Transition strategies to ensure active student engagement

4 Student affairs professionals have an opportunity to promote active student engagement and improve the experiences of students with disabilities by embracing a collaborative and inclusive model of practice. Transition Strategies to Ensure Active Student Engagement Donna M. Korbel, Joan M. McGuire, Manju Banerjee, Sue A. Saunders Transition into college for students with disabilities has been written about extensively over the past decade, due in part to legislative mandates implemented at the secondary level. With significant increases in the number of these students in the college population, a focus on their transition through college is imperative to improve retention and graduation outcomes that have a compelling relationship to subsequent wage-earning power (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Student affairs professionals across units have an opportunity to promote active student engagement and improve the experiences of students with disabilities by embracing a collaborative and inclusive model of practice based on self-determination and principles of universal design. This chapter identifies demographic trends, issues, and challenges that characterize the postsecondary landscape; presents a collaborative model of college transition services; and offers recommendations at each stage of the transition services continuum. The constructs of self-determination and universal design offer guidance and a theoretical framework for practitioners committed to engaging students with disabilities in their transitions during college. According to Gerber (2009), issues of empowerment and self-determination are at the heart of successful transition for these students, whether it is into postsecondary education or employment. Self-determination encompasses an array of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that facilitate an individual’s engagement in goaldirected, self-regulated behavior (Field and others, 1998). A critical component of self-determination is the ability to self-advocate, that is, to engage in NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 134, Summer 2011 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ss.393 35 36 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES personal goal setting and exercise decision making (Kochhar-Bryant, 2003). The numerous choices facing college students across social, academic, and personal domains offer opportunities for student affairs personnel to reinforce decision making and personal growth that build on personal responsibility and self-awareness. Given compelling research on the connection between students’ self-determination skills, academic success, and post – high school outcomes (Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, and Herman, 2003; Konrad and others, 2007), a service delivery philosophy based on the values of self-determination and self-advocacy should permeate student affairs. Another concept to enhance student engagement and practices is universal design (see Chapters Two and Three, this volume). Historically, disabilities have been viewed as defects or deficiencies in individuals that set them apart from most other people, leading to a response of fixing or remedying what is perceived as wrong or providing assistance that can be viewed as special consideration of those who are disabled (Wolanin and Steele, 2004) rather than a more inclusive approach. This medical model is giving way to a social model of disability that espouses the belief that disability is a natural part of the human condition and shifts the focus to disabling environments or social circumstances. Related to this model is universal design, a concept from the field of architecture described as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, 1997). Common examples are building ramps, automated sliding doors, and curb cuts. When architects put the concept of universal design into practice, they are guided by seven design principles (Center for Universal Design, 1997): • • • • • • • Equitable use Flexibility in use Simple and intuitive Perceptible information Tolerance for error Low physical effort Size and space for approach and use Extending the concept of universal design to the instructional environment (Scott, McGuire, and Foley, 2003) and student affairs holds the promise of making a campus welcoming, accessible, and usable for everyone (Burgstahler, 2008). The idea is to anticipate diversity (for example, gender, age, race, ethnicity, culture, learning styles, native language) and intentionally design instruction and services for students with a broad range of characteristics. More practical suggestions for inclusive student services based on self-determination and universal design follow. Although collaborative partnerships are frequently discussed in the student affairs literature, little has been written about how to structure and NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss TRANSITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 37 use such arrangements to foster successful transitions for students with disabilities. Several factors warrant consideration when adopting a systemic approach that can promote active student engagement. Changing demographics among college populations, as well as issues and challenges that are unique for students with disabilities, are important catalysts for designing a cohesive and responsive approach across student affairs units. The Changing Postsecondary Landscape President Barack Obama has articulated his administration’s higher education policy and noted that “education is the economic issue of our time” (Kim, 2010). He has suggested that by 2020, the United States should increase the number of college graduates by 8 million, noting that the country has fallen from number 1 to number 12 in college graduation rates for young adults in a single generation. Enrollments are rapidly increasing, with over 19 million students currently in U.S. colleges and universities, representing an annual growth rate of 4 percent (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Ginder, 2010). Concurrently this is a period of dwindling resources; unstable funding sources; ever changing technology; larger class sizes; increased emphasis on evaluation, assessment, outcomes, and accountability; changing student demographics; and the need for extensive student support systems (Grund, 2010; Jacobs and Hyman, 2009; Rothstein, 2008; Shaw, 2009). Students with disabilities comprise a sector of this changing population. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Ginder, 2010), nearly 11 percent of enrolled students report having a disability. The National Council on Disability estimates that the percentage is closer to 17 percent (Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability, 2010). In addition to increased numbers of students with disabilities, the complexities of the types of disabilities have changed dramatically and now include students with psychiatric disorders, chronic health conditions, autism spectrum disorders, and severe food and environmental allergies (Harbour, 2009; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). U.S. armed forces veterans of the post-9/11 era are another growing student population with disabilities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, late-acquired blindness or deafness, significantly disfiguring burns, and multiple amputations (Church, 2009). Resources available to them through the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ensure that colleges can expect increasing numbers of these students. Students with intellectual disabilities (also defined as mental retardation) are now seeking access to higher education, with particular attention directed to them in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. These students will have very different goals and needs and may benefit more from life skills and employment training than from services traditionally provided by colleges and universities. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 38 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Another factor that affects the transition of students with disabilities to college is legislation. Regulations pertaining to postsecondary students with disabilities are vastly different from those for the K-12 system (McGuire, 2010), and the implications for student affairs personnel can be challenging. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a civil rights statute, and its amendments (2008), qualified students with disabilities must have equal access to all programs and services at the postsecondary level. In the K-12 system, these students are entitled to a free, appropriate, public education by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Based on this law, many traditional-age students with disabilities have had individualized instruction, advocacy services, and extensive accommodations during their previous schooling experience. Students whose parents have assumed a strident advocacy role, sometimes disparagingly described as “helicopter” parents (Kochhar-Bryant, 2010), have adopted a passive coping style instead of engaging in self-advocacy. As a result, these students’ ability to take charge and engage in goal setting and decision making often is weak, which can create significant challenges for them in a college environment. Finally, technology is a factor with major implications for college students with disabilities. Up until the late 1990s computer skills were the only technological competencies required of college students for a general baccalaureate degree. This view has undergone a radical transformation. Offerings of online and blended courses have steadily increased (Allen and Seaman, 2007; see also Chapter Five, this volume), and many institutions of higher education have technology-competency requirements for graduation (for example, University of Connecticut, 2010). Faculty are expanding their use of instructional or learning technologies in their teaching and communication with students using Web-based instructional delivery platforms such as Blackboard. It is now increasingly important for students with disabilities to be familiar not only with assistive technologies (for example, taped textbooks, FM systems to aid listening, “talking” calculators) but also with instructional technology, defined as hardware (computers, smartphones), software, and the Internet (Banerjee, 2010). Technological preparedness has become a requirement for all college students, including those with disabilities. Yet research suggests that students with learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are less comfortable than their nondisabled peers with learning technologies (Parker and Banerjee, 2007). As part of the transition planning process, college-bound students with disabilities should be prepared for the types of accommodations in college that may be technology based, such as text-to-speech software, rather than a reader. Awareness of the ways in which technology has transformed and continues to shape postsecondary education is an important element in delivering student services and promoting student engagement, and student affairs personnel can expect to work with students with disabilities who will use technology for academic, social, and personal tasks. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss TRANSITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 39 Keeping abreast of the impact of the factors that are changing the college environment is important as student affairs units move ahead in examining their identity and planning for change. The next section describes a collaborative model for student engagement that is relevant across student affairs units. Implementing a Collaborative Approach Collaboration among student affairs units, as well as strategic partnerships with entities outside student affairs and beyond the campus borders, are vigorously advocated, especially since fiscal realities mandate more efficient use of resources (American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2010). A cooperative approach engenders benefits beyond simply improving service delivery or increasing student engagement. For instance, if disability services units partner with residential life and student activities to expand the involvement of students with disabilities in leadership development programs, that collaboration fosters the development of shared assumptions about the value of universal design that could lead to improved procedures and practices for all students, whether they are pursuing leadership activities or not (Keeling and others, 2004). Well-developed collaborations can create healthy cultural norms among participating units that can “transform working relationships and re-focus energy away from competition and the maintenance of silos toward cross-functional planning and shared responsibility” (Keeling and others, 2004, p. 69). Redefining the Roles and Structures of Student Affairs The transition services continuum outlines a systemwide approach to transition planning and therefore requires not only collaboration but also rethinking the responsibilities of student affairs professionals. Redesigned roles and structures require a specific delineation of responsibilities at the start of the collaboration process in order to avoid disagreement about who is responsible for what. Since cross-unit collaboration often requires sharing fiscal or staff resources, any reallocation of these must be explicitly spelled out. Furthermore, when sharing information across offices, it is critical to outline procedures that respect confidentiality and professional ethics while also making sure that all appropriate offices have the student information needed to provide comprehensive services. For example, a prerequisite to collaboration between counseling center personnel and disability services to assist a particular student is informed consent on the part of the student to share relevant information. This is an ideal example of the importance of self-determination that reinforces student engagement. Given changing student demographics, a starting point for redefining roles and responsibilities may begin with disability services providers’ NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 40 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES delivering accurate information to the campus community about characteristics of specific disabilities (for example, Asperger’s syndrome or posttraumatic stress disorder) annually or using Web-based resources. Student affairs colleagues could collaboratively brainstorm particular engagement strategies that are congruent with the culture of the institution and have a demonstrable positive outcome. A compendium of strategies could be collected and provided to all staff members to use as they work with students across stages of the transition continuum. Strategies that reflect universal design should be clear and straightforward, with consideration given to physical environments that may unintentionally restrict access because of distractions, space restrictions, or limitations in technology access. The student affairs profession, regardless of functional area or institutional context, shares a common set of core values rooted in four fundamental philosophical traditions: holism, humanism, pragmatism, and individualism (Winston and Saunders, 1991). These values complement the values of self-determination and universal design and offer a framework for implementing a collaborative approach. One practical suggestion is for student affairs division leaders to make these core values, as well as selfdetermination and universal design, an explicit part of orientation for new staff, staff retreats, communiqués, and marketing materials. These values can be made explicit through strategic planning documents or mission and vision statements. It is also essential that students with disabilities are clearly identified as an important subgroup of an institution’s increasingly diverse student population. Finally, redesigned roles and structures that effectively foster transitions of students with disabilities should avoid the narrow focus on collaboration within student affairs units only. If effective transitions are to be an institutional priority, the perspectives of these students and those who serve them should be present at the president’s table (Keeling and others, 2004). Depending on organizational structure and culture, the means to advocate for transition services will vary, but the importance of promoting collaborative transition strategies for students with disabilities remains an institution-wide priority. Collaborative Transition Strategies In order to create effective transitions for students, various units within the institution must collaborate in ways that foster meaningful communication and flexibility in meeting a wide variety of student issues and concerns. Transitions begin well before matriculation and include strategies to assist students as they exit the collegiate environment. Therefore institutions must plan ahead for such transitions, creating partnerships across the university that are intentional about collaborating to design meaningful programs. Preadmission Strategies. A partnership between the disability services unit and admissions offices, financial aid services, orientation, and NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss TRANSITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 41 public relations is essential to raise awareness about inclusion in the preadmission phase of transition. As noted in the transition services continuum, a significant portion of the process occurs before admission and even before application to a particular institution. A welcoming and inclusive environment is communicated most powerfully through less obvious means, such as who is pictured on the institution’s Web site or whether students with disabilities are included in statements outlining diverse subpopulations. Powerful indicators of an inclusive campus climate are the ability of all staff to easily and uniformly answer questions about how the institution works with students with disabilities and messages that communicate the positive