Student ADA Access and Reasonable Accommodations Policy

This policy was posted for public comment from November 27 – December 12, 2023.

Comments

A suggested edit for 4B4a2 in the Student ADA Access and Reasonable Accommodations policy: replace "your" with "their" to maintain consistent use of the possessive pronoun. Also, in the same policy, it appears that the link in 4B4a4 is broken.
4A 1 "including academic adjustments" - what are these and where are they defined? (perhaps hyperlink here?) 4B5 - does parking services keep track of the usage of designed handicapped parking? If it is usually full then that could mean that we need to increase the number of these spaces. 4F7 "7. Emotional Support Animals (ESA) may be allowed under the Fair Housing Act in student housing. ESA are not permitted on college property outside of student housing." - this seems premature as we do not have student housing. How often are our policies reviewed? It seems like this policy would be essential to review and update before we finish housing on our campuses. Also, emotional support animals are not talked about for staff and faculty. Why are these animals limited to housing? I think this version of the policy is better than the old one!
Policy Statement Comments: Section 1: The policy does not say that SLCC complies with all state and federal laws when talking about the ADA policy. Shouldn’t it? Section 1: Is it true to state that we do not deny “full and equal access,” to programs? For example, our trucking and commercial driving may not let everyone in with a disability because there are governing bodies that regulate people’s ability to participate. Section 1: Should it say “To all programs to which they are qualified?” Should we add back in the language in the policy statement defining qualified individuals instead of “students?”
Definition Comments: Section 3.A Accessible: Should this definition say something other than Similar? What if the accommodation we can reasonably provide is not similar to the practices in the course? Should it be comparable instead? Section 3.C Essential Requirements: We do not have essential elements to a degree. We have required elements to a degree.
Comes up in the fundamental alteration – is this assignment essential to the nature of what a student needs to demonstrate in a course? Determined by the expert in the program/course. ADA only essential parts of the course requirements. Section 3.D Fundamental Alteration: We use the word program a lot. Program in the definitions is defined as any activity or benefit for service provided by or substantially by the college. Is this really what we are trying to say? Section 3.I Reasonable Accommodation: Should we add the language that the accommodation needs to be “acceptable to the student,” and does not cause a fundamental alteration or undue hardship. Or is there a way to write this to say the student denying the accommodation provided does not mean that it is not a reasonable accommodation. Section 3.K Undue Hardship: Fundamentally Alters is included in this definition and this is substantially different from an undue hardship. An undue hardship and fundamental alteration are two separate definitions, and they should be kept distinct. Additional Definition Comments: (1) Define College – when we say “SLCC,” or “the college,” who exactly are we talking about? (2) The Employee ADA Policy states a (3) The definitions are lacking in clarity and plain language, leaving it challenging to know exactly what the goals of many of them are.
Procedures: Section 4.B.3: This section is unclear. It should say that student employees who need accommodations for their employment with SLCC must go through the FML/ADA coordinator, and then insert directly who to contact, instead of making the student search through another policy. It should also be clear that even if the student employee has an accommodation through ADS, that accommodation does not carry through to their employment. Section 4.D.2: This section needs to be parsed out more clearly. The website says that the IX/EO office is the appealing body. Did Risk Management agree to take on the appellate process? Is this in combination with IX Investigations and complaints where the Office of General Counsel steps in as the appealing body? What is the exact appealing procedure? Does the student submit a grievance, and then the dean of student’s reviews? After that, does the student go to Title IX? The actual process is unclear. Section 4.E: The SLCC Anti-discrimination policy states that this includes, “all employees, students, volunteers, and contractors…” Should this provision match the one that we have in our anti-discrimination policy, instead of saying “College community member?”
Section 4.F.6: Does this section work as a way to stop all dogs from being able to be on campus? Dogs are on our campuses all the time. What is an identifiable task? Is there a definition of emotional support? Section 4.H.1: It’s unclear who these responsibilities belong to. What about instructors who do workforce training that are not teaching regular courses? If the course is at SLCC, we provide accommodations but what if it’s off campus at a workplace? Section 4.H.1: Is there different responsibilities for people who do not fall under faculty? The responsibility for members of faculty should be specifically identified. Section 4.H.1: Should we have a separate portion of the responsibility’s procedure spell out the responsibility of administrators that they have a responsibility to assist ADS and faculty in implementing accommodations. Section 4.H.1.A: Is it Faculty’s responsibility to refer the student to ADS, or to tell ADS that the student requested an accommodation, or both? It seems like the student has the responsibility to make the request. Section 4.H.1.B: Could we change “provide reasonable accommodations under the direction of ADS? Maybe it should say “enforce,” the reasonable accommodations determined by ADS,” so that it does not appear as though the faculty is providing the accommodation but carrying out the accommodation that ADS deemed reasonable. Section 4.H.1.B: Is there a timeframe somewhere as to when ADS and the course must provide the accommodation after the request is made? Section 4.H.1.B: Could the procedure, under responsibilities, spell out exactly what the faculty obligations are when working with ADS to ensure a student can be provided an accommodation?

