (term the instructor uses for DSO specialists) specialists. So, I have a group I can count on to work with."

As might be expected, the Disability Services Specialists had a very carefully defined notion of accommodations the list of actions and services which the student needs, based on documentation of their disability, in order to level the playing field in college. This language reflected the words used in Section 504 discussed earlier. For students with cognitive disabilities, the definition of what is "reasonable" becomes the place where the definition blurred for DSO specialists, particularly when the accommodation was not required by law (for example, specialized tutoring):

"If a student is struggling due to cognitive ability and asks for 10 hours of tutoring a week is that going beyond a reasonable accommodation? Especially if the student is not successful with that level."

The next two inquiry questions are answered together because of the similarity of the responses between all interviewees. The academic accommodation found to be most often identified was tutoring (yet this is not a legal requirement of the college). Students, parents, faculty, and DSO specialist identified this as the most important accommodation.

One of the community colleges provided tutoring in textbook reading and general content area tutoring in an academic learning center, using both peer and professional tutors. This college also relied heavily on faculty to individually tutor students from their classes. The second college had a network of peer tutors for college-wide tutoring and several learning specialists available to tutor students with disabilities. In addition to this, two of the three students used educational coaches who tutored, took notes, and helped with general study concerns (e.g., time management, adjustment of materials to make them more accessible to student).

Extended time for tests and notetakers were mentioned by all interviewees as helpful, although one of the students did not use extended time or the testing room after the first test. Two of the three students did not use the notes taken for them, but their tutors and coaches did need the notes to assist the student. One student and both Disability Services specialists, and both parents mentioned help in choosing course schedules and faculty as very important:

Student: "Yes, I think scheduling is important because they help you get good professorslike professors that are good at teaching a certain subject. Like, they would say, 'This professor is good but another professor is even better because she doesn't go fasttakes her time teaching'."

DSO Specialist: "A lot of it gets to that course selection level. We are aware of faculty members who have worked successfully with students. We know it's going to be a good match."

To review, tutoring, notetaking, advising, and extended time for tests were identified by all unit members as important accommodations.

All three faculty members noted that difficulties which students from the project

experienced were similar to their classmates:

Faculty member: "I find that one of the biggest problems with the students you are speaking about is the same with all the other studentsthey don't put in the time until they have to. Like all of us." And, "usually the problems that one person has, the majority hasthey just don't want to say it."

and saw the student as important members of the learning community:

Faculty member: "One thing that I remember for the first dayI always have them (students) write down a few things about themselves and she wrote that she was friendly and helpful and things like that. I appreciated what she could bring to the class from that aspect, too."

Lastly, how consistent (by role) is the view of academic accommodations provided to the student? There seemed to be a high degree of agreement on what accommodations were helpful among students, parents, faculty, Disability Services specialists. Parents tended to think students were using more accommodations than they were actually using (and students, as might be typical, did not correct parent misconceptions during the interviews). Parents were the most likely to blur the lines

between services provided through accommodation, those provided as part of the general college support system, and those provided by the student or project funds. Disability Services specialists were very reluctant to generalize notions about accommodations, even across a small group of students, preferring to factor in case-by-case and class-by-class aspects.

An issue related to accommodations that came up was the perceived need for students with cognitive disabilities to have an advocate, at least at the beginning of the college process. In fact, it was hard for most interviewees, other than the students, to conceive of how the student would have negotiated the transition without suc h a person. Students were not directly asked how they thought they would fare without an educational coach or advocate.

DSO Specialist: "Students don't know how or don't advocate unless they have someone like an advocate with them if they have a significant disabilitythey need a person to serve as their connectionneeded to facilitate the transition."

Additional and overlapping themes identified by interviewees by role, although not all related to academic accommodations and supports, provide interesting insights into the issues related to transition for students with disabilities (see Appendix C: Interview themes as generalized by role). 17

Reliability and Validity

What is the consistency and stability of the information gleaned from these interviews? Due to the consistency of answers within units and between units, there is some support to the notion that the instrument and process would obtain similar findings if repeated with the same participants. The very nature of transition is change, however, so it could be assumed that the answers, particularly for students and parents, might lose consistency rather quickly.

In terms of validity, the ambiguity of the topic alone would raise some doubt regarding how truly academic accommodations and supports were examined. In addition, students participated in a rather complex model so it is difficult to isolate academic accommodations from several other features of the intervention, such as student-centeredness. The following is important to note:

1. The difficulty obtaining information from students through the interview format. Students needed many prompts to widen discussion. For

example, some type of participatory action research may have gotten clearer information from students.

