Date: April 2, 2007
Special to The Well at MHC

Assessing the Impact of Accessibility

...However, there were significant differences between the three types of institutions regarding assistive technology, funding for assistive technology, and services available to students who have disabilities. The findings also included that students who self-report disabilities attend private colleges/universities at a greater percentage than attend state universities or community colleges in North Carolina. Recently Chris Cain defended his dissertation entitled: A Comparison of North Carolina's State, Private, and Community Colleges/Universities, Regarding Assistive Technology and Services for Students With Disabilities.
The purpose of this study was to compare postsecondary institutions in North Carolina including state universities, private colleges/universities, and community colleges in regard to the number of students with disabilities, assistive technology availability, funding ratios for assistive technology, frequency of professional development training, legislative understanding, and other support factors for students with disabilities.  This comparison was accomplished through quantitative and case summarization and analysis research methodologies. 
Data were collected through case summarizations and the administration of surveys sent to 110 coordinators of students with disabilities services at the 15 state universities, 37 private colleges/universities, and 58 community colleges within North Carolina.  The response rate was 65.5% (N =72)
Findings suggest there were no significant differences among coordinators' perceptions of legislative issues, student responsibility, institutional responsibility, consideration of context in which accommodations are used, and the impact of accommodations on other faculty/students and the institution.  However, there were significant differences between the three types of institutions regarding assistive technology, funding for assistive technology, and services available to students who have disabilities.   The findings also included that students who self-report disabilities attend private colleges/universities at a greater percentage than attend state universities or community colleges in North Carolina.
This project was extremely important because students with disabilities make up a growing percentage of the diversity found on postsecondary education campuses today.  Current research indicates that the number of students with disabilities is growing at an astounding rate.  As reported by Michaels et al. (2001), more students who self-report disabilities are attending postsecondary institutions than ever before. The conclusions drawn from the study included:
Conclusion #1
Lewis and Farris (1999) stated that postsecondary institutions in the United States enrolled 428,280 students with disabilities between the years 1996-1998.  Therefore, it was expected that a healthy percentage of students with disabilities at the postsecondary level would be found.  However, total overall percentage of these students found at the private college/university levels was statistically significantly higher than the percentage found at community colleges and state universities (p = .01).  Community colleges seem to hold the greatest percentage of students who self-report physical disabilities whereas private institutions hold the greatest percentages of students who self-report cognitive learning disabilities.
Conclusion #2
Students with cognitive/learning disabilities often attend postsecondary institutions that are somewhat restricted in the resources to meet their needs.  If a student who self-reports a disability chooses to attend a private college/university, he or she might not be afforded the same assistive technology opportunities as those would who attend community colleges and state universities.  This is a critical point because Walters (2000) stated that assistive technology creates a sense of possibility for individuals with disabilities.  Counter intuitively, institutions with the higher percentage of students with disabilities (private colleges/universities and community colleges) may be the ones to offer the least assistive technology services and support to these individuals.
Conclusion #3
Private colleges/universities spent less per student on assistive technology over the past fiscal year. The funding reported for community colleges ($3194.76) and state universities ($5190.00) were thousands more than the funding of private colleges/universities ($847.37).  This could explain why a significant number of private colleges/universities (71.4%) reported inadequate funding and could explain the higher numbers of availability of assistive technology devices that the other postsecondary institutions offer.
Conclusion #4
Findings suggest there were no significant differences among coordinators' of disabilities perceptions of legislative issues, student responsibility, institutional responsibility, consideration of context in which accommodations are used, and the impact of accommodations on other faculty/students and the institution.  However, there were significant differences found between community colleges, private colleges/universities, and state universities regarding assistive technology, funding for assistive technology, and services available to students who have disabilities.  Therefore, the researcher concludes that the differences in services and availability of assistive technology devices are not from lack of knowledge, skill, or training.  It is possible that the underlying cause of this discrepancy is financial; this assumption is supported by Michaels et al. (2001) and their findings that cost associated with both initial purchases and upgrades of assistive technology was the greatest factor inhibiting the successful provision of assistive technology service to students.
Conclusion #5
Financial considerations may also impact sufficient staffing and training of individuals who work within the student support services of postsecondary institutions.  Walters (2000) stated, "Stronger efforts on the part of the colleges and universities to educate faculty and staff would significantly enhance the likelihood of academic success of students with disabilities" (p. 10).  
When looking at the frequency of training at each of the postsecondary levels, the researcher focused on both training related to assistive technology and training related to disability legislation.  The researcher concludes that institutions with the highest percentage of individuals who self-reported a disability are less likely to receive training regarding disability legislation once per year or more often.
Walters (2000) pointed out, “With a handful of notable exceptions, little priority is given to building the capacity of faculty and staff at institutions of postsecondary education to teach students with disabilities” (p. 10).  Michaels et al. (2001) agreed that the majority of professors lacked the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure equal access.  Interestingly, Burgstahler et al. (2000) found that faculty and staff were very open when it came to discussing their lack of knowledge pertaining to students with disabilities. 
Conclusion #6
Day and Edwards (1996) reviewed a study completed by Bursuck, Rose, Cowen, and Yahaya in 1989 and reported:
A nation-wide survey of postsecondary services for students with learning disabilities, reported that a majority of schools they surveyed provided auxiliary aids, such as taped textbooks, tape recording of calculators, and word processing programs.  The same study concluded that small colleges and community colleges offer more personalized services.  It is unclear, however, whether access to assistive technology, and support in its use, varied according to the size of the institution.  (as cited in Day & Edwards, p. 5)
The data in this project support the findings in the study reported by Day and Edwards and address the stated uncertainty of “whether access to assistive technology, and support in its use, varied according to the size of the institution” (as cited in Day & Edwards, p. 5).  The data suggest that the larger the institution, the more assistive technology, support, and services the institution can offer students with disabilities.
Conclusion #7
When considering the mean age of assistive technology devices at each type of institution no statistical significance was found; however, there is practical significance that suggests that 40% of the assistive technology at the private college/university level is 2 years old or newer whereas only 38% of the assistive technology meets this requirement at the community college and state university levels.  Data collected might suggest that private colleges/universities are making some effort to correct this issue.
Chris is the coordinator of both the Special Education and the Academically or Intellectually Gifted Programs as well as the co-chair of the Committee on Disabilities here at Mars Hill College. He is aware that often students with disabilities do not realize that they can be afforded services on postsecondary campuses under 504 and ADA. He and the other members of the Committee on Disabilities are working hard to encourage all students who have a disability to use the services provided through this committee. He understands that if postsecondary institutions continue to overlook this population, we will continue to see these individuals fail and drop out of college at a rate that exceeds that of their peers.  Postsecondary survival requires that students with disabilities get the accommodations, modifications, support, and assistive technology they need in order to access the curriculum and educational environment.
Chris and the Committee on Disabilities are devoted to making sure that students with disabilities get every opportunity (afforded by legislation) to access and participate in their education on the campus of Mars Hill College.