Teaching in Higher Education 13 RouttedgeVol. 11, No. 3, July 2006, pp. 351-363 ' ^ . ^ . ^ c ™

Teaching disabled students in highereducationOzcan Konur*Researcher, Fethiye, Mugla, Turkey

As the number of disabled students in higher education has increased in recent years, teachingthem in compliance with public policy while maintaining academic standards has become a crucialissue. The access of disabled students to programs and to the curriculum are two separate butinter-linked features of such policies. This paper reviews the key features of the major four anti-discrimination laws and outlines the key adjustments to the currictilimi for these students that areneeded in response. It then outlines and discusses the current research on these adjustments. Fourcurriculum adjustments are explored: presentation fonnat, response format, timing, and setting.The policy and practice of the curriculum adjustments have implications for academic staff.Research priorities are set out in relation to die attitudes of disabled students, academic staff,managerial or support staff, and non-disabled students.

Introduction

'Disabled students' have lortg been denied the opportunities to pursue highereducation around the world. However, they have increasingly participated in highereducation in recent years. The latest surveys and statistical data suggest that nearly9%, 5%, and 3% of all students in higher education programs have a type ofdisability in the US, the UK, and Australia, respectively (Henderson, 2001; HigherEducation Statistics Agency, 2002; Productivity Commission, 2003).

The evidence suggests that there are two major driving forces for the increasingparticipation of disabled students in higher education. The first one relates to theintroduction of public policies requiring better access to the school education fordisabled children. The Individuals toith Disabilities Education Act (1991) and itspredecessors, the Education Act (1996), its predecessors, and its national versions,and similar state laws in Australia have required the education authorities to identifydisabled children and to provide them with an appropriate education where possiblein the US, the UK and Australia.

The development of public policies regarding the direct access to higher educationby disabled students has been the second major driving force for the increasingparticipation of disabled students. The introduction of section 504 of theRehabilitation Act (1973) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) in the

*P.K. 290, 48300, Fethiye, Mugla, Turkey. Email: okonur@hotinail.com

ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/06/030351-13r> 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13562510600680871

352 Q Konur

US has been a cornerstone in the history of access to higher education by disabledpeople across the world. Various state laws worded along similar lines have givenfurther support for such policies.

The Australian State equal opportunity laws were revised to prohibit discrimina-tion on the grounds of disability in the early 1980s. Furthermore, these laws wereharmonized at the federal level by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1992).This Act similarly has prohibited discrimination against disabled students.

On the other hand, the original provisions of the UK Disability Discrimination Act(DDA) (1995) had not prohibited discrimination against disabled students.However, the DDA was revised by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act(SENDA) (2001) to prohibit discrimination against disabled students and applicantsin a three-stage process. Thus, discrimination against disabled students has beenprohibited in the UK since September 2002. The protection of the DDA wasextended to professional training and licensing from 2005 under the EuropeanEmployment Directive (2000).

The extension ofthe protection ofthe DDA to disabled students has increased thepublic and scholarly debate on the appropriateness ofthe DDA and the debate on theadmission, teaching, examination and expulsion of disabled students and applicantsin the UK since 2001. The recent narrowing of the protection offered to disableduniversity students under s 504 and the ADA following a series of landmark SupremeCoun rulings has similarly increased the debate on disabled vmiversity students inthe US. The recent review of the DDA in Australia by the Australian ProductivityCommission has also increased the debate on access to higher education by disabledstudents there. There have been similar developments in continental Europe (i.e.,other than the UK), Canada and other countries.

Although there has been research on several aspects of access to higher educationby disabled students in these three countries, there has not been any recent studyexploring the teaching and leaming aspects of these issues from a comparative andinterdisciplinary perspective (Hurst, 1996). Therefore, this paper first reviews thekey parameters of the anti-discriminatory laws within a comparative and inter-disciplinary context as these policies shape the incentive structures for the keystakeholders (North & Weingast, 1989). It then reviews the recent research publishedin 2003 selectively on the teaching and leaming of disabled students in highereducation spanning the academic disciplines, countries, types of disabilities, andtopical areas. The emerging issues are then explored and discussed within eachsection and a number of conclusions are provided. It is argued that members ofacademic staflf, as major stakeholders, have a crucial role in facilitating curriculumaccess for disabled students as highlighted by both policy and practice.