2. Use of the project coordinator as the interviewer. This was particularly visible in the thanks received from parents for work done with their

young adult. It may have been hard to mention negative concerns to the interviewer

3. The extent to which self-selection (or pre-selection by DSO specialists) played a role in the extent and ease of accommodation use by faculty.

4. The legal ramifications of academic accommodations and aspects of political correctness may have dampened discussion of problems with

students or with accommodations.

Part V: Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Study

As can be seen at the beginning of this study, participation by students with significant cognitive disabilities at college is quite unusual. In keeping with the warning of the Disability Services specialists, it is risky to generalize by disabilities (e.g., "students with cognitive disabilities need."). Certain concepts, however, may apply beyond these three students. For example, the need for students and families to increase their understanding of accommodations and supports is quite important in order to pinpoint where they might successfully look for help. It appears that some students will need an advocate and/or educational coach with them to make the transition from the

high school to the college environment. In so far as specialized tutoring has been identified as extremely helpful by most interviewees, continuation and support of this as an accommodation for students with cognitive disabilities is important to increase the likelihood of their success.

Underlying much of this examination of academic accommodations is the notion that students with cognitive disabilities, with support, skill development, and careful advising can have success at community college. This is a particularly important message to share with parents, high school teachers and guidance counselors.

Several areas for continual study arose from this case study, including:

- further examination of how to support students with significant disabilities in inclusive educational settings through the use of accommodations

- development of mechanisms to share the cost of on-going educational coaching for students that may need this personal service, which is now

paid for by the student and family after high school

- enlarging the menu of accommodations to promote success for students with more significant disabilities, perhaps by revisiting universal design

concepts and assistive technology; and

- examining the notion that the "problems" of young adults with disabilities are in some way extensions of typical problems faced by all young

adults during transition.

This final exchange between a mother and her son sounds very typical, despite the "unexpectedness" of a student with a significant cognitive disability attending college:

Parent: "I never though he would be the one to go to college. Yeahso that is amazing. I never went. I would love to go. My husband and I were just talking about it a week or so ago. I'm thinking about going and taking some night classes over at the college."

Interviewer: "So, John, you going to take your mother over to college some time soonshow her how to register?"

Student: (student bursts out laughing) "As long as she doesn't sign up for a class with me!"

References

Amendments to The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C., Section 1400 et seq.

Americans with Disabilities Act, PL 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.

Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research (5 th ed.). New York: Longman.

Gilmore, D., Schuster, J., Zafft, C, & Hart, D. (2001). Postsecondary education services and employment outcomes within the Vocational Rehabilitation system. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(1) retrieved April 4, 2002 from www.dcs.hawaii.edu/dsq.

Gilson, S.F. (1996). Students with disabilities: An increasing voice and presence on college campuses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6, 263-272.

Halpern, A.S., Yovonoff, P., Doren, B., & Benz, M.R. (1995). Predicting participation in postsecondary education for school leavers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62(2).

Lukose, S. (2000). The transition to college for students with disabilities in New York State. CDEI, 23(2).

Kohler, P.D., & Chapman, S. (1999). Literature review on school- to-work transition. National Transition Alliance. [On- line]. Available:

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/stwpurpose.htm.

McAfee, J.K. & Sheeler, M.C. (1987). Accommodation of adults who are mentally retarted in community colleges: A national study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, December 1987.

NCES, (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. L. Bobbitt (Project Officer). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. NCES 1999-187.

Page, B. & Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1995). The community college experience for students with and without disabilities: A viable transition outcome? CDEI, 18(2).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, PL 93-112, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. 21

Roeher Institute (1996). Building bridges: Inclusive postsecondary education for people with intellectual disabilities. Ontario, Canada: The Roeher Institute.

Uditsky, B., Frank, S., Hart, L. & Jeffrey, S. (1987). On campus: Integrating the university environment. In Baine, D. (Ed.), Alternative futures for the education of students with severe disabilities. Proceedings of the conference on severe and multiple handicaps: Alternative futures (pp. 96-103). Edmonton Alberta, Canada: Publication Services, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta.

U.S. Congress. (1990). Public Law 101-476. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Wagner, M.M. & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work or college: How special education students fare. The Future of Children: Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6(1). 22

Appendix A:

List of Instructional Accommodations (2)

(if available at your college)

Given extra time to take tests?

Tests read to you?

Work/test in a distraction- free environment

Use of specialized software programs?

Had someone who took notes or read for you?

Instruction by a tutor?

Used a scribe?

