Postsecondary Education, Vocational Rehabilitation and Students with Disabilities: Gaining Access to Promising Futures.

Introduction

Recent estimates from the U. S. Census Bureau indicate that persons with bachelor degrees will earn approximately $600,000 dollars more in their lifetime than those who did not receive education beyond high school. This estimate was cited by the Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, in his statement before Congress during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Riley, 1997). Riley further noted that: "More than ever before, education is the fault line between those who will prosper in the new economy and those who will be left behind. Today's good jobs increasingly require skills and training beyond a high school education, and accessible postsecondary education is critically important to individuals as well as our Nation's economy and democracy" (p.1).

A 1998 Harris Survey asserted that Americans with disabilities are among those teetering on the edge of this fault line. Some of the survey's most troubling findings included the following:

* Only 29 percent of working-age persons with disabilities are employed full- or part-time, compared to 79 percent of the nondisabled population.

* Approximately 20 percent of adults with disabilities have not completed high school, compared to 9 percent of adults without disabilities.

* In terms of economic well-being, 34 percent of adults with disabilities live in households with total income of $15,000 or less, compared to only 12 percent of those without disabilities (National Organization on Disability, 1998).

If postsecondary education is indeed one of the keys to success in our rapidly changing national and global environment, then there is also some encouraging progress being made by individuals with disabilities in this regard. According to a triennial survey reported by the HEATH Resource Center, the number of college freshmen reporting some type of disability has increased substantially during the last two decades (1999). In addition, the number of postsecondary institutions offering educational opportunities for persons with disabilities has also increased to meet this greater demand (Stodden, Jessen & Lolotai, 1999). This progress may be due, in part, to a number of key pieces of legislation that are helping to improve results in the education of students and adults with disabilities. These include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), initially the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EHA); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

IDEA and its predecessor statute, EHA, guarantee equality of educational opportunity for our nation's disabled students. States receiving IDEA funds must make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to eligible children with disabilities in mandatory age ranges. FAPE under IDEA, however, makes reference to an appropriate preschool, elementary school or secondary education in the state involved and does not make reference to postsecondary education. Further, the final IDEA regulations clarify that a student who graduates from high school and is awarded a regular high school diploma is no longer entitled to FAPE. IDEA though is especially important because it helps to establish a student's preparation for entry into postsecondary education.

Prior to the enactment of IDEA more than half of America's children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services. Furthermore, one million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from public education (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 1997). Since the passage of the predecessor statute to IDEA 25 years ago, significant progress has been made to improve the quality of special education and related services and to increase access to these services for our nation's disabled students. In addition, the 1997 Amendments to IDEA, while retaining and strengthening the basic protections included in the law since 1975, also have redirected the focus of the law by placing greater emphasis on effective teaching and learning strategies, raising expectations for students with disabilities, and by increasing student access to the general education curriculum. In 1990, when the EHA was renamed the IDEA, new requirements were added that a statement of needed transition services be included in each disabled student's IEP, beginning at age 16 or younger, if appropriate. Transition services, which are a coordinated set of services taking into account the student's preferences and interests, are designed to facilitate movement from school to postschool activities before the student leaves the school setting. IDEA 1997 also adds new requirements for a statement of transition services needs to be included in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of each student with a disability, beginning at age 14 or younger, if appropriate. These changes were intended, in part, to help students with disabilities appropriately prepare for and meet the academic requirements of postsecondary education settings. Since 1984, the Office of Special Education Programs, through discretionary grants under IDEA and its predecessor law, the EHA, has supported approximately 200 model demonstration projects designed to stimulate higher education possibilities for students with disabilities, including opportunities in postsecondary, vocational, technical, continuing, and adult education. Furthermore, IDEA funds have also supported HEATH, the National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities. Also established in 1984, HEATH provides information on postsecondary educational support services, policies, procedures, and opportunities to students with disabilities and their families, higher education faculty, and support services staff.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, also applies to the education of disabled students. First, Section 504 of the act, which is enforced by the Department's Office for Civil Rights, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance, including institutions of elementary and secondary education, higher education, colleges, universities, and postsecondary vocational education and adult education programs. Title II of ADA is also enforced by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, as it applies to public elementary, secondary, post-secondary, and vocational education programs (other than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, and other health-related schools) and public libraries, regardless of receipt of federal funds. At the elementary and secondary level, under Section 504 and Title II, recipients that operate a public elementary or secondary education program must protect elementary and secondary education students with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability by providing them a free appropriate public education, as defined in the Section 504 regulation.