The policy foundations

This section briefly reviews the key provisions of the anti-discriminatory disabilitylaws to inform discussion on the teaching and leaming of disabled students. These

Teaching disabled students 353

provisions in essence reflect the perspectives of the policy-makers complementing theperspectives of other key stakeholders as discussed later. These pro\ isiims could begrouped under the four major headings: jurisdictional and procedural tests, disabilitytests, discrimination and justification tests, and enforcement tests. The former testsact as a gatekeeper for the latter tests.

Under these laws and the related regulations on the operation of the courts andtribunals, disabled applicants should comply with a series of rules on the jurisdictionand procedures of these courts and tribunals in the first instance. For example, aclaim should be made in time.

One other major issue raised in recent years in the US is the 'sovereign immunity'of the state universities and state licensing boards for monetary claims. Thesejurisdictional and procedural tests act as a critical gatekeeper for the latter tests sincethe applicants failing at this stage would not be able to pursue their disability claimsfurther.

The disabled applicants next should establish that they are 'disabled' incompliance with the respective disability tests. The UK disability tests could beseen as the most strict of these tests. Disabled applicants must establish that theyhave an 'impairment', their impairment 'adversely affects' one ofthe 'normal day-to-day activities' such as hearing, walking etc, that this adverse effect is 'substantial' andit lasts over 12 months. In contrast, the Australian applicants should only establishthat they have an impairment, thus foregoing the other tests established by the UKDDA.

The US applicants, on the other hand, are expected to establish that they have animpairment and their impairment 'limits' one of the 'major life activities' such asleaming and working and this limitation is 'substantial', thus foregoing the time limitsub-tests of the corresponding UK tests. However, the US tests have beensubstantially narrowed since 2000, where the effect of using auxiliary aids shouldbe taken into account in determining the substantial eflfect.

The close analysis of the case law and research on disabled university studentsshows that the acceptance, disclosure and documentation of the disability bydisabled applicants and students emerge as the key issue in the US and the UKand to a lesser extent in Australia. These students have the burden of documentingtheir disability, unlike the disabled children in both countries. In other words,students are required to accept that they have a 'disability' as identified by these laws.Furthermore, unless such disclosure is made, the higher education programs wouldhave no duties to provide any accommodations regarding any aspect of the studentexperience. As both the case law and research show, some students elect not toaccept the label of 'disability' due to the attached stigmas with such labels andconsider the requirement for the disclosure as discriminatory (see OIney &Brockealman, 2003).

Normally, any impairment approved by the medical profession is eligible for suchtests (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), However, the focus under both theUS and UK tests is much more on the effect of the impairment on a major lifeactivity than the existence of the impaimient itself, unlike the corresponding

354 O. Konur

Australian tests. Thus, 'leaming disabilities' such as 'dyslexia', 'dysgraphia','dyscalculia', 'attention deficit and hyperacdvity disorder' (ADHD), 'mental healthdisabilities' such as 'depression' and 'generalised anxiety disorders', HIV, 'visualdisabilities', 'hearing disabilities', and 'back and repetitive strain injuries' have allbeen considered by the courts and tribunals as an impairment over dme. In somecountries such as the UK, the statutory language of the other legisladve frameworkssuch as the Education Act (1996) have been used by some key stakeholders as analtemadve to statutory language of the and-discriminatory disability laws. The term'disability' is replaced with the term 'difiRculty' (e,g., 'mental health difficulty','specific leaming difficulty', 'hearing difficulty', 'visual difficulty', etc). This paperadapts the statutory language of relevant laws and uses the term 'disability' as moststakeholders have done.

As these two previous tests are not discussed in detail in public domain, the focushas rather been on the discussion of the discrimination tests generally at the expenseof the justificadon tests. These tests are generally similar across the three countries.Two major discriminadon tests exist. The first test concems the 'less favourabletreatment duty' of universities where they are prohibited from treating disabledstudents less favourably on the ground of their disability. Examples of this ruleinclude the denial of an application by a hearing disabled applicant for a mathemadcscourse on the grotand of the disability and expulsion of a medical student who haddeveloped depression as a result of clinical training from a medical school.

