[Georgia_ahead] FW: Currency of Documentation and Disability-Landau-Kleffner Syndrome

[Bonnie Martin]

I apologize for cross posting.

 

Below is an interesting discussion from two respected "old- timers" in
the DSP profession. If you are going to AHEAD, and you have not met
either Jim or Linda, they are probably both presenting---and I think Jim
is on the AHEAD Board.

 

This discussion started with a posting from a DSP at a college where a
student presented documentation for Landau-Kleffner Syndrome from when
the student was in grammar school.

 

Bonnie

 

Bonnie S. Martin, Director

Disability Services

Georgia Perimeter College

678-891-3385

 

________________________________

From: Disabled Student Services in Higher Education
<DSSHE-L at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU> [mailto:Disabled Student Services in
Higher Education <DSSHE-L at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU>] On Behalf Of "Marks,
Jim" <marks at MSO.UMT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:15 PM
To: DSSHE-L at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: Currency of Documentation and Disability-Landau-Kleffner
Syndrome

 

It's good to debate elements of our profession, and I agree that 
disagreement in an environment of mutual respect is terrific and 
essential. Thing is, I'm not sure what we disagree on because we both 
favor the appropriate use of documentation. 

One exception may be that I definitely disagree with the bogus "unfair 
advantage." No such a concept exists except in the world of disability 
oppression, and I sure wish we would stop using the prejudiced term. 
Another point of disagreement may be in the use of the word, "needs." 
Our profession should focus on rights, not needs. We're here to prevent 
discrimination on the basis of disability, not to conduct some sort of 
hybrid charity within the walls of the ivory tower. Talking about needs 
sends us down a path that permits us to ignore discrimination. 
Disliking "unfair advantage" and "needs" in professional discourse is 
more than just a pet peeve or a matter of semantics. They give us 
windows into the very center of how with think and act in our 
profession. 

Getting back to the matter of how much third party evidence is 
necessary, I think DS officers should get the evidence relevant to the 
two purposes outlined in the AHEAD documentation guidelines. In other 
words, I have no problems getting third party evidence when it makes 
sense to do so. Perhaps our disagreement is more a matter of degree. I 
get far better information relevant to my job from the student, not the 
third party diagnostician. I can ask questions based on function that 
help sort out what is at stake in the program modification process. I 
always start with the student and then make a decision as to whether I 
want more evidence to support student requests. Sometimes, the third 
party evidence is useless, and I will not put students through hoops 
unreasonably. Other times, the third party evidence is absolutely 
essential. 

To be frank, I abhor those entities who go for the third party evidence 
first or, worse yet, those who never even interview the student. For 
example, many in the high stakes testing industry do not talk with the 
student and rely solely on third party evidence. That's an inhumanity 
higher education can avoid. We actually get to talk with students, and 
the things we do can be supported by solid practices. Some argue that 
our profession is full of people who don't have the kind of experience 
and judgment it takes to interview students. It's true that we have a 
lot of professional development to work on. But we cannot fill this 
void with one-size-fits-all approaches that neglect the individual and 
over emphasize authorities outside of the student-institution 
relationship. We must think and act responsibly in our profession. 
Besides that, it takes piles of professional judgment to interpret the 
third party evidence. I've been a DS officer for twenty years and read 
many documents. Oftentimes, the diagnostic documents tell me very 
little relevant to the things I need to know to do my job. Diagnostic 
documents usually deal with purposes outside making higher education 
accessible, and the idea that documentation will provide the best 
evidence for program modifications is unsupportable in many instances. 
Even making a determination as to whether the diagnostic evidence alone 
verifies civil rights protections can be a stretch. Professional 
judgment is essential. . I guess I just don't get why many colleagues 
reach so vehemently for information that often turns out to be useful 
only within the context of what the student tells us. Our profession 
should emphasize a deliberate discussion with students to give evidence 
of disability and its impact relevance and meaning. Surely we agree 
that the student is key. Otherwise, we're just building documentation 
castles in the sky. We're also adding barriers to higher education, 
which is counter to our mission of making higher education accessible. 


----- 

Jim Marks 
Director of Disability Services 
University of Montana 
jim.marks at umontana.edu 
http://www.umt.edu/disability 
----- 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Nissenbaum, Linda D. [mailto:LNissenbaum at stlcc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:51 AM 
To: Marks, Jim; DSSHE-L at LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU 
Subject: RE: Currency of Documentation and Disability-Landau-Kleffner 
Syndrome 

I really have to disagree with Jim, and I know from past experience that
we can agree to disagree and continue to respect each other's 
professional view. 

So, here is my professional opinion on the topic: 
If we are going to be the DSS Office for our colleges and universities, 
then the current documentation of the disability has to come first 
especially with 'hidden disabilities. We should not minimize the 
importance of structured interviews as they are essential. However, 
there are many reasons why a student may have difficulty with 'study', 
and much of it may not have anything to do with a disability. 

If we are giving accommodations to level the playing field for students 
with disabilities, then we first need to know: Does this student even 
have a disability? (It is possible that the seizures in her earlier 
years caused brain abnormalities which require accommodations? Is it 
possible that the syndrome lasted for a short time, and there are no 
long-lasting affects from it? I don't know, but current documentation 
should tell me this.) Next, does the disability currently rise to the 
level that it requires accommodations for equal access? While she may 
have had a syndrome in the past, the information provided was from when 
the student was 9 yrs. old. Surely, if this is a disability that 
warrants the need for accommodations, the student would have been 
followed throughout her years by a doctor, etc. Thirdly, what is the 
nexus between the disability and the accommodations requested? And, 
lastly, do the accommodations have an opportunity to provide equal 
access for the student? 

I'm all for UDI in its fullest sense. And, if our colleges and 
universities are going to start looking at each individual student's 
needs and providing each student with whatever is requested, then that 
would be the best of all worlds. However, if we are being asked to 
provide and determine accommodations for student with disabilities in 
order to provide them an opportunity for equal access and not an unfair 
advantage, then we need to be sure that our requests are credible. And, 
this requires that we get current documentation of disability ( with 
currency being determined by the professionals who diagnose the 
disability and not us), and also request structured interviews with the 
student. Based on the documentation and the structured interview, we 
should be able to answer the questions stated above and work under the 
intentions of our offices. 

This list is intended to serve as a forum for higher education
professionals involved in the delivery of services to students with
disabilities in higher education. Any commercial posts or posts that are
deemed by the listowner to be inappropriate for the list will result in
the poster being removed from the list. 

To sign off the list, send a message to 
* listserv at listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu 
* with the message 
* Unsubscribe dsshe-L 
To search the archives, go to 
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/dsshe-l.html 
Questions? Contact Listowner Dan Ryan at dryan at buffalo.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ahead-lists.org/pipermail/georgia_ahead_ahead-lists.org/attachments/20080709/b48198c6/attachment.html