With respect to postsecondary education, Section 504 and Title II prohibit a broad range of discriminatory acts in areas ranging from recruitment and admissions to provision of program benefits. Section 504 and Title II require a postsecondary institution to provide auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently than other individuals. In addition, under Section 504 and Title II, students with documented disabilities may request reasonable modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids designed to help them participate in and benefit from their postsecondary program and activities. Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments, notetakers, readers, videotext displays, television enlargers, talking calculators, electronic readers, Braille calculators, printers or typewriters, telephone handset amplifiers, closed captioned decoders, open and closed captioning, voice synthesizers, specialized gym equipment, other classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments, and other similar actions or services. Second, the Rehabilitation Act provides some funds, through state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, to individuals determined eligible for VR services and whose individualized plan for employment specifies the need for items or services. These items or services may include assistive technology, auxiliary aids and services, and postsecondary education tuition.

The Higher Education Act (HEA) also assists students with disabilities in a number of ways. First and foremost, the act provides financial aid, in the form of grants, loans, and work-study opportunities to qualified students, including students with disabilities, to help them pay for their postsecondary education. In addition, a series of eight outreach and support programs, collectively known as the TRIO Programs, have been established through HEA to help low income, disabled, and disadvantaged students enter and succeed in higher education. Many students with disabilities find assistance each year through TRIO programs such as Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and Talent Search.

The HEA Amendments of 1998 authorized two new programs that have much potential to improve postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. The first program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), provides grants to states and to partnerships between colleges and high-poverty middle schools and junior high schools to prepare students, including students with disabilities, for college. As the program name implies, GEAR UP grants target disadvantaged students early, beginning in the sixth and seventh grades, to ensure that they receive the support and preparation they will need to successfully be accepted to and graduate from postsecondary education programs. The 1998 HEA Amendments also authorized a new program of demonstration projects designed to provide faculty and administrators in postsecondary institutions with the skills and support they need to teach students with disabilities. The Office of Postsecondary Education Programs (OPE) currently funds 22 new projects through this program at universities and colleges across the country. The purpose of these projects is to develop innovative, effective, and efficient teaching methods to enhance the skills and abilities of postsecondary faculty and administrators.

Increasing access to postsecondary education is vital for improving the employment and quality-of-life outcomes of students with disabilities. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to summarize and discuss current research focusing on postsecondary students with disabilities; (2) to examine emerging challenges for improving the postsecondary experiences of students with disabilities; and (3) to discuss promising practices that are helping students with disabilities to succeed in postsecondary settings.

Postsecondary Students with Disabilities--National Data

According to the 1995-1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), roughly 6 percent of students enrolled in postsecondary education reported having some type of disability (NCES, 1999a). Of these, almost 30 percent indicated that they had a learning disability. Other disabilities reported included 23 percent with orthopedic impairments, 16 percent with hearing impairments or deafness, 16 percent with visual impairments that could not be corrected with glasses, and 3 percent with speech impairments. Twenty-one percent of the students reporting disability indicated that they had "other" health-related disabilities. Males with disabilities were more likely to enroll in postsecondary education than females, and whites with disabilities were more often represented than blacks or Hispanics. As a diverse whole, students with disabilities tended to be older and participated more often in 2-year rather than 4-year postsecondary programs (NCES, 1999a).

Students with disabilities were less likely to depend on income from parents or other family members than nondisabled students (NCES, 1999a). About half of the financially dependent undergraduates with disabilities reported receiving some type of financial aid, and this finding was not statistically different from that of students without disabilities. Both groups received about $6,000 in financial aid annually. Financially independent students with disabilities, however, were more likely to rely on federal aid than nondisabled students. The NPSAS findings suggest that undergraduates with disabilities rely to a greater extent on federal aid and assistance than do those without disabilities, particularly the majority of those who reported financial independence. It is important to note that the 1995-1996 NPSAS design could not account for the extent to which undergraduates received financial assistance from disability-specific federal and state programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and VR.