The second test is concerned with the duty of universides to provide 'reasonableadjustments' (knovra as the 'reasonable accommodadons' in the US) for disabledstudents to enable them to have equal access to the curriculum, admission processesand examinadons on par with their non-disabled peers. It could be termed as the'reasonable adjustment/ accommodadons duty'. One example of this rule is theprovision of text or electronic copies of lecture notes for visually disabled students toenable them to have access to the lectures in a personally accessible manner. Theother example is the provision of the college entrance and licensing examinadonssuch as the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and the Scholasdc Assessment Test(SAT) in an audiocassette with an 'extended time accommodation' for the learningdisabled students (College Board, 2001).

Each of the disability laws provides a number of exempdons from thesediscriminadon tests. One of the most important exempdons has been the require-ment that disabled applicants and students should meet the key academic andprofessional requirements of their courses and professions. This requirement istermed as the 'otherwise qualified individual' test under s 504 of the RehabilitationAct (1973) and it was followed by the ADA. The UK and Australian DDAs have alsofollowed a similar albeit more implicit approach.

In other words, disabled applicants and students should establish that they couldmeet such ftmdamental/essendal requirements with or without reasonable adjust-ments to the teaching and or examinadons without fundamentally altering theseprograms (known as the 'fundamental alteradon' defence) as established in Davis(1979). These exempdons are in line with the Courts' tradidonal deference to the

Teaching disabled students 355

academic judgement of academic and professional programs. This 'academicdeference' doctrine was affirmed in Evnng vs. University of Michigan (1985) by theSupreme Court in the US. The UK and Australian courts have followed a similarapproach in cases brought up by students over time. This issue has been one of thekey cridcal issues regarding the pardcipadon of disabled students in higher educationas the programs have discredon to determine whether the adjustments requested arereasonable and whether these students are qualified to pardcipate in the program.

The final test is concerned with the enforcement of these previous tests. In general,there are two types of remedies available for disabled applicants. The first type ofremedy is the award of 'compensatory damages' including a reladvely smallcompensation for 'injury to feelings'. The second type of remedy is the 'injuncdverelief, such as the order for the reinstatement of rejected applicants or readmissionof expelled students.

The UK and Australian enforcement tests adopt only the first type of enforceableremedies in cases brought by disabled university students as a general rule. In otherwords, a disabled applicant is only endded to compensadon in these countries. Incontrast, disabled applicants are endded to both compensatory damages (in somecases) and injuncdve relief in the US. The availability or lack of these remedies is ofparamount importance for key stakeholders since it provides incendves or disin-cendves for them (North & Weingast, 1989),

Curriculum adjustments for disabled students

This secdon briefly examines the pracdce of disability adjustments for disabledstudents forming the background for the following secdon. The brief examination ofthe rules under the and-discriminator\' laws in the previous secdon shows that thereare two separate, but inter-linked, access issues. First, disabled students should haveaccess to the programs as their non-disabled peers and this issue could be termed as'program access'. The second issue follows from here and concems the provision ofreasonable adjustments to the teaching and examinadons for these students. Thissecond issue could be termed as 'curriculum access'. As the implementation of s 504since the mid 1970s and the ADA since 1992 by the higher educadon programs inthe US has shown, the issue of program access has a cridcal and thresholdimportance as curriculum access depends on program access. However, the focusof this paper is on the curriculum adjustments rather than program access.

There has been ample research and case law evidence showing that program accesshas not been uniform across the academic disciplines, professions, universities, thetypes of disabilities of students, and countries. The surveys and stadstical data showthat 'leaming disabled (LD) students' form in general 40% of the whole disabledstudent populadon (since there has been a long standing debate on the existence ofsuch disabilides, the altemadve term used for such students is the 'students labelledas leaming disabled'. Having said this, this paper adapts the legal construction anduses freely the term 'LD students' throu^out the paper). This is followed by

356 O, Konur

students with chronic illnesses and injuries, which could be termed as 'medicalhealth disabilities' by 30-35% (known in the UK as 'unseen disabilides'). Thesensory disabilides such as hearing and visually disabled students and those withmental health disabilides form each a reladvely small secdon of this populadon. It isalso notable that generally over 10% of this populadon have multiple disabilides suchas leaming disabilides and ADHD, or 'deaf-blind' students.

