Date Presented 03/26/20
Transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities experience key educational disparities when compared to peers without disabilities due to stigma regarding their abilities, a lack of opportunities, and a lack of adequate accommodations in higher education. This session presents survey data gathered to inform development of a postsecondary IHE program on a university campus and to define the role of OT in IHE.
Primary Author and Speaker: Meghan Blaskowitz
Additional Authors and Speakers: Alia Pustorino-Clevenger, Rachel Carretta, Morgan Cargiulo, Jayme Kraft
PURPOSE: As structured supports and services taper after high school, transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have few postsecondary options and experience educational and employment disparities when compared to peers without disabilities. While 69.7% of US youth without disabilities attend college and have 7,000 options to choose from, only 28.7% of young adults with IDD enroll in college, with only 259 inclusive higher education (IHE) options (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016; Think College, 2018). In Pennsylvania (PA), 800 transition-age students with IDD graduated from public schools in 2018, with an equal number expected to graduate in 2019 (PA Office of Developmental Programs, 2018). Colleges/universities throughout PA have successfully developed IHE programs for youth with IDD, but the number of programs does not meet current demand (Think College, 2018). To increase educational opportunities for students with IDD, this project aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) What are faculty and student perceptions of IHE for people with IDD on a university campus? and 2) What is occupational therapy’s role in development of an IHE program?
DESIGN: This project utilized a cross-sectional, multi-phase survey design to inform the development of an IHE program at a private university in Western PA. Convenience sampling was used to gather samples of IHE program developers across PA, and faculty and students from one PA university campus.
METHOD: Phase 1, a program infrastructure survey, was administered in 2018 to IHE program directors at colleges/universities through use of an online assessment platform. In 2019, one university participated in Phase 2, a 42-item campus climate survey (adapted from a Texas A&M instrument), which gathered faculty and student perceptions of IHE prior to implementation of an IHE program on campus (Gilson et al., in press). Descriptive statistics and a series of multivariable logistic regressions will be presented.
RESULTS: Of the schools that completed the Phase 1 survey (n=15), nearly all programs reported that staff (82%) and faculty (71%) were core planning team members, with support from disability services (41%), registrars (35%), financial aid (29%), and admissions (29%). Programs were primarily funded through tuition (36%), Medicaid waiver funding (21%) and Pell grants. Only 42% of programs hosted faculty/staff trainings on educational accommodations for students with IDD, while 21% offered no training opportunities. Phase II survey data on perceptions of IHE on a university campus included faculty (n=72) and student (n=200) responses. 96-97% of both faculty and students believed that IHE would have a “positive” or “extremely positive” influence on the campus community. Faculty who were unwilling to make course modifications for students with IDD (18%) tended to be female, tenured, had incomes greater than $120,000/year, and had not had any prior disability awareness training. 67% of students perceived being a “peer mentor” for students with IDD positively.
CONCLUSION: These data identify an increased need for faculty training on IHE practices and ways in which occupational therapists can support the IHE program development process. Occupational therapists are integral planning team members as they can provide unique support in developing person-centered assessment processes, student pre-orientation programs, opportunities for building social capital, peer mentorship programs, and trainings to support faculty in making course modifications for students with IDD. This data can also help establish IHE best practices, which can be replicated across university campuses in hopes of closing post-secondary education gaps for people with IDD.
References
Gilson, C. B., Gushanas, C. M., Li, Y., & Foster, K. (in press). Understanding faculty and student attitudes regarding inclusion and postsecondary education for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics: Number of educational institutions, by level and control of institution. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84.
Pennsylvania Office of Developmental Programs (ODP). (2018). Wolf Administration Announces Proposed Funding in Support of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities and Autism. Retrieved from https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/DHS_details.aspx?newsid=285.
Think College. (2018). Think College Search. Retrieved from https://thinkcollege.net/college-search.