In terms of academic preparedness, analyses of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:98/94) showed that most high school students with disabilities were not ready for a 4-year college education. As compared to 37 percent of students without disabilities, 57 percent of students with disabilities who completed high school in 1994 were not qualified according to their performance as ranked by GPA, senior class rank, SAT/ACT scores, and aptitude testing (p. 30). Further, students with disabilities who were at least minimally qualified for a 4-year college or university program were significantly less likely to participate in these programs when compared to nondisabled students with similar academic potential. Qualified undergraduates with disabilities instead frequently veered toward 2-year postsecondary programs rather than 4-year college and university programs (p. 34). Policy implications of these findings will be discussed in a later section.

Considering the heterogeneous population of students with disabilities exiting secondary education, it should be noted that the NELS sample did not include some students with significant disabilities who were determined inappropriate for this survey. Also excluded were another 10 percent of students with disabilities who were once part of the NELS sample but later dropped out of high school prior to graduation (NCES, 1999a). Prior research has shown that up to a third of all students receiving special education services drop out of high school (Hebbler, 1993; US Department of Education, 1994). In particular, secondary students with learning disabilities, emotional disturbances and mental retardation demonstrated particularly high dropout rates (Cameto, 1993; Newman, 1991). Of students receiving special education services, only 27 percent enrolled in postsecondary education after high school as compared to 68 percent of students without disabilities. Only 4 percent of students with disabilities had enrolled in a 4-year college. Students with disabilities who therefore stayed in high school, graduated, and were adequately prepared for a 4-year college were indeed an exceptional group.

Services and Accommodations

A Postsecondary Education Quick Information Survey (PEQIS) conducted between 1996 and 1998 generated important information regarding the accommodations, services, and supports provided to students with disabilities in 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions (NCES, 1999b). In addition, PEQIS yielded data focusing on outreach activities, technology planning and collaboration between postsecondary institutions and VR agencies. This section will discuss the services and accommodations provided to students with disabilities across postsecondary institutions nationally.

In contrast to the NPSAS, the PEQIS data provided institutional enrollment estimates of students with disabilities, and these estimates varied by data collection methods. For example, some institutions based their counts on disability verification, and others on the provision of services and accommodations. All PEQIS responses, however, were contingent upon the student reporting his or her disability to the postsecondary institution rather than through an anonymous survey. And, while the NPSAS estimate of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions was 6 percent (NCES. 1999a), the PEQIS estimate was much smaller-only 3 percent or 428,000 students (Lewis & Farris, 1999). Still, PEQIS provided important data regarding how institutions respond to the needs of students with disabilities in postsecondary settings.

Given an array of options, PEQIS respondents were asked to identify those services, accommodations and supports that were provided to students during the academic school year. For all postsecondary institutions, 88 percent reported that alternative exam formats or additional time was provided. This accommodation was the most frequently reported among all 2- and 4-year institutions. Other commonly provided accommodations and services included tutors to assist with ongoing homework (77%); readers, classroom notetakers or scribes (69%); registration assistance or priority class registration (62%); adaptive equipment and technology (58%); textbooks on tape (55%); and sign language interpreters/transliterators (45%). In general, public 2-year and 4-year institutions were more likely to report providing these accommodations and services than comparable private institutions. Those postsecondary institutions with larger student enrollments were also more likely to report the provision of accommodations and services, and this finding was not surprising given that students with disabilities tended to enroll more often in larger colleges and universities.

The accommodations and services reported in PEQIS did not describe the extent to which students with disabilities access these services. That is, accommodations and supports were reported from an institutional perspective rather than on an individual basis. Also, while PEQIS data showed that 60 percent of postsecondary institutions reported collaborating with VR agencies, the nature and scope of coordinated activities is still unclear. The next section will focus on the interface between VR programs and postsecondary education. In particular, state VR agency costs and consumer employment outcomes will be described, as well as services and training provided to postsecondary students who were also VR consumers.

Rehabilitation and Postsecondary Education

Using 1998 data from the 911 caseload database (RSA, 1999), Table 1 shows the numbers of VR consumers who exited the program after receiving college and university training, costs of purchased services for such training and employment outcome rates. College and university training included all academic coursework beyond high school and may cover tuition, support services and other expenses. As shown, average costs varied widely across agencies. The District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, and Ohio agencies reported costs that averaged over $10,000 per consumer. As groups, average college and university training costs for blind agencies and those in U.S. territories were substantially higher than others, averaging about $14,000. On the opposite end of the spectrum, average costs for states such as California, Oregon and Texas were below $3,000 per consumer. This variation may be influenced by a number of factors such as differing tuition costs, financial aid systems and consumer characteristics.