The case law and research evidence also shows that the pardcipation of LX)students as well as students with HIV and mental health disabilides has formed themajor focus of the debate on the access to the higher education by disabled studentssince 1980s (Doe, 1999), It is notable that all these groups of students have a sdgmaattached to their impairments. The debate for these groups pardcularly focuses onprogram access. For LX) students, curriculum access also emerges as a cridcal issueonce they are accepted into the programs.

Various surveys show that the pardcipadon rate in professional programs (e.g.,medicine, teaching, nursing and social work) has been lower than the nadonalpardcipadon rates (Mandinach ct ai., 2002).

Once students are accepted into programs, curriculum access becomes a criticalissue. The key issue is whether disabled students could have access to the curriculumand whether they could respond to the curriculum once they pardcipate in theprogram. The curriculum access could also be distinguished between 'classroom(teaching) access' and 'examinadon (academic assessment) access'. Since the 'high-stake examinadons' determine the class of the degrees and whether students couldhave proper access to employment and professions, examinadons emerge as a morecridcal issue for all stakeholders. It is therefore not surprising that the law hasdeveloped regarding the assessment access rather than the solely classroom accesssince the 1970s (Doe, 1999).

Classroom and assessment access could be further thought of in terms ofreasonable adjustments that could be made for a particular type of disability basedon the individual circumstances of disabled students. The first types of adjustmentsare concerned with access to the curriculum and could be termed as 'presentationadjustments'. This refers to the format ofthe curriculum presented to the student. Itcould be in a paper text format, signed language format, audio format, script format,or electronic format depending on the preferred 'learning modality' of a particularstudent. The second type of adjustments is concemed with the fomiat of theresponse made by the student. It could be in a similar fomiat as the presentationadjustments and could be termed as 'response adjustments'.

The third type of adjustments concems the dming of access to the curriculum andis much more related to the examinadon and course work adjustments and could betermed 'timing adjustments'. The most known adjustment under this heading is the'extended time' adjustment for examinadons (College Board, 2001). A survey oftheScholasdc Apdtude Test (SAT) showed that 90% of the extended dme adjustmentrecipients were the LD examinees (Mandinach ct al., 2002). These students arenormally allowed a 'time and a half' accommodadon on an individual basis based ona detailed diagnosdc documentadon (Breznitz, 2003). Since some of the exams are

Teaching disabled students 357

very long, such extensions generally require multiple sessions and or frequent breaks.Tbe use of alternative response and presentation formats during examinationsrequires tbe extension of time compared to regular paper format as tbe reading andresponse rates of tbe examinees fall in sucb cases.

Tbe fourtb type of adjustments concems tbe settings of tbe exams, lectures orwork placements. As in tbe case of examinations, it would not be practical toundertake examinations in tbe normal examination room as tbe adjustments oftenrequire tbe use of readers, scribers and text to speecb computer programs, wbicbwould distract otber non-<lisabled examinees. Sucb exams are delivered at separateexam rooms and tbey could be termed as 'setting adjustments'.

Stakeholders* perspectives

Tbis section presents a review of tbe findings of tbe researcb on tbe teacbing andleaming of disabled students from tbe perspectives of four key stakebolders: disabledstudents, bigber education programs, academic staff, and non-disabled peers. Itcomplements tbe section on tbe perspectives of tbe policy-makers presented as policyfoundations. All 15 studies were publisbed in 2003 reflecting on tbe most currentexperiences of tbe stakebolders.

Disabled students

Disabled students are tbe second key stakebolders following tbe policy-makers. Tbeirattitudes and experiences regarding curriculum adjustments in general are impor-tant.

