Over the last decade, an increasing number of postsecondary education (PSE) programs have been developed for students with intellectual disability (ID). This case discusses one such program. Along with the courses designed to meet the specific needs of students with ID, the program also permits these students to take courses in the various departments of the university. Faculty were informed that their course(s) might include students from the PSE program for students with ID. One faculty member likes the idea of the program but is not comfortable with students with ID registering for his courses. This case uses discussion prompts and activities to prepare instructors and professors in higher education to foster inclusive practices and ideology throughout the collective university community.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2018). Available from https://aaidd.org
2.
AnnammaS. A.FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42, 46-71. doi:10.3102/0091732X18759041
3.
BeckerM.MartinL.WajeehE.WardJ.ShernD. (2002). Students with mental illnesses in a university setting: Faculty and student attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experience. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 23, 359-368. doi:10.1037/h0095001
4.
BerghsM.AtkinK.GrahamH.HattonC.ThomasC. (2016). Implications for public health research of models and theories of disability: A scoping study and evidence synthesis. Public Health Research, 4(8), 1-166. doi:10.3310/phr04080
5.
BurginE.DeDiegoA.GibbonsM.CihakD. (2017). “Smiling and ready to learn”: A qualitative exploration of university audit classroom instructors’ experience with students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30, 361-374.
6.
DaviesL.SchellyL.SpoonerL. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26, 195-220.
7.
EngelbrechtP.OswaldM.SwartE.EloffI. (2003). Including learners with intellectual disabilities: Stressful for teachers?International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 293-308. doi:10.1080/1034912032000120462
8.
FolkE.YamamotoK. K.StoddenR. (2012). Implementing inclusion and collaborative teaming in a model program of postsecondary education for young adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 257-269.
9.
Garrison-WadeF. (2012). Listening to their voices: Factors that inhibit or enhance postsecondary outcomes for students’ with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 113-125.
10.
GibbonsM.CihakF.MynattB.WilhoitE. (2015). Faculty and student attitudes toward postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28, 149-162.
11.
GilL. A. (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college: Preparing students with disabilities for a successful postsecondary experience. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(2), 12-15.
12.
GrigalM.HartD.PapayC.SmithF. (2018). Year two program data summary (2016-2017) of the TPSID model demonstration projects. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.
13.
GrigalM.HartD.SmithA.DominD.SulewskiJ.WeirC. (2015). Think College National Coordinating Center: Annual report on the transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (2013–2014). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.
14.
GrigalM.HartD.WeirC. (2011). Framing the future: A standards-based conceptual framework for research and practice in inclusive higher education (Think College Insight Brief, Issue No. 10). Available from www.thinkcollege.net
HitchcockC.MeyerA.RoseD.JacksonR. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17. doi:10.1177/004005990203500201
17.
JensenJ. M.McCraryN.KrampeK.CooperJ. (2004). Trying to do the right thing: Faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17, 81-90.
LeeS. (2009). Overview of the Federal Higher Education Opportunity Act. Boston: Think College, Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.
20.
PishaB.CoyneP. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 197-203.
21.
RaoS. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature review. College Student Journal, 38, 191-199.
22.
SmithS. J.LowreyK. A. (2017). Applying the universal design for learning framework for individuals with intellectual disability: The future must be now. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 48-51.
ThomasC. (2012). Disability and impairment. In SwainJ.FrenchS.BarnesC.ThomasC. (Eds.), Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (pp. 21-27). London, England: Sage.
25.
WaterfieldJ.WestB.ParkerM. (2006). Supporting inclusive practice: Developing an assessment toolkit. In AdamsM.BrownS. (Eds.), Towards inclusive learning in higher education: Developing curricula for disabled students (pp. 79-94). London, England: Routledge.