Table 1

Purchased Costs and Employment Outcome Percentages for VR Consumers Who Received College and University Training

                                                       Percent with
                                         Mean Costs      Employment
Agency                      Number      of Services        Outcomes

Alabama                     1,076            $6,025            81.2
Alaska                        234            $8,317            59.0
Arizona                     1,204            $5,501            44.4
Arkansas                    1,287            $4,632            74.7
California                  6,088            $2,961            41.0
Colorado                      345           $61,065             6.8
Connecticut                   356            $8,170            61.0
Delware                        96            $7,384            46.9
District of Columbia           72           $12,580            65.3
Florida                     2,029            $6,039            58.3
Georgia                       245           $12,568            58.0
Hawaii                        125            $4,222            51.2
Idaho                         423            $4,232            53.0
Illinois                    1,483            $7,004            52.0
Indiana                       788            $9,523            54.2
Iowa                          986            $3,440            53.7
Kansas                        383            $8,152            60.1
Kentucky                    1,727            $5,400            70.5
Louisiana                   1,158            $8,515            74.0
Maine                         153           $11,202            56.2
Maryland                      487            $7,196            67.4
Massachusetts               2,266            $3,622            57.3
Michigan                    1,624            $4,286            45.0
Minnesota                   2,285            $2,622            47.9
Mississippi                   207            $7,144            59.9
Missouri                    1,424            $8,037            60.6
Montana                       349            $8,205            53.3
Nebraska                      341            $4,389            56.3
Nevada                        262            $3,389            49.6
New Hampshire                 216            $7,634            59.7
New Jersey                    248            $7,837            54.4
North Carolina                444            $5,249            50.7
North Dakota                  219            $6,685            69.4
Ohio                        1,408          $109,645             5.7
Oklahoma                    1,372            $5,406            63.3
Oregon                        263            $2,218            42.6
Pennsylvania                1,877            $9,215            72.9
Rhode Island                   77            $8,936            62.3
South Carolina                530            $4,712            72.6
South Dakota                  189            $6,027            70.4
Tennessee                     842            $7,386            73.2
Texas                       7,580            $2,956            54.9
Utah                        1,564            $4,786            80.0
Vermont                       163            $3,363            47.2
Virginia                      592            $5,837            62.8
Washington                  1,568            $4,377            57.5
West Virginia                 553            $5,698            70.2
Wisconsin                   2,126            $5,498            50.1
Wyoming                       346            $4,405            60.4
Territories                   865           $14,645            94.4
Blind Agencies              1,096           $14,658            64.5

Total                      53,641                              60.0

Employment outcome rates shown in Table 1 also vary considerably. As a group, rates in U.S. territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and America Samoa were unusually high at 94.4 percent. Utah and Alabama also had relatively high employment outcome rates, 80 percent and 81 percent respectively. States such as California and Oregon, conversely, reported rates as low as 41 percent and 43 percent. The high rates reported by outlying areas may be influenced to some extent by differing reporting procedures and fewer consumers per agency. Even with these differences, the mean rate for consumers receiving college and university training was 60 percent and this was comparable to the rate consumers who did not receive such training.

Many VR consumers receive services in addition to college and university training. For VR consumers who received college and university training, Table 2 shows the percentages of other services and training types received through the VR program. Consumers receiving college and university training also often received assessment services (87.4%). As shown by PEQIS data (Lewis & Farris, 1999), 84 percent of postsecondary institutions required some type of verification of disability for receiving disability support services and 77 percent accepted VR evaluations for eligibility purposes. Seventy-five percent of college and university VR consumers also received substantial counseling services. Other research shows that students with disabilities were more likely to receive counseling services than nondisabled students (Horn & Bertold, 1999), and VR consumers in postsecondary education appeared to receive these services at even higher rates. Maintenance (26.3%), restoration (28.7%) and other services (32.7%) were often provided. Job-finding and placement services were also frequently provided (27.5% and 21.1%), while on-the-job training was relatively rare for this population (4.5%). Notably, relatively few VR consumers (3.6%) received personal assistance services such as reader assistance, personal attendants and interpreter services.