In sucb a study, Olney and Brockelman (2003) examined tbe disability disclosureby tbe LD and otber disabled university students in tbe US. Students valued tbeirown experiences of disability as tbe attitudes of tbeir fellow students and lecturersaffected tbeir decision as to wbetber to disclose tbeir disability. In a similar study,disabled students in tbe US experienced identity confusion wbere tbey were neitberdisabled nor non-disabled and depended on tbe perceptions of otbers (Bentley-Towlin, 2003). Tbey negotiated tbeir identities wbere tbey used disability adjust-ments to varying degrees.

Riddick (2003) extended tbese studies to LD students and recent graduates ofteacber education programs in Scotland. Sbe found tbat students developed anumber of effective coping strategies and tbey bad greater empatby and under-standing of tbe leaming difficulties of tbeir pupils. Tbey did not disclose tbeirdisability, as tbey were anxious about tbe adverse effects of sucb disclosure.

Tbese studies bigbligbt tbe dilemmas faced by disabled students wbo sougbtadjustments to participate in tbe curriculum and tbe resulting implications for otberstakebolders. Tbe case law conJSrms tbat students bave concems about tbe adverseimplications for program access and future employment access. Tliey also baveconcems about tbe stigmatizing nature of tbe disclosure as sucb disclosure means tbe

358 O. Konur

acceptance of the label of 'disabled'. However, the case law also shows the adverseimplications for students if they do not receive adjustments in their leaming andexaminations (Doe, 1999). In practice, this would mean that a LD student would notbe able to obtain the lecture notes in an alternative format. However, moreimportandy, they would not be able to request adjustments for their high-stakeexaminations, such as final year exams, leading to their expulsion in some cases.

For this reason, it is important to understand the determinants of the academicperfonnance of disabled students. In such a study, Heiman and Precel (2003)determined the determinants of LD students in Israel compared to their non-disabled peers. They found that students did not di£fer in their GPA and number ofcourses taken. However, disabled students reported more difficulties in humanitiesand social sciences compared to their peers. These students devised unusualstrategies and preferred additional oral explanations or visual explanations. Theyalso had difficulty in concentrating during examinations and were concerned abouttime limits. They experienced stress and anxiety during examinations. The key-insight from this study is the importance of the delivery of the curriciilum in'modalities' preferred by disabled students. For example, the LD and visuallydisabled students may prefer aural leaming modes compared to written modes.

Richardson and Wydell (2003) discussed the representation and academicperfonnance of reading disabled undergraduate students (known also as 'studentswith dyslexia') using a database of all students in higher education in the UK duringthe 1995-1996 academic year. The age, gender, ethnicity, entrance qualifications,the level of study and mode, and subject of study affected their representation. Thefirst year withdrawal rate and the completion rate were worse in relation to their non-disabled peers. However, it was possible to improve their completion rate withadequate adjustments and support. Similarly, they had poorer graduation classifica-tions although 40% of them obtained first-class or upper-second class honours. Thisstudy highlights the importance of the studies using the statistical data using thewhole population of disabled students to evaluate the efifectiveness ofthe adjustmentsat the macro scale.

As the delivery of the curriculum increasingly shifts from traditional forms toelectronic forms, the access to the electronic curriculum and examinations hasprogressively become an important access issue. Fichten et al. (2003) carried outextensive studies of such access for difiFerent Canadian disabled student groups andemphasized the importance of an individual approach to meeting their needs and theimportance of the policy-making and funding in this area.

It is important that students document their disability according to the policies oftheir institutions. This is particularly important for the LD students, as there hasbeen persistent significant scepticism about the existence of the LD and its adverseimpact on curriculum access requiring, for example, extended time adjustments asnoted above. Breznitz (2003) examined the speed of phonological and orthographicprocessing as factors in dyslexia using a sample of 20 reading disabled universitystudents and 20 peers in Israel. There were significant group differences on thephonological tasks. Speed of processing during phonological judgement tasks was

Teaching disabled students 359

significantly prolonged among the dyslexic readers compared with their peers. Thegap score between speed of processing on the phonological and orthographic taskswas larger among the dyslexic readers. He argued that slow phonological processingmight slow down reading rate and might impair effectiveness of word reading. Thisstudy, thus, provides psychometric support for the provision of extended timeaccommodations for such students.

Service providers

The service providers in the higher education programs and the programs themselvesare the third key stakeholders as they facilitate the provision of adjustments fordisabled students and set out institutional policies. It is therefore important toexamine their perspectives on the participation of disabled students. Daniels (2003)examined the provision of the specialist services for disabled students in 16community colleges in Maryland, (US), in compliance with the Association ofHigher Education and Disability (AHEAD) disability service standards. Collegeswere providing some standardized services relating to academic adjustments,teaching interventions, counseling and advocacy, consultation/coUaboration/advis-ing, policies and procedures, organization of services, and program development andevaluation. Such studies provide empirical evidence about the level of specialistsupport provided by the programs, showing the degree of compliance with thedisability laws.

As the academic staff members are often advised by the university administratorsand the specialist disability officers, the staff development of such officers are alsoimponant in helping the academic staff in making curriculum adjustments fordisabled students. Aborn (2003) examined the perceptions of the disability serviceadministrators and other administrators in California community colleges. She foundthat they needed training on disability specific curriculum adjustments and the ADA.They felt training resources such as faculty guides and accessible web sites guideswould be helpful in disseminating policies and procedures. She urged furthertraining and resources for administrators.

As the mobility of students increases across the frontiers, both program andcvirriculum access have become critical issues for disabled students studying abroad.McLean et al. (2003) discussed the service provision for the foreign disabledstudents studying in Australia. They argued that the cultural factors accounted forthe differences in the service provision compared to other countries.

StafT

The academic staff (faculty) are the fourth key stakeholders. It is particularlyimportant to examine the determinants of their attitudes towards making adjust-ments for disabled students. It is similarly important to determine the extent of theprovision for staff/academic development.

360 Q Konur

Foss (2003) examined tbe attitudes and practices of academic staff in Occupa-tional Tberapy for making adjustments to tbe teacbing and examinations for tbeirLD students. Sbe found tbat tbey were willing to make tbe examination adjustmentsof extended time and settings. However, tbey were less willing to provide alternatetypes or formats of exams sucb as oral or tape recorded exams, and tbe use ofadaptive leaming tecbnologies. Academic staff allowed tbeir students to tape recordclasses, and supplied copies of lecture outlines and PowerPoint presentations. Tbeywere less willing to provide individual assistance on written papers, and were tbe leastwilling to provide alternate cotirsework formats. Staff felt strongly tbat tbese studentssbould be admitted to tberapy programs and tbat adjustments to academic programssbould be made. Tbey also felt tbat teacbing and examination adjustments were fairto non-disabled students.

Rao (2003) examined tbe attitudes of 245 academic staff and tbeir willingness tomake adjustments for disabled university students using tbe 'Attitudes towardDisabled Persons Scale'. Sbe found tbat tbey bad generally a positive attitude.Gender and personal contact improved tbeir attitudes but did not affect tbeirwillingness to make adjustments. Departmental affiliation affected tbeir attitudes astbose in education or bealtb bad more positive attitudes. Tbeir knowledge of s 504affected tbeir attitudes and tbeir willingness to make adjustments altbougb tbemajority of tbem bad no sucb knowledge. Tbere was no correlation between attitudesand making adjustments. Sbe urged training on tbeir obligations and legal mandates.

Tbe findings of tbese two studies are generally reflective of similar studiespublisbed previously. Tbese findings are also reflective of case law wbere some typeof adjustments are not considered as reasonable by tbe programs on tbe ground tbatdoing so would lower tbe academic standards (Davis, 1979). In essence, sucb studiesprovide furtber empirical support for tbe discretion of tbe academic staff todetermine tbe reasonableness of tbe requested adjustments as tbeir duties to makeaccommodations are not absolute under tbe disability laws as outlined above.

Non-disabled students

Tbe non-disabled students are tbe fiftb key stakebolders. It is important to examinetbe determinants of tbeir attitudes towards adjustments made by academic staff fordisabled peers as tbeir attitudes bave important implications for tbe integration ofdisabled students. Unfortunately, tbere bas been no sucb study publisbed in 2003.Tbis bigbligbts tbe lack of recognition for tbe role played by tbese students.

