Post-Secondary Education: Academic Adjustments

Regulation:

34 C.F.R. § 104.44; 45 C.F.R. § 84.44 - Academic adjustments

(a) Academic requirements - A recipient to which this subpart applies shall make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified handicapped applicant or student. Academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the program of instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section. Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.

(b) Other rules - A recipient to which this subpart applies may not impose upon handicapped students other rules, such as the prohibition of tape recorders in classrooms or of dog guides in campus buildings, that have the effect of limiting the participation of handicapped students in the recipient's education program or activity.

(c) Course examinations - In its course examinations or other procedures for evaluating students' academic achievement in its program, a recipient to which this subpart applies shall provide such methods for evaluating the achievement of students who have a handicap that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills as will best ensure that the results of the evaluation represents the student's achievement in the course, rather than reflecting the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).

(d) Auxiliary aids

(1) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no handicapped student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under the education program or activity operated by the recipient because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills.

(2) Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments, readers in libraries for students with visual impairments, classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments, and other similar services and actions. Recipients need not provide attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature.

Case Law:

Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 364 F.3d 79 (2nd Cir. 2004).

  • Allowing a medical student to proceed with the latter stages of medical school without first passing a licensing exam would fundamentally alter the nature of the program.
  • When reviewing the substance of a genuinely academic decision, courts should accord the faculty's professional judgment great deference.

Falcone v. University of Minn., 388 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2004).

  • An educational institution does not have to lower its standards for a professional degree, for example, by eliminating or substantially modifying its clinical training requirements.

Zukle v. Regents of University of California, 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999).

  • While the ultimate determination of whether an individual is otherwise qualified must be made by the court, the court will extend judicial deference "to the evaluation made by the institution itself, absent proof that its standards and its application of them serve no purpose other than to deny an education to handicapped persons."
  • Deference should also be accorded to an educational institution's determination that a reasonable accommodation is not available. A court's duty is to first find the basic facts, giving due deference to the school, and then to evaluate whether those facts add up to a professional, academic judgment that reasonable accommodation is not available.
  • Reasonableness is not a constant. To the contrary, what is reasonable in a particular situation may not be reasonable in a different situation, even if the situational differences are relatively slight. The court must evaluate a student's request for accommodation in light of the totality of the circumstances.

Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1998).

  • College did not fail to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's learning disability by refusing to waive its policy regarding the retaking of examinations, especially in light of the other accommodations which were made for her.
  • When reviewing the substance of academic decisions, courts "should show great respect for the faculty's professional judgment." The faculty must have the widest range of discretion in making judgments as to the academic performance of students and their entitlement to promotion or graduation.
  • Courts must also give deference to professional academic judgments when evaluating the reasonable accommodation requirement.
  • There is no obligation to offer accommodation simply because the school knew the student was seeking testing for a learning disability

Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Resolution Letters

  • Bowling Green (OCR Case No. 05982143) - Debate whether student's requested modifications lowered school's essential requirements for speech language pathology graduate program .
  • California Community Colleges (OCR Case No. 09976001) - A compliance review focused on the status of California Community Colleges in meeting their obligation under Title II and Section 504 to provide students with visual impairments access to print and computer-based information.
  • City College of San Francisco (OCR Case No. 09972145) - The obligation to provide textbooks in a meaningful alternate format.
  • Cal State - Los Angeles (OCR Case No. 09972002) - Access to public library resources by visually impaired individuals
  • Cal State - Long Beach (OCR Case No. 09992041) - Stresses the importance of not having one centralized location for adaptive technology due to the ADA's mandate to integrate students with disabilities into mainstream education programs.
  • Depaul University (OCR Case No. 05892029) - Readmissions committee discriminated by relying on stereotypical assessments of the student's learning abilities and failed to explore the possibility of academic adjustments.
  • Highline Community College (OCR Case No. 10052007) - College provided meaning-for-meaning captioning instead of word-for-word real time captioning requested. Paralegal student could not follow along lecture and class results as a result. The accommodation was not effective.
  • Los Rios Community College District (OCR Case No. 09932214) - College system agreed to develop written procedures to facilitate requests for academic adjustments and auxiliary aids, to make assistance available to resolve any problems students encounter with instructors regarding the provision of adjustments and aids, to make printed materials and computers accessible by providing auditory, tactile and enlarged print materials, and to make its physical education courses, library and student employment services accessible to students with visual impairments.
  • Loyola Marymount (OCR Case No. 09912157) - Detailing the requirements to purchase equipment and provide academic adjustments in note-taking and course examinations.
  • Naropa Institute (OCR Case No. 08932041) - School limited the availability of interpreter services and then tried to have the student bear part of the cost of interpreter services.
  • New College of California (OCR Case No. 09932063) - Financial considerations do not relieve the obligation to provide interpreter services when there were no alternative means by which comparable access could be achieved.
  • Tacoma Community House (OCR Case No. 10934001) - School did not have any procedure to provide interpreter services... nor did they provide them.
  • University of California - Davis (OCR Case No. 09922101) - School made the provision of interpreters contingent on the student following certain procedures. This practice may violate Section 504 because it turns a right into a privilege.
  • University of Laverne (OCR Case No. 09962148) - A letter emphasising the requirement of having a written procedure governing requests by students with disabilities for academic adjustments needed to accommodate their disabilities.
  • University of North Carolina - Greensboro (OCR Case No. 11052088) - School refused to modify essential program requirements in its teaching program.

Articles:

Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Publications

Reasonable Accommodations for People with Psychiatric Disabilities: An On-line Resource for Employers and Educators
A publication from Boston University