Table 2

Additional Purchased Costs and Employment Outcome Percentages for VR Consumers Who Received College and University Training

Service and Training                Description
Type

Assessment Services      Included diagnosis and evaluation to
                         determine applicant eligibility for VR
                         services and/ or to determine the nature
                         and scope of services to be provided.

Counseling Services      Counseling and guidance provided to the
                         individual only to a substantial degree
                         (i.e., counseling was of overriding
                         importance in the totality of
                         rehabilitation services delivered as
                         determined by the substantial level of
                         such services provided).

Transportation           Included any service (e.g., vans, taxi
Services                 cabs, private cars) provided or arranged
                         for by the state VR agency to enable the
                         individual to arrive at appointments for
                         assessment, medical services, training,
                         or any other rehabilitation service, as
                         well as to permit the individual to get
                         to work.

Other Services           Services that cannot be categorized in
                         any other classification (i.e.,
                         occupational tools and equipment, initial
                         stocks and licenses and services to family
                         members to benefit the individual).

Restoration Services     Included services such as surgery, therapy,
                         treatment and hospitalization needed to
                         correct or substantially modify a physical
                         or mental condition.

Job-Finding Services     Services that included providing sufficient
                         information to the individual to permit or
                         arrange for a job interview with a
                         potential employer.

Maintenance              Services Included services provided to
                         cover the additional costs incurred by the
                         individual while he or she is undergoing
                         rehabilitation.

Job Placement            Services Services rendered when the
                         individual is referred to and hired by an
                         employer. Does not include situations when
                         the individual found a job on his or her
                         own without training or support. Also,
                         persons who are already employed at the
                         time of application are not included.

Miscellaneous            Included services provided to cover the
Training                 additional costs incurred by the individual
                         while he or she is undergoing
                         rehabilitation.

Adjustment Training      Training designed to help the individual
                         adjust to a particular situation hindering
                         his or her disability (e.g., work
                         conditioning, mobility training, literacy
                         training, lip reading, braille)

Business/Vocational      Included training in business/commercial
Training                 schools or colleges and vocational
                         trade schools.

Assistive Technology     Services that directly assist an individual
Services                 in the selection, acquisition or use of
                         assistive technology device (i.e.,
                         evaluation, customizing or repairing
                         assistive technology devices, coordination
                         with other therapies and services, and
                         training and technical assistance for the
                         consumer and his or her family as
                         appropriate).

Assistive Technology     Devices that enable the individual to
Devices                  receive rehabilitation services, improve
                         his or her personal status or make it
                         possible for the person to work or become
                         more productive.

On-the-Job Training      Training by a prospective employer in
                         which the individual usually works for
                         wages while learning job skills.

Personal Assistance      A range of services designed to assist
Services                 an individual perform daily living
                         activities on or off the job that the
                         individual would typically perform if he
                         or she did not have a disability.
                         Such services are designed to increase
                         the individual's control in life and
                         ability to perform everyday activities.
                         Personal assistance may include reader,
                         interpreter and other types of services.

Rehabilitation           Included a complex set of services
Engineering Services     entailing an original design or concept
                         intended to help the individual function
                         personnally, socially and/or vocationally.
                         These services may incorporate the
                         innovative use of devices, equipment, aids,
                         environmental modifications, and
                         transportation and would typically require
                         the use of a rehabilitation technology
                         specialist.

Service and Training Type    Percent

Assessment Services         87.4
Counseling Services         75.4
Transportation Services     41.4
Other Services              32.7
Restoration Services        28.7
Job-Finding Services        27.5
Maintenance                 26.3
Job Placement               21.1
Miscellaneous Training      18.6
Adjustment Training         17.1
Business/Vocational         16.5
 Training
Assistive Technology        11.3
 Services
Assistive Technology         9.6
 Devices
On-the-Job Training          4.9
Personal Assistance          3.6
 Services
Rehabilitation               2.8
  Engineering Services

Source: Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1995). Reporting manual for the RSA 911 case service report. Washington, DC: Author

Future Challenges

By the year 2006, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999) projected that 18 of the top 25 occupations with the largest and fastest employment growth, high pay and low unemployment will require at least a bachelor's degree. These occupations will consist mostly of jobs in the areas of healthcare, computer technology and education. In addition, it is anticipated that labor force groups with lower than average educational attainment will continue to experience obstacles toward obtaining jobs with higher pay. While nearly two-thirds of future jobs will require less than an associates or bachelor's degree, these jobs provide the lowest pay and benefit options. Many of these future occupations will provide pay below the poverty threshold (CPS, 1999). Given this scenario, postsecondary education opportunities will be of vital importance for all future job seekers, particularly those with disabilities.