In tbe absence of direct empirical evidence, it is important to assess tbe attitudes ofstudents towards disabled people in general. Sucb studies usually use a widelyaccepted psycbometric instrument to measure tbe level and determinants of sucbattitudes. Tbomas et al. (2003) investigated tbe psycbometric properties of tbe'Interaction witb Disabled Persons Scale' (IDP) using a sample of 358 universitystudents. Tbey fovind tbat social discomfort, empatby, and fear of baving tbedisability affected tbeir attitudes towards disabled people. Tbese factors were a

Teaching disabled students 361

function of the self-esteem, amount of prior contact experience with, and thecloseness of relationships with disabled people.

It is also important to assess the effect of the type of disability' on the attitudes ofnon-disabled students. These studies generally provide further empirical evidencethat the type of disability, as a function of the degree of stigma attached to thesedisabilities, affects their attitudes in general.

Gouvier et al. (2003) examined the attitudes of 295 university students in businesstowards the employment of disabled people with a mental health disability,developmental disability (known as 'learning difficulty' or 'intellectual disability' insome countries and academic disciplines), head injury, and back injury. They foundthat students' attitudes were dependent on the type ofthe applicants' disability. Therewas evidence for the stereotyping and discrimination of the disabled applicants.

The findings of these two studies generally reflect the findings of previous researchon the attitudes of non-disabled students towards disabled students. Thus, it isimportant to develop student development programs to improve the attitudes of non-disabled students towards their non-disabled peers.

As these studies found that the contact with disabled people might affect positivelynon-disabled students' attitudes, it is important to study the effect of such contactswith disabled students and disabled staff (both academic and professional).

Laubscher and Powell (2003) explored their experiences, as professors who teachabout difference and are themselves considered 'different' or 'other' on the groundsof race and disability. They argued that they were not just teaching an academiccourse but were also articulating their experience and self. They assessed the costsand benefits to lecturers marked as other who sought to facilitate students' self-exploration, growth, and commitment to equity.

Conclusion

As the number of disabled students in higher education has increased in recent years,teaching them in compliance with the public policies while maintaining academicand professional standards has become a crucial academic and policy issue. Theiraccess has been facilitated in part by the anti-discrimination laws world wide,influenced by the introduction of s 504 and then by the ADA.

The access of disabled students to programs and to the curriculum in highereducation, 'program and curriculum access', are two separate but interlinkedfeatures of such policies. This paper, focusing on curriculum access, reviewed thekey features of the key four anti-discrimination laws and outlined the practice on keyadjustments to the curriculum for these students made by academic staff. It thenoutlined and discussed the current practice on curriculiun adjustments, reviewingthe selected research studies published in 2003.

The curriculum adjustments as discussed include four types of adjustments:presentation format, response format, timing and setting. The research on thecurriculum adjustments reviewed in this paper, building on the previous three decade

362 O. Konur

long research, has implications for academic staff in higher education and for thefuture research agenda.

The research priorities for the next three decades could be set out as: the attitudesof disabled students, attitudes of academic and other staff towards curHciilumadjustments, effect of adjustments on the academic perfonnance of disabledstudents, and finally the attitudes of non-disabled students. Adjustments to leamingtechnologies and examinations merit particular attention.

Thus, this paper locates a crucial role for academic staff in facilitating curriculumaccess for disabled students, as the policy-makers have entrusted them withdiscretion to determine the reasonableness of disability adjustments and to decidewhether they would make such adjustments (North & Weingast, 1989).

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank gratefiiUy two anonymous referees for theirconstructive and helpful contribution for the development of the paper and ProfessorBruce Macfarlane for the copy-editing of the paper.

References

Abom, L. 1.. (2003) Califomia community college administrators' perception and understandingof the needs of students with disabilities to access the leaming environment, Ph.D., 2002,University of Northern Colorado, DAJ-A, 63(11), 3838.

American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statisticai manual of mental disorders(Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association).

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) PubUc Law 101-336, U.S. 42 s 12101.Bentley-Towlin, T. L. (2003) Understanding university students' construction of their hidden

disability identity, Ph.D., 2003, Oregon State University, DAI-A, 63(11), 3797.Breznitz, Z. (2003) Speed of phonological and orthographic processing as factors in dyslexia:

electrophysiological evidence. Genetic Social & General Psychology Monographs, 129(2),183-206.