Responses

Policy Statement (section 1)

Should the policy statement say SLCC complies with all state and federal laws when discussing the ADA policy?

No changes were made to the policy based on this comment. Section 2 lists the relevant laws that are applicable to this policy.

Is it accurate to state that we do not deny “full and equal access” to programs? For example, our trucking and commercial driving may not let everyone in with a disability because there are governing bodies that regulate people’s ability to participate.

No changes were made to the policy based on this comment. Any individual who meets the requirements for a program would be eligible for that program. Eligibility is an individualized evaluation in which people with abilities or disabilities are evaluated similarly. If an eligible individual is a person with a disability, then ADS would still provide reasonable accommodations for the hypothetical situation you suggest.

Should it say, “To all programs to which they are qualified?” Should we add the language in the policy statement defining qualified individuals instead of “students?”

No changes have been made based on this comment. The existing language comes from the ADA.

Definitions (section 3)

Accessible Definition – use “comparable” instead of “similar?”

This definition was revised, and “comparable” was used instead of “similar.” The definition now reads, “the opportunity to acquire comparable information, engage in comparable interactions, access comparable educational opportunities, and enjoy comparable services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use. This principle aims for an equally effective and integrated experience, removing barriers and providing substantially equivalent ease of use across physical spaces, digital resources, programs, and services within the institution.”

Essential Requirements Definition – we do not have essential elements to a degree. We have required elements to a degree.

The concept of “essential requirements” is considered when ADS determines if a proposed accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration to a college program, service, or activity. ADA applies to essential parts of the course requirements. An example of a question that might be asked would be, is this assignment essential to the nature of what a student needs to demonstrate in a course? The expert in the program/course determines whether the assignment is essential.

Fundamental Alteration Definition – use of the term “program,” is this what we mean in this context?

This definition was revised to read “a significant change to a college program, service, or activity that substantially changes the essential nature of the program, service, or activity.”

Reasonable Accommodation Definition - Should we add the language that the accommodation needs to be “acceptable to the student,” and does not cause a fundamental alteration or undue hardship. Or is there a way to write this to say that the student denying the accommodation provided does not mean that it is not a reasonable accommodation?

This definition was revised as follows, “a modification adjustment, or change made in the policy, practice, environment, or procedure to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to opportunities and enable their participation in programs, courses, services, or activities. These accommodations are tailored to address barriers posed by the disability while ensuring that essential core elements of a program or service remain intact. These accommodations aim to mitigate the impact of the disability and do not cause a fundamental alteration or undue hardship.”

Undue Hardship Definition – Fundamentally Alters is substantially different from an undue hardship. These two terms should be kept distinct.

This definition was revised to read “an accommodation that causes substantial difficulty or disruption when considering the nature and impact of the accommodation on the nature or operation of the program, course, service, or activity.”

The definitions lack clarity and plain language, making it challenging to know the goals of many of them.

Except for the definition of Essential Requirements, each definition in the policy was revised for clarity and comprehension. New definitions were also added.