Postsecondary education is critically important for the development of tomorrow's work force. When controlling for sociodemographic, SSI participation, vocational rehabilitation, and other factors, Berry (1999) found that postsecondary education more than tripled the odds of achieving an employment outcome when compared to individuals with disabilities who failed to complete 12 years of education. Also, as discussed by Schmidt, Kay, Davis, and Hayward in this issue, VR consumers who earn 2- or 4-year postsecondary degrees are more likely to achieve employment outcomes and have higher earnings than consumers with less than a high school education.

Postsecondary education is key for better careers and futures among individuals with disabilities, and there are many challenges that need to be addressed in order to increase access to and success in colleges and universities. Among these challenges, interagency coordination, universal design, and transition planning for students with disabilities are particularly important for helping prepare students with disabilities to gain access to postsecondary education and employment success.

Interagency coordination. The debate between postsecondary institutions and state VR agencies regarding which party should take primary responsibility for the payment of auxiliary aids for postsecondary students who are also VR clients has been long and heated. The history of this controversy has its roots in statute, regulations and case law.

As mentioned, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires postsecondary institutions, as recipients of federal financial assistance, to make their programs accessible to students with disabilities. This accessibility is often accomplished through the provision of auxiliary aids and services, including interpreter services, which can be costly. In an effort to conserve limited state VR dollars, state VR agencies initially used the "comparable services and benefits provisions" of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to limit VR funding for the auxiliary aids needed by their clients who were students in postsecondary institutions. These provisions required state VR agencies assist their clients in locating and utilizing benefits and services from other sources comparable to those offered by VR agencies, prior to expending VR program funds.

This practice was called into question in the early 1980's by a number of court decisions and a 1981 opinion offered by the Department of Education's Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Both the judicial findings and the OGC opinion concluded that the comparable services and benefits provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [sections 101(a)(8), 101(a)(12) and 103(a)(3)] did not categorically prohibit state VR agencies from paying for postsecondary student's auxiliary aids, if the student's individualized written rehabilitation program (IWRP) called for such auxiliary aids and postsecondary training (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1999; PEPNet, 1999). Furthermore, the OGC opinion encouraged the determination of payment responsibility between postsecondary institutions and VR agencies to be made on a case-by-case basis, with each case taking into consideration such things as the necessity of the service for the student to attain an employment objective, the VR agency's order of selection of individuals for services and the costs of such services. Thus, a wide variety of payment agreements were negotiated between state and local VR agencies and postsecondary institutions.

The passage of ADA in 1990 rekindled this debate. Some believed that the ADA had altered the status quo to place the entire responsibility for funding auxiliary aids and services on the shoulders of postsecondary institutions. Others believed that the previous court decisions still held, and that state VR agencies should continue to share the costs associated with the provision of auxiliary aids and services for their clients.

In order to promote improved collaboration, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended in 1998 to include a compromise provision that was contained in Section 101 (a)(8)(B) of the act. This provision required each state's governor, in consultation with the state VR agency and other appropriate agencies, to develop an interagency agreement or other mechanism for interagency coordination to ensure the provision of VR services to eligible individuals with disabilities. Institutions of higher education are specifically named as one of these appropriate agencies. Other named entities included Medicaid and the work force investment system. The interagency agreements must contain a provision for determining the financial responsibility of each public entity providing VR services. Simply stated, this new provision was designed to help resolve the disagreements between institutions of higher education and state VR agencies, on a state-by-state basis, concerning which agency is responsible for financing services for postsecondary students who are also VR consumers. Given this legislative context, the extent to which disagreements are minimized will ultimately result from the collaborative interactions (and compromises) between these important entities.

Universal curriculum design. The PEQIS study reported that 2- and 4-year colleges and universities are providing many individually designed accommodations, services and supports for postsecondary students with disabilities (Lewis & Farris, 1999). One area not addressed in the PEQIS, however, was the extent to which faculty at postsecondary institutions were using curriculum that incorporate universal design principles as a means to accommodate students with disabilities. This concept is relatively new to the field of postsecondary education and at first glance the term almost seems incompatible with the individually designed accommodations that have typically been recommended for students with disabilities.

The term "universal design" refers to the design of environments and products, in this case postsecondary curricula, in such a way as to ensure that they are usable by as many people as possible, including people with disabilities. The term has its origins in architecture, where it was used most commonly to describe designs that purposefully incorporated, rather than added as an afterthought, assistive technologies and adaptations to accommodate physical access for individuals with disabilities (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) identified three principles that are essential to universal curriculum design. These principles include the provision of multiple representations of key information to accommodate a variety of student learning preferences and needs, multiple options for students to control and demonstrate their learning and multiple options for student engagement and motivation (1998). For contact information on CAST, see the Resource List at the end of this article. The principles behind universal design have spread from architecture to areas such as product development, communications and information technologies. More recently, universal design principles have been applied to the design of elementary and secondary educational curricula.

Following the passage of the IDEA Amendments of 1997, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), began a concerted effort to facilitate the application of universal design principles to help students with disabilities gain full access to the general education curriculum. As a result of this effort and the work of dedicated researchers and innovative curriculum and software developers, K-12 classrooms across the country are beginning to use learning materials and activities that incorporate universal design principles. Examples include textbooks with built-in flexibility and software with multiple means of representation (Orkwis & McLane, 1998).

Like curb cuts and revolving doors, universally designed learning materials have the potential to benefit many diverse learners, not just learners with disabilities. Diverse learners, including those with cultural barriers and those who speak English as a second language, represent a substantial proportion of the entire learning population. As these diverse learners enter postsecondary education in greater numbers, faculty should be cognizant of universal design principles in order to better address the learning needs of all students.

This may be a more difficult task than it is in K-12 education, however, simply because postsecondary faculty have greater autonomy in selecting their textbooks and materials; and because universal curriculum design is a new concept in higher education, faculty must become knowledgeable about the benefits of using this type of curriculum with a wide variety of learners.

Beginning in October 1999, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) funded a number of model projects designed to incorporate the principles of universal curriculum design into training and materials for postsecondary faculty to help them better accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities. Products from these projects should be available within the next few years. For more information on these projects and other OSERS funded projects that are working on universal curriculum design, contact OPE (see the Resource List at the end of this article).

Transition planning. Since 1990, the planning and provision of transition services for students with disabilities, 16 years and older (or younger if deemed appropriate by the IEP team), has been a requirement under IDEA. Given that most high school students with disabilities are not adequately prepared for a 4-year college education, it appears that transition planning for these college-bound students may have been insufficient. Early and effective transition planning for all students with disabilities can help them prepare adequately to enter and succeed in postsecondary education if this is their choice.

A number of new provisions contained in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 helps to support this type of transition planning. For example, IDEA now requires that beginning at age 14, or earlier if appropriate, a student's IEP must include a statement of the student's transition services needs that focus specifically on the student's courses of study. The purpose of this provision is to help students and their families, in collaboration with school personnel, begin planning earlier for their high school course work (such as participation in advanced-placement courses or a vocational education program). This early planning should help to ensure that students with disabilities wishing to attend postsecondary education have all of the prerequisite academic course work needed for admission to the college or university of their choice.

Other new provisions of the IDEA amendments, while not specifically tied to transition planning are also important for students with disabilities considering education beyond high school. These provisions place increased emphasis on student involvement and progress in the general education curriculum and they require regular education teacher participation in the development, review and revisions of IEPs. Additional new IDEA provisions require students with disabilities to participate in state and district-wide assessments of achievement. Each of these new provisions may help students with disabilities to better prepare for the complexity and rigor of postsecondary education.

Although these new IDEA provisions should help to improve student transitions from secondary to postsecondary education, a recent study of the implementation of IDEA transition requirements provides evidence for concern (Johnson, Sharpe, Sinclair, Hasazi, & Furney, 1997). One major area of concern identified in this study was the lack of meaningful student involvement in transition planning. For example, few schools in this study reported using promising practices, such as student-centered planning or student-led IEP meetings, to facilitate student involvement in transition planning (Ibid, 1997). This type of involvement, although important for all students with disabilities, is particularly important for students planning to attend postsecondary education. Once on campus, students with disabilities typically need to advocate for their own services and accommodations. Thus, high schools should take advantage of every opportunity to promote the self-determination of college-bound students with disabilities. One such opportunity can be found in good transition planning.