College Board (2001) Services for students toith disabilities: accommodations (New York, CollegeBoard).

Daniels, K. (2003) Strangers at the door: support services for students with disabilities incommunity colleges, Ed.D., 2003, Morgan State University, DAI-A, 64(5), 1506.

Davis V. SoMheasiem Community College, 42 US 397 (1979).EHsability Discrimination Act (1995) Chapter 50 (London, Stationery Office Ltd.).Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (Canberra, Govemment Printing Office).Doe V. National Board of Medical Examiners, 199 F.3d 146 (1999).Education Act (1996) Chapter 56 (London, Stationery Office Ltd.).European Employment Directive (2000) 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general

firameworic for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Official Joumal L 303, 02/12;2000, 16.

Ewing V. University of Michigan, 474 US 214 (1985).Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Robillard, C , Fosscy, M. E. & Barile, M. (2003) Accessible

computer technologies for students with disabilities in Canadian higher education, CanadianJoumal of Learning & Technology, 29(2), 5-34.

Teaching disabled students 363

Foss, J. J. (2003) Attitudes and accommodation practices of university health professions facultytoward students with learning disabilities, Ph.D., 2002, University of Florida, DAI-A, 64(3),737.

Gouvier, VC' D., Sytsma-Jordan, S. & Mayville, S. (2003) Patterns of discrimination in hiring jobapplicants with disabilities: the role of disability typ>e, job complexity, and public contact.Rehabilitation Psychology, 48(3), 175-181.

Heiman, T. & I^cel, K. (2003) Students with learning disabilities in higher education: academicstrategies profile, Joumtj/o/Z-eamw^ Z)tsaMit»M, 36(3), 248-258.

Henderson, C. (2001) CoOege freshmen toith disabilities: statistical year 2000 (Washington, DC,American Council on Education).

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2002) Students in umrcnmes: 2000/2001, reference volume(Cheltenham, Higher Education Sudstics Agency).

Hurst, A. (1996) Reflecting on researching disability and higher education, in: L. Barton (Ed.)Disability and society: emerging issues and insights (London, Longman).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1991) re-codified as 20 U.S.C. 1400-1461 (2000).Laubscher, L. & Powell, S. (2003) Skinning the drum: teaching about diversity as 'other'. Harvard

Educational Reaiew, 73(2), 203 224.Mandinach, E. B., Cahalan, C. & Camara, W. J. (2002) The impact of flagging on the admissions

process: policies, practices, and implications. ETS RR-2002-03 (Princeton, NJ> EducationalTesting Services).

McLean, P., Heagney, M. & Gardner, K. (2003) Going global: the implications for students with adisability. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2) , 217 -228.

North, D. C. & Weingast, B. R. (1989) Constitutions and commitment: the evolution ofinstitutions governing public choice in seventeenth century England, Journal of EconomicHistory, 49(4), 803 -832.

Olney, M. F. & Brockelman, K, F. (2003) Out of the disability closet: strategic use of perceptionmanagement by sdect university students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 18(1),35 50.

Productivity Commission (2003) National competition policy review of the Disability DiscriminationAct 1992. Draft report (Melbourne, Productivity Conunission).

Rao, S. M. (2003) Students with disabilities in higher education: faculty attitudes and willingnessto provide accommodations, Ph.D., 2002, University of Arkansas, DAI-A, 64(1), 61.

Rehabilitation Act (1973) Public Law 93-112, U.S.C. 29 ss. 791.Richardson, J. T. & Wydell, T. N. (2003) The representation and attainment of students with

dyslexia in UK higher education, Reading & Writing, 16(5), 475 503.Riddick, B. (2003) Experiences of teachers and trainee teachers who are dyslexic, Intemational

Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(4), 389-402.Spedal Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) Chapter 10 (London, Stationery Office Ltd.)Thomas, A., Palmer, J. K., Coker-Juneau, C. J. & Williams, D. J. (2003) Factor structure and

construct validity of the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale, Educational & Psychological.Vfeasurcnicnt, 63(3), 465 483.