Clarification about ADA Accommodations for Student Employees’ Work Environment (4.B.3)

This section was revised. It now states, “Student employees must make accommodation requests related to their work for the college by contacting the FML/ADA Coordinator by submitting an online Employee Accommodation Request Form, or following another option as outlined in the Employee ADA Access and Reasonable Accommodations policy. The ADS Office cannot provide employment accommodations and accommodations provided to students are not automatically transferred in the individual’s role as an employee.”

Appeal Process Clarification (4.D)

Section 4.D has been revised to clarify the appeal process. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Students within ten business days of the date the accommodation determination is sent to the student and relevant faculty or staff member. The revisions clarify what the written appeal should include, the appeal process, and the members of the accommodation review committee reviewing appeals.

Revision Suggestion for Reporting Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities section (4.E)

No changes have been made based on this comment. The existing language is parallel to the language in the policy statement and more applicable for the intended audience for this policy.

Clarification about Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals (4.F)

Section 4.F has been revised to clarify that “Students may bring service animals, as defined by the ADA, on campus, however, the student must be in the same room as the service animal” (4.F.1) and that “Dogs that do not perform an identifiable task or function directly related to a disability do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not allowed in classrooms or in office spaces.” (4.F.6)

The college has student housing arrangements that the Fair Housing Act could potentially govern. This act allows residents to have ESAs. The college does not permit ESAs inside buildings on college property.

Clarification of Responsibilities (4.H)

What about instructors who do workforce training that are not teaching regular courses? If the course is at SLCC, we provide accommodations, but what if it’s off campus at a workplace?

If an SLCC course is offered at an off-campus location, such as concurrent enrollment courses at a high school or workforce training at a workplace, the school district or workplace/organization is responsible for providing a plan to meet student educational needs in conjunction with ADS. See sections 4.A.2 and 4.

Are there different responsibilities for people who do not fall under faculty? Should we have a separate portion of the responsibilities procedure that spells out the responsibility of administrators to assist ADS and faculty in implementing accommodations?

Section 4.H.3 now specifies applicability to both faculty and staff members.

Clarify that the student is responsible for making the request to ADS for accommodation. (4.H.1.a)

This has been clarified in 4.H.1.b., stating that a student requesting accommodation (qualified student with a disability) will “initiate the accommodation process set forth in section 4.B.”

Could we change “provide reasonable accommodations under the direction of ADS? Maybe it should say “enforce,” the reasonable accommodations determined by ADS,” so that it does not appear that the faculty is providing the accommodation but carrying out the accommodation that ADS deemed reasonable? (4.H.1.b) Could the procedure, under responsibilities, spell out precisely what the faculty obligations are when working with ADS to ensure a student can be provided an accommodation?

Section 4.H.1.c has been revised to address this concern. The new language states, “Members of faculty and/or staff are not permitted to develop ADA Accommodations without ADS.” Additionally, 4.H.1.c.(3) states that individuals who provide instruction or control a program must “Comply with and implement reasonable accommodations under the direction of the ADS.”

Is there a timeframe somewhere clarifying when ADS and the course must provide the accommodation after the request is made?

Language has been included in sections 4.B.4.d and 4.C.4.b.(3) regarding the required “timely” implementation of the accommodation.

Does Parking Services Keep Usage Data on the Current Designated Handicapped Parking? (4.B.5) If it is usually full, then that could mean that we need to increase the number of these spaces.

This is a great suggestion. Although this suggestion is outside the scope of this policy and ADS, it would be wonderful to know if parking services keep such documentation.

Technical Suggestions

Clarifying what “including academic adjustments” means in 4.A.1. Should this be a hyperlink?

The term “academic adjustments” encompasses a broad range of options. To clarify this, a hyperlink to examples of academic adjustments on the ADS website has been included in 4.A.1.

Replace "your" with "their" to maintain consistent use of the possessive pronoun (4.B.4.a.2). Also, the link in 4.B.4.a.4 appears to be broken.

Revisions accepted.

SLCC Policies and Procedures