When a student is accepted to a postsecondary institution, he or she may find it helpful to include in the transition planning someone from that institution's services for students with disabilities and/or financial aid office. This is important because many colleges and universities require documentation of a disability in order to provide services and accommodations to students with disabilities. Good transition planning in high school should help students and their families acquire the up-to-date assessments that are required to receive such services after admission. Moreover, effective transition planning will help college-bound students with disabilities and their families in considering the financial implications of higher education, including tuition and living costs, financial aid, scholarships, and work-study opportunities. And as mentioned earlier, the recent amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 will require education and VR agencies to collaborate in order to improve postschool options, including financial assistance opportunities.

Conclusion

Postsecondary education is vital for the employment success of students with disabilities. Along with others, the future challenges described here will require effective policies and practices between postsecondary institutions and VR agencies. In addition, disability support service providers, faculty, rehabilitation professionals, students, and families--all have key roles in promoting successful postsecondary experiences and outcomes. Future research should focus on the relative effectiveness of postsecondary accommodations and supports, factors that are positively associated with postsecondary retention and degree attainment for VR consumers and the extent to which postsecondary institutions, VR agencies and individuals share responsibility for the costs of educating this important population.

Resource List

HEATH Resource Center

National Clearinghouse on
Postsecondary Education for
Students with Disabilities

American Council on Education

One Dupont Circle, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Voice and TTY: [phone]
Voice/TTY: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
URL: http://www.acenet.edu/about/
programs/access&equity/heath/
home.html

National Center for the Study of
Postsecondary Education Supports

Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC)

University of Hawaii Center on
Disability Studies
1776 University Avenue UA4-6
Honolulu, HI 96822
Voice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
URL: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu

CAST (Center for Applied
Special Technology)
39 Cross Street, Suite 201
Peabody, MA 01960
Voice: [phone]
TTY: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
URL: http://www.cast.org

Demonstration Projects to Ensure
Students with Disabilities Receive a
Quality Higher Education

Office of Postsecondary Education
(OPE)

U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
Voice: [phone]
TTY: [phone]
URL: http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OPE/disabilities

Bibliography

CAST (1999, January, 26-last update). Concepts and issues in universal design for learning. (Homepage of CAST), (Online). Available at: http://www.cast.org/concepts. (1999, October 27).

Committee on Education and the Workforce. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997: Report on H.R. 5 together with additional and dissenting views. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.

HEATH Resource Center. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Horn, L.J., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. (NCES Publication No. 1999187). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Ikenberry, S.O. (1999). Eye on Washington: Letter to college and university presidents concerning implementation of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. [Homepage of the American Council on Education], [Online]. Available at: http://www.acenet.edu/washington/voc_rehab/1999/09september/ presidents-voc.html

Johnson, D.R., Sharpe, M., Sinclair, M.E, Hasazi, S., & Furney, K. (1997). Report on the national survery of the implementation of IDEA transition requirements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Transition Network, Institute on Community Integration.

Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education (NCES Publication No. 1999046). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Organization on Disability (1998, July 23 release). Americans with disabilities still face sharp gaps in securing jobs, education, transportation and in many areas of daily life [Homepage of the National Organization on Disability], [Online]. Available: http:// www.nod.org/presssurvey.html [1999, December 28].

Orkwis, R. & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP Special Project, Council for Exceptional Children.

Postsecondary Education programs Network (1999, December 13-last update) 1998 Amendments to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Interagency agreements. [Homepage of PEPNET], [Online]. Available: http://www. pepnet.org/interagency-1.asp [1999, December 28]

Riley, R.W. (1997, June 19). Statement of Richard W. Riley, Secretary, Department of Education (before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce). [Homepage of the U.S. Department of Education], (Online). Available at: http://www/ed/gpv/offices/OPE/announce/1997/test619.html [1999, October 26].

Stodden, R. A., Jessen, C. & Lolotai, A. (1999). Postsecondary education supports for students with disabilities: A review and response. Honolulu, Hawaii: National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education Supports.

U.S. Department of Education (1996) Technical assistance circular RSA-TAC96. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Ms. Price-Ellingstad is an Education Program Specialist with the Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs and and Mr. Berry is a Policy Analyst with the Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.