contributions of students with disabilities to the campus environment (for example, feature stories in a campus newspaper or alumni publication). Given the current level of technology penetration into postsecondary education, preadmission efforts to raise student awareness of requirements for technology competencies necessary for college are essential. Information sessions for prospective students must include details about assistive as well as commonly used learning technologies such as course management systems (for example, Blackboard). Assistive technology is defined in federal legislation (Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act, 1988) as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.” In-house availability or collaboration with personnel who have expertise and experience in both technologies is a necessity. Strategies During Enrollment. Across the continuum, all support services can enhance student engagement by crafting internal policies and protocol that address accommodations, access, and service delivery. For example, to promote self-determination, campus personnel who provide academic advising could use an interview protocol that asks students to list their learning strengths and weaknesses and includes an optional disability disclosure statement. Advisors should be familiar with any institutional policy relating to students with disabilities, such as course substitutions and reduced course load. Education abroad programs should have accurate information about the accommodation process in international colleges and universities (see Chapter Six, this volume). Disability services offices can promote autonomy and self-determination so that students can be made increasingly responsible for their own access needs. To illustrate this, a self-help scanning station would allow students to independently create text in an alternate media format. Career services can anticipate questions from students with nonvisible disabilities about the wisdom of disclosing a disability during a job interview and be prepared with objective and factual guidance. Since effective transitions involve cocurricular engagement, intentional collaboration between disability services providers and units that NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 42 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES emphasize involvement (residential life, student activities, fraternity and sorority life, community service, and so on) is needed. Educating staff and student leaders about universal design and self-determination principles, as well as legal mandates, is an important first step in making the rich collection of activities welcoming to all students. Conversations with campus personnel who design and maintain Web sites, including those that provide up-to-date facts about student activities and options, are critical to ensure that students have the opportunity to locate institutional information (hyperlinks), ask questions, and receive announcements and updates. Accessibility features to ensure usability by students with disabilities are essential in underscoring the importance of universal design principles. Reflected in the transition services continuum is the fact that some students with disabilities desire enhanced services beyond the fundamental access services that are legally mandated, for example, accommodations and auxiliary aids (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). Feebased services that are individualized and designed to promote student success are permissible (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009), yet their cost can be prohibitive. This reality requires that student affairs professionals develop new sources of funding through gifts, corporate sponsorship, and grants from government agencies or private foundations. Campus personnel with expertise in finding and obtaining external funding sources can be a valuable resource. In addition, some student affairs vice presidents are creating development or advancement units within their own divisions. Collaborating with these units can sometimes provide a revenue stream to offset the costs of enhanced services. Shifts in enrollment patterns also have implications for the delivery of student affairs services along the transition services continuum. Nontraditional students are often unable to meet during traditional office hours, creating potential roadblocks to effective academic advising, counseling, and other time-bound supports. Extending the hours that a service office remains open or offering virtual office hours are options that exemplify an inclusive philosophy and reinforce student engagement. Considering recent statistics that 92 percent of college students log into Facebook and spend an average of 147 minutes there each week (“Shutdown Shot Down,” 2010), thinking creatively is warranted in terms of tapping into alternative methods of communicating with students. Personnel in campus units such as academic advising centers, counseling offices, and mental health and disability services, as well as faculty, might consider connecting through commonly used social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Every student affairs unit should engage in a self-study to determine whether alternative methods of communication are available such that students with hearing or visual impairments have equal access. Transition Exit Strategies. Just as preadmission planning is essential for effective transition into college, the move from college to employment or graduate studies also warrants planning. Internships provide excellent NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss TRANSITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 43 opportunities for students to reflect on the match between specific jobs and their strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Contact with career services and academic programs to explore and plan for such options should begin early, and many career offices offer information sessions for students initiating the search. If elements such as academic advising and career planning