Coming to Terms with the “Otherwise Qualified” Student with a Learning Disability

Abstract

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ensures all “otherwise qualified” individuals with handicaps the right to higher eduction. Federal regulations implementing the broad principles of Section 504 address only obliquely the interpretation of the construct “otherwise qualified.” The determination of the qualified individual with a handicap in higher education entails unique consideration when applied to students with learning disabilities. In a setting traditionally based on academic merit and competition, the student with a learning disability requires accommodation of the learning process. Postsecondary institutions are faced with the task of determining the qualified student while maintaining academic standards. To clarify this process, existing tenets of the construct “otherwise qualified” were examined. Issues in implementing the law with students with learning disabilities were discussed, and current practice in addressing the issues was evaluated in light of legal principles. Guidelines were proposed for implementing the construct “otherwise qualified” with students with learning disabilities in higher education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnes v. Converse College. 436 F Supp. (D.S.C. 1977).

Bennett, R. , & Ragosta, M. (1988). Handicapped people. In W. Willingham , M. Ragosta , R. Bennett , H. Braun , D. Rock , & D. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 17–36). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bennett, R. , Rock, D. , & Kaplan, B. (1988). Level, reliability, and speededness of SAT scores for nine handicapped groups. Special Services in the Schools, 3/4, 37–54.

Braun, H. , Ragosta, M. , & Kaplan, B. (1986). The predictive validity of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for disabled students. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Brown, W. , & Holtzman, W. (1965). Survey of study habits and attitudes. New York: Psychological Corp.

Camenisch v. University of Texas. 451 U.S. 390 (1981).

Centra, J. (1986). Handicapped student performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 324–327.

Doe v. New York University. 666 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1981).

Hippolitus, P. (1987). College freshmen with disabilities preparing for employment. Washington, DC: President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.

10.

Jastram, P. (1979). The faculty role: New responsibilities for program access. In M. Redden (Ed.), New directions for higher education: Assuring access for the handicapped (No. 25, pp. 11–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Laing, J. , & Farmer, M. (1984). Use of the ACT assessment by examinees with disabilities. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

12.

Mangrum, C. , & Strichart, S. (1984). College and the learning disabled student. New York: Grune & Stratton.

13.

Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado. 658 F.2d 1372 (10th Cir. 1981).

14.

Ragosta, M. (1986). Students with disabilities: Four years of data from special test administrations of the SAT 1980--1983. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

15.

Ragosta, M. , & Nemceff, W. (1982). A research and development program on testing handicapped people. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

16.

Redden, M. , Levering, C. , & Guthrie, C. (1985). Recruitment, admissions, and handicapped students. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

17.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, P.L. 93--112.

18.

Rock, D. , Bennett, R. , & Kaplan, B. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 193–205.

19.

Ross, S., & O'Brien, M. (1981). 504 and admissions: Making the law work for the applicant and the college. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 355)

20.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis. 442 U.S. 397 (1979) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 574)

21.

United States Supreme Court v. South Carolina. 434 U.S. 1026 (1978).

22.

Vogel, S. (1982). On developing LD college programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 518–528.

23.

Vogel, S. (1988). Some preliminary findings on predicting success for LD college students. In D. Knapke & C. Lendman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1988 AHSSPPE Conference (pp. 111–115). Columbus, OH: AHSSPPE.

24.

Willingham, W. (1987). Handicapped applicants to college: An analysis of admissions decisions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

25.

Willingham, W. , Ragosta, M. , Bennett, R. , Braun, H. , Rock, D. , & Powers, D. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

26.

Wilson, F. (1981). Helping faculty to manage support services in the classroom: A position paper. In S. Simon (Ed.), The accessible institution of higher education: Opportunity, challenge, and response (pp. 13–16). Ames, IA: AHSSPPE.

27.

Yanok, J. (1985). Modifying academic requirements for learning disabled students enrolled in teacher education programs. Teacher Educator, 21(1), 19–27.