Given priority registration and course scheduling?

Interpreters/translators

Enlarged print

Brailed materials

Reading material on tape

Auditory information printed

Recording of lecture

Class relocation

Specialized seating in class

Did not use an accommodation.

Others: _______________________

(2) List provided by The National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education Supports, University of Hawaii, Center for Disability Studies.

Appendix B: Interview Instruments

Interview Questions for Students:

Thank you for your participation in the Postsecondary Education Project at the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI). As the project draws to a close, we would like to know about your experience with the project and recommendations for future work in this area.

- What has been your participation in the project? (For example, how did you hear about the project, what classes did you take?)

- Do you remember if you had concerns or worries when you started? If you had concerns, what were they?

- What academic accommodations and supports did you use in college? Were they helpful? Were there other supports you needed but

didn't get?

- How did you arrange supports and accommodations? How difficult were they to arrange?

- What has your experience been like with faculty members that you have had?

- What advice do you have for other students regarding college?

- Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Interview Questions for Parents:

- What has been your participation in the project?

- Do you remember if you had concerns or worries when your son/daughter started? If you had concerns, what were they? How were those

concerns taken care of?

- What academic accommodations and supports did your son or daughter use in college? Were they helpful? Do you think there were other \

supports he or she needed but didn't get?

- Do you have concerns for the future? If you have concerns, what are they and how do you think they will be addressed?

- What advice do you have for other parents of students with disabilities regarding college?

- Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Interview Questions for Faculty:

Thank you for your participation in the Postsecondary Education Project at the Institute for community Inclusion (ICI). As the project draws to a close, we would like to know about your experience with the project and recommendations for future work in this area.

- What has been your participation in the project?

- Do you remember if you had concerns or worries when you started working with the student(s) from the project? If you had concerns, what were

they? How were they addressed?

- Academic accommodations form the backbone of support for students with disabilities in college. Thinking about the students in the project,

how do you think students interfaced with this support system? What academic accommodations seemed particularly helpful for students?

Did you find anything unexpected in that way that students did or did not use accommodations?

- Faculty members teach complex material to a diverse audience of students. What advice do you have for other faculty members who may

teach students with similar disabilities?

- Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Questions for DSO Specialist:

- What has been your participation in the project?

- Do you remember if you had concerns or worries when you started working with students with significant cognitive disabilities? If you had

concerns, what were they?

- Academic accommodations form the backbone of support for students with disabilities in college. Thinking about the students in the project, how do you think students interfaced with this support system? What academic accommodations seemed particularly helpful for

students? Did you find anything unexpected in the way that students did or did not use accommodations?

- In focus groups from last summer, parents talked about their concerns regarding "accessing access" the difficulty they expected their son

or daughter would have negotiating the college environment and accessing accommodations. Do you find that students with

significant cognitive disabilities have difficulty accessing accommodations? If so, how? If it is a student issue, what might help?

- Faculty members are key participants in the accommodation process. What has your experience been with faculty members that have

students from this project in their class?

- What advice do you have for other disability services professionals regarding working with students that have significant cognitive

disabilities?

- Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Appendix C: Interview Themes as Generalized by Role Role Theme

Student Students had difficulty answering questions with more than a few words or sentences; unclear about what the term "accommodations" meant until example given; did understand procedures for arranging accommodations; very positive feelings about faculty interactions;

found college enjoyable; and would encourage others to attend college. Parent Unclear about what project was all about; looked to key high school personnel at this time for guidance; viewed postsecondary education as encompassing many things, including use of transportation; blurred lines between support systems; not sure what supports are and what supports are being used by child; seeing student as needing an advocate on college campus; seeing parents as in need of support, too; and, concerned for the future (job, funding of school) Faculty Expressed ownership of student ("my student"); seeing problems of students with disabilities as similar to problems of typical students; focused on student strengths; valued student's contribution to the learning environment; felt supported by DSO, department, and institution regarding serving students with disabilities; confident that the student could be successful; need for a 1:1 support person for student; concerned that college classroom not designed to meet student's needs or that fellow students might not be supportive and surprised that experiences have not confirme d this; and, strong commitment to accommodating students. DSO Specialist Concerned if student will be successful and impact on self esteem, if not; students ability to advocate for self may be impacted by cognitive disability; strong sense of professional contribution to assist student and faculty; working on what constitutes "reasonable accommodations" for individuals with cognitive disabilities; concerned about generalizing

based on disability; believed that the degree of collaboration between all parties is high; and viewing student as needing an advocate to make a successful connection between high school and college for students with cognitive disabilities.