have been effectively used along the transition services continuum, students will be well prepared for such exit tasks as applying and taking required entrance exams for graduate and professional studies. Familiarity with the process for requesting accommodations on these exams is important because each testing agency has its own procedure and time lines for reviewing documentation to determine an applicant’s qualifications for accommodations (Brinckerhoff and McGuire, 2010). Students should also be aware that there is no guarantee that accommodations used in college will be granted for standardized professional and graduate studies exams. Disability services professionals can work collaboratively with career services, as well as directly with students, to address questions of disability self-disclosure during job interviews and anticipated workplace accommodations. Self-awareness is critical in the transition to employment. Students should be aware of workplace supports, including human resource personnel who may be a preferred source of advice about self-disclosure. The question of workplace accommodations centers on the essential elements of a job and what comprises a reasonable accommodation. With planning that extends across the transition services continuum, students can be well positioned to enter the workforce with the skills and self-knowledge to be successful in their chosen career. Discussion A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2009) underscores the importance of collaboration between disability services and other campus offices. The notion of an office for students with disabilities comprising a one-stop center that can address the needs of a diverse and growing population is no longer advisable and may not be in the best interest of students. Cooperation across campus functions such as counseling services, financial aid, housing, academic departments, student activities, study abroad, and career services is essential not only to ensure equal access to all programs and services, a legal mandate, but also to promote student development and preparation for employment. Such a collaborative model would also tap into areas of staff expertise, an important element given the array of supports that can benefit students. The transition services continuum provides a planning tool to initiate a collaborative and systemic approach to inclusive transition strategies. Although student success is most typically associated with the important outcomes of retention and degree completion, focusing on only these NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 44 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES outcome variables is questionable given the wide array of needs presented by students with disabilities as well as other diverse learners (American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2010). If institutions are to make a meaningful impact on transitions for students with disabilities, they must attend to and assess such process dimensions as student engagement, the quality of the learning environment, and the availability of academic and social supports. The sage advice of the professional organizations for student affairs should be heeded: “Sixty years of research on college impact demonstrates that the most important factor in student success—more important than incoming student characteristics—is student engagement, that is, students’ investment of time and effort in educationally purposeful activities” (American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2010, p. 8). References “About UD.” The College of Design at North Carolina State University. N.d. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011, from http://www.adaptenv.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid= 26. Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. “Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning.” The Sloan Consortium, 2007. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2010, from http://sloanconsortium .org/publications/survey/online_nation. American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Envisioning the Future of Student Affairs. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act. U.S. Code. Title 4, §§ 12101 et seq. 2008. Banerjee, M. “Technology Trends and Transition for Students with Disabilities.” In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus, and L. L. Dukes III (eds.), Preparing Students with Disabilities for College: A Practical Guide for Transition. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing, 2010. Brinckerhoff, L. C., and McGuire, J. M. “Getting to Know Your Way Around High Stakes Testing Accommodations.” Paper presented at 22nd Annual Postsecondary Disability Training Institute, Saratoga Springs, N.Y., June 2010. Burgstahler, S. E. “Universal Design of Student Services: From Principles to Practice.” In S. E. Burgstahler and Rebecca C. Cory (eds.), Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press, 2008. Center for Universal Design. “The Principles of Universal Design.” The College of Design at North Carolina State University, 1997. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011, from http://www .adaptenv.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid=Center for Universal Design. Church, T. E. “Returning Veterans on Campus with War Related Injuries and the Long Road Back Home.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 2009, 22(1), 43–52. Field, S., and others. “Self-Determination for Persons with Disabilities: A Position Statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition.” Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 1998, 21, 113–128. Gerber, P. J. “Transition and Adults with Learning Disabilities.” In P. J. Gerber and others (eds.), Learning to Achieve: A Review of the Research Literature on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy, 2009. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss TRANSITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 45 Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., and Herman, K. L. “Predictors of Success in Individuals with Learning Disabilities: A Qualitative Analysis of a Twenty-Year Longitudinal Study.