Federal law and the implementing regulations have established that appropriate academic adjustments must be provided to college students with learning disabilities in order to ensure meaningful access to higher education. However, federal law is necessarily broad and offers no guidance in how to consider accommodation requests for individual students in specific contexts. To address this issue, legal tenets from federal and case law were examined, and existing guidelines for weighing accommodation requests were reviewed. Recommendations were proposed for determining appropriate academic adjustments for college students with learning disabilities, and persisting issues were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, P.L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101.
2.
Anderson, P. (1993). Issues in assessment and diagnosis. In L. Brinckerhoff, S. Shaw, & J. McGuire (Eds.), Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities (pp. 89–136). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
3.
Barnes v. Converse College, 436 F. Supp. 635 (D.S.C. 1977).
4.
Brinckerhoff, L. (1989). Diagnostic considerations for students with learning disabilities at selective colleges. In Proceedings of the next step: An invitational symposium on learning disabilities in selective colleges (pp. 114–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Brinckerhoff, L., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
6.
Brown v. Washington University, CA No. 88-1907-C-5 (settled May 11, 1990).
7.
Carlton, P., & Walkenshaw, D. (1991). Diagnosis of learning disabilities in postsecondary institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 9, 197–206.
8.
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, P.L. 100-259, 29 U.S.C. Sec 794(a)(2)(A).
9.
Davis v. Southeastern Community College, 442 U.S. 397 (1979). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 355)
10.
Dinsmore v. Pugh and the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley (settled 1989).
11.
Doe v. New York University, 666 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1981).
12.
Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S. Ct. 1211 (1984).
13.
Guthrie, R. C., & Fera, D. (1982). Making accommodations decisions. Washington, DC: Federal Programs Advisory Service, Thompson Publishing Group.
14.
Heyward, Lawton, & Associates. (Eds). (1991). Documenting the need for academic adjustments. Disability Accommodation Digest, 1(3), 3.
15.
Heyward, S. (1992). Access to education for the disabled: A guide to compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
16.
Jarrow, J. (1992). Subpart E: The impact of Section 504 on postsecondary education. Columbus, OH: AHEAD.
17.
Johnson, D. (1993). Professional preparation of specialists to work in postsecondary learning disability programs. In S. Vogel & P. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 114–130). New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Jones v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, 689 F.2d 724 (7th Cir., 1982).
19.
Kling v. County of Los Angeles, 769 F.2d 532 (9th Cir., 1985).
20.
Mangrum, C., & Strichart, S. (1988). College and the learning disabled student. Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
21.
Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 926 F.2d 1368 (3rd Cir. 1991).
22.
Norlander, K., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J. (1990). Competencies of postsecondary education personnel serving students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 426–432.
23.
Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 689 F. 2d 724 (7th Cir., 1982).
24.
Rancho Santiago Community College (CA), 3 NDLR 52 (OCR 1992).
25.
Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 88 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1985).
26.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, P.L. 93-112, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794 (1977).
27.
Rothstein, L. (1986). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: Emerging issues for colleges and universities. Journal of College and University Law, 13, 229–265.
28.
Rothstein, L. (1991). Students, staff and faculty with disabilities: Current issues for colleges and universities. Journal of College and University Law, 17(4), 471–482.
29.
Rothstein, L. (1993). Legal issues. In S. Vogel & P. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 21–35). New York: Springer-Verlag.
30.
Salvador v. Bell, 622 F. Supp. 438 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
31.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).
32.
Schuber v. University of Minnesota, 788 F. 2d 510 (8th Cir. 1986).
33.
Scott, S. (1990). Coming to terms with the “otherwise qualified” student with a learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 398–405.
34.
Shaw, S., & Norlander, K. (1986). The special educator's role in training personnel to provide assistance to college students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 77–81.
35.
Shaw, S., Norlander, K., & McGuire, J. (1987). Training leadership personnel for learning disability college programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10(3), 108–112.
36.
Trueba, C. (1993, July). Documentation dilemmas: LD task force summary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Higher Education and Disability, Baltimore.
37.
United States v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 908 F. 2d 740 (11th Cir. 1990).
38.
West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ipsen, S., & Martin, E. (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children, 59, 456–467.
39.
Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 932 F. 2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991).