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 2003, 18, 222–236. Grund, N. “Mapping the Future of Student Affairs: Task Force Highlights Opportunities and Challenges.” Leadership Exchange, Summer 2010, pp. 10–15. Harbour, W. S. “The Relationship Between Institutional Unit and Administrative Features of Disability Services Offices in Higher Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 2009, 21(3), 138–154. Higher Education Opportunity Act. U.S. Code. Title 20, §§ 1001 note. 2008. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. U.S. Code. Title 20, §§ 1400 et seq. 2004. Jacobs, L. F., and Hyman, J. S. “Seventeen Ways College Campuses Are Changing.” U.S. News & World Report, May 20, 2009. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www .careercollegecentral.com/news/17_ways_campuses_changing. Keeling, R. P., and others. Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2004. Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability, Harris Interactive. 2010 Survey of Americans with Disabilities. New York: Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability, Harris Interactive, 2010. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.org/. Kim, J. “Highlights of President Obama’s Speech on Higher Education Aug. 9, 2010.” Web log comment. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com /blogs/technology_and_learning/highlights_of_president_obama_s_speech_on _higher_education. Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., and Ginder, S. A. Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in the United States: Fall 2009, Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2008–09, and Twelve-Month Enrollment: 2008–09. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 2010. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011, from http://nces.ed .gov/pubs2010/2010161.pdf Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. “Introduction to Transition.” In G. Greene and C. Kochhar-Bryant, Pathways to Successful Transition for Youth with Disabilities. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education, 2003. Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. “How Secondary Personnel Can Work with Families to Foster Effective Transition Planning.” In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus, and L. L. Dukes (eds.), Preparing Students with Disabilities for College: A Practical Guide for Transition. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing, 2010. Konrad, M., and others. “Self-Determination Interventions on the Academic Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disability Quarterly, 2007, 30, 89–113. McGuire, J. M. “Considerations for the Transition to College.” In S. F. Shaw, J. W. Madaus, and L. L. Dukes (eds.), Preparing Students with Disabilities for College: A Practical Guide for Transition. Baltimore, Md.: Brookes Publishing, 2010. Parker, D. R., and Banerjee, M. “Leveling the Digital Playing Field: Assessing the Learning Technology Needs of College-Bound Students with LD and/or ADHD.” Assessment for Effective Intervention, 2007, 33, 5–14. Post 9-11 Veterans Educations Assistance Act of 2008. Public Law 252. 110th Cong., 2nd sess., June 30, 2008. Rothstein, L. “Millennials and Disability Law: Revisiting Southeastern Community College v. Davis (September 10, 2008).” Journal of College and University Law, 2007, 34(1). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1266333. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., and Foley, T. E. “Universal Design for Instruction: A Framework for Anticipating and Responding to Disability and Other Diverse Learning Needs in the College Classroom.” Equity and Excellence in Education, 2003, 36, 40– 49. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss 46 FOSTERING THE INCREASED INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Shaw, S. F. “Transition to Postsecondary Education.” Focus on Exceptional Children, 2009, 42(2), 1–16. “Shutdown Shot Down.” Inside Higher Education, Sept. 16, 2010. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/16/harrisburg2. Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act. U.S. Code. Title 29, §§ 2201 et seq. 1988. U.S. Census Bureau. The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2002. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Higher Education and Disability: Education Needs a Coordinated Approach to Improve Its Assistance to Schools in Supporting Students. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Oct. 2009. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1033.pdf. University of Connecticut. University of Connecticut General Education Guidelines. 2010. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2010, from http://geoc.uconn.edu/geocguidelines.htm. Winston, R. B., and Saunders, S. A. “Ethical Practice in Student Affairs.” In T. K. Miller and R. B. Winston (eds.), Administration and Leadership in Student Affairs: Actualizing Student Development in Higher Education. (2nd ed.) Muncie, Ind.: Accelerated Development Press, 1991. Wolanin, T. R., and Steele, P. E. Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: A Primer for Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2004. DONNA M. KORBEL is the Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs and also maintains her role as the Director of the Center for Students with Disabilities at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. JOAN M. MCGUIRE is a professor emerita of special education and Senior Research Scholar at the University of Connecticut Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability in Storrs. MANJU BANERJEE is associate director of the Center for Students with Disabilities and associate research scholar at the Center for Postsecondary Education and Disability, both at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. SUE A. SAUNDERS is extension professor and coordinator of the Higher Education and Student Affairs Master’s Program at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss