AHEAD Program Standards and Performance Indicators – Study Notes
Overview
Purpose: The AHEAD Program Standards and 90 Performance Indicators serve as essential benchmarks for disability services in higher education. They guide program development, evaluation, and accountability to ensure equal access for college students with disabilities.
Scope: Comprising 28 Program Standards and 90 Performance Indicators, these guidelines are applicable to all postsecondary institutions, irrespective of their type, funding, location, or admissions policy, providing a universal framework for disability services operations.
Outcomes emphasized:
Promotion of state-of-the-art, evidence-based practices in disability service delivery.
Provision of robust supports for comprehensive program evaluation.
Justification for the allocation of necessary resources to disability services programs.
Establishment of a clear basis for consumer review by students, their families, and external agencies.
Key numbers:
Specifically, there are Program Standards and Performance Indicators that define best practices.
A typical Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) program budget example cited in Harbour (2004) was , highlighting the financial investment required.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) drove a significant push for accountability and outcomes in K-12 schooling, paralleling a growing demand for similar accountability in postsecondary settings, as referenced by a 2002 publication date.
A survey conducted by Harbour (2004) involved 1,353 postsecondary disability service providers.
Of those surveyed, over indicated a pressing need for information regarding best practices, and expressed a need for more resources (Harbour, 2004), underscoring critical resource gaps and demand for guidance.
Historical context: The 2004 AHEAD adoption represented a significant update to the 1999 standards (published 2001). This revision was crucial to reflect the rapid evolution in practice, incorporating concepts like student self-determination, advancements in technology, the growing need for enhanced collaboration with faculty, and changing student demographics (including new disability profiles like ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, and psychiatric conditions).
Core message: The Standards provide a critical benchmark for comprehensive program evaluation, strategic resource development, effective staff training, informed policy development, and clear consumer expectations. Crucially, they establish a baseline without prohibiting institutions from offering additional supports beyond these essential indicators.
Background and Rationale for New Standards
Prior standards (1999; published 2001) had a limited shelf life due to the rapid evolution of the disability services field and shifting needs. These shifts included a greater emphasis on self-determination, advancements in assistive technologies, increased collaboration with faculty, and the emergence of new student disability profiles such as ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome, and various psychiatric conditions.
Field dynamics:
The self-determination concept, as articulated by Field, Sarver, & Shaw (2003), significantly redirected service delivery models, moving towards empowering students.
There was a notable increase in the adoption of technology and the emergence of universal design principles, making collaboration with faculty more critical for accessible instruction.
A broader shift occurred from conventional wisdom in service provision to the demand for evidence-based practice, leading to an increasing demand for information on best practices, as identified by Harbour (2004).
Policy and accountability drivers:
The educational landscape in 2001/2002 saw NCLB-style accountability pressures extending into higher education. These pressures compelled programs to demonstrate concrete outcomes and to allocate scarce resources based on measurable benchmarks, as highlighted by Goodin, Parker, Shaw, & McGuire (2004).
Purpose of updates:
To provide internationally recognized benchmarks specifically for the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD).
To support systematic program development, robust accountability measures, and strong justification for essential resources.
To offer a solid basis for ongoing program evaluation and continuous improvement, and to assist judges and policy makers in understanding what constitutes “best practices” in higher education disability services.
The AHEAD Program Standards and Performance Indicators (Table 1)
Composition: The framework is composed of 28 Program Standards and 90 Performance Indicators, all described as essential for all schools, irrespective of their size, funding model, geographical location, or admissions policy.
Functions of the Standards:
Provide a concrete benchmark for evaluating program efficacy and outcomes.
Identify necessary policies and procedures that need to be developed or revised to align with best practices.
Specify the resources and training required to effectively provide equal access to students with disabilities.
Purpose for stakeholders:
Postsecondary disability personnel and institutions can effectively assess their current services, plan for future development, and implement robust service models.
Consumers, including students and their families, can thoroughly review the quality and scope of programs and services offered by institutions.
Governmental agencies can utilize these standards as an authoritative guide for establishing and overseeing program development and compliance.
Key Areas and Structure (Categories 1–8)
The following sections describe the eight major Standards areas and their corresponding Performance Indicators. Within each category, subpoints (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) delineate specific and detailed expectations.
1. Consultation / Collaboration
1.1 Serve as an advocate for issues regarding students with disabilities to ensure equal access.
Foster strong collaboration between disability services and institutional administration to ensure effective policy implementation regarding disability access.
Keep key administrators consistently informed of emerging disability issues or trends that may necessitate updates to existing institutional policies or the creation of new ones.
Promote a campus-wide institutional commitment to collaboration among various departments, including deans, the registrar, campus legal counsel, and others, to ensure a cohesive approach to disability services.
Work actively with facilities management to raise campus awareness of, and address, physical access barriers, continually striving for an inclusive physical environment.
Collaborate with academic affairs on the development and revision of policies concerning course substitutions to ensure reasonable accommodations.
Promote an institutional focus that emphasizes student abilities and strengths rather than solely focusing on disability limitations.
Facilitate the meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities in all aspects of campus life, including residential experiences and extracurricular activities, promoting a holistic college experience.
1.2 Provide disability representation on relevant campus committees.
Advise campus student affairs units on disability issues that may arise in contexts such as student discipline or student activities, ensuring an informed and equitable approach.
Actively participate on campus-wide disability advisory committees, which typically include faculty, students, administrators, and community representatives, to gather diverse perspectives and inform strategic planning.
Participate on campus administrative committees that are specifically focused on disability-related matters, ensuring disability perspectives are integrated into institutional decision-making.
Note: The Standards mandate that services be provided and clearly assign responsibility, but they do not exclusively require that the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) house all these responsibilities. A disability access committee or other designated campus unit can effectively fulfill these expectations through a collaborative approach.
2. Information Dissemination
2.1 Disseminate information about disability services and access through institutional publications (catalogs, websites, program materials).
Ensure that the institution’s website prominently features up-to-date and comprehensive information regarding referral processes, necessary documentation, and available services.
Clearly disseminate detailed criteria and procedures for accessing accommodations to the entire campus community, including students, faculty, and staff.
Provide transparent information on grievance procedures upon request, ensuring students are aware of their rights and avenues for redress.
Include clear statements on self-disclosure for students with disabilities in institutional publications, explaining the process and benefits of voluntary disclosure.
2.2 Provide services that promote access to the campus community.
Facilitate access to essential assistive technologies, such as screen readers (e.g., JAWS), reading software (e.g., Kurzweil), and Braille embossers (e.g., Mountbatten Brailler), ensuring students have the tools they need.
Provide comprehensive information for the acquisition and use of TT/TDD devices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring effective communication access.
Actively promote the principles of universal design in facilities planning, communication strategies, and instructional delivery, moving beyond individual accommodations to create inherently accessible environments for all students (Getzel, Briel, & McManus, 2003; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003).
2.3 Disseminate information about campus/community disability resources to students with disabilities.
Provide clear information and appropriate referrals to access a wide range of relevant campus and community resources that can support students with disabilities.
3. Faculty / Staff Awareness
3.1 Inform faculty about academic accommodations, legal requirements, and curriculum modifications.
Clearly clarify faculty rights and responsibilities related to ensuring equal access for students with disabilities.
Share detailed procedures that students must follow to formally arrange and receive accommodations.
Collaborate closely with faculty on accommodation decisions, particularly in situations where a requested accommodation might potentially lead to a fundamental alteration of a course or program.
3.2 Provide consultation with administrators about accommodations and related modifications.
Promote administrative understanding of the diverse ways disabilities can impact students’ academic and campus experiences.
3.3 Provide disability awareness training for campus constituents (faculty, staff, administrators).
Conduct staff development programs focused on best policies and practices for disability services in higher education.
Deliver targeted training for faculty on their responsibilities concerning accommodations and practical guidance on how to effectively provide them in their courses.
Train administrators on the legal rights and institutional responsibilities related to students with disabilities.
Involve staff from key departments such as residential life, maintenance, and the library in training to facilitate the seamless integration and support of students with disabilities across all campus functions.
3.4 Provide information to faculty about available services.
Offer staff development initiatives to enable faculty and staff to appropriately refer students who may need disability services to the OSD.
4. Academic Adjustments
4.1 Maintain records documenting each student’s plan for accommodations.
Create and maintain confidential student files containing detailed eligibility information and records of services provided.
Rigorously document the basis for all accommodation decisions and recommendations made for each student.
Develop and implement a robust case management system to ensure accurate, secure, and confidential student records.
4.2 Determine appropriate academic accommodations and services with students.
Conduct a thorough review of disability documentation provided by students.
Utilize an environment/task/individualized approach to accommodation determination, considering the specific context, academic demands, and individual student needs.
Review diagnostic testing results to inform the selection of appropriate and effective accommodations.
Handle accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that decisions are directly tied to the student’s documented strengths and weaknesses.
Verify that all submitted documentation adequately supports the requested accommodations.
Consider offering time-limited, provisional accommodations while awaiting additional clinical documentation, with a final determination made once complete information is received.
4.3 Collaborate with faculty to ensure accommodations do not fundamentally alter the program of study.
Provide reasonable accommodations that effectively preserve the essential elements and academic integrity of coursework and programs.
Ensure the availability of a comprehensive range of supports, services, and assistive technology to meet diverse modification needs.
5. Counseling and Self-Determination
5.1 Use a service delivery model that promotes independence and self-determination.
Educate and assist students in developing the skills necessary to function independently within the university environment and beyond.
Develop a clear program mission for the OSD that places significant emphasis on fostering self-determination for students with disabilities.
Self-determination concept (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998): This concept is defined as a beneficial combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that empower individuals to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, and autonomous behavior. It emphasizes that understanding one's strengths and limitations, coupled with self-belief, significantly enhances positive life outcomes (p. 2).
Emphasis shift: The focus has evolved from solely advocating for individual students to advocating for systemic issues and promoting student autonomy (self-determination). This contrasts with the older model of primarily acting as an advocate for individual student needs (Field et al., 2003).
Research associations: Research has consistently linked higher levels of self-determination among students with disabilities to improved academic outcomes, including higher GPAs, increased graduation rates, and greater self-efficacy (Field et al., 2003; Parker, 2004).
6. Policies and Procedures
6.1 Develop, review, and revise written policies/guidelines for determining and accessing reasonable accommodations.
Establish clear procedures for students to follow when requesting and utilizing accommodations.
Define robust policies for the review of disability documentation.
Outline eligibility procedures for accessing services.
Develop guidelines for offering provisional accommodations during interim periods, such as when reassessments are pending.
6.2 Assist with development/revision of policies for institutional rights/responsibilities related to service provision.
Develop policies concerning course substitutions and requirements for foreign language or writing.
Establish clear priority registration policies for students requiring accommodations.
Define the critical balance between providing “reasonable accommodation” and ensuring students are “otherwise qualified” without fundamentally altering technical standards of a program.
Address Information Technology (IT) considerations, such as ensuring content is available in alternative formats.
Provide explicit disability documentation guidelines for determining eligibility.
Clearly outline faculty responsibilities regarding students with disabilities.
Collaborate with IT departments to ensure accessibility in all digital formats and systems, including alternative formats for instructional materials.
6.3 Develop, review, and revise policies for student rights/responsibilities in receiving services.
Implement consistent documentation practices for all students seeking accommodations.
Establish clear policies for students regarding the provision of recent and appropriate disability documentation.
Define students’ responsibilities to meet institutional academic and conduct standards.
Outline procedures for requesting and implementing program modifications, such as course substitutions.
Detail procedures for notifying relevant staff (e.g., interpreters, notetakers) when a student will not attend class to ensure efficient resource management.
6.4 Develop, review, and revise confidentiality policies for disability information.
Ensure clear guidelines specifying who can access disability documentation and robust protections against improper sharing of sensitive information.
Safeguard the privacy of student records, including testing information, prior educational records, and permissions to release information, adhering to all applicable privacy laws.
6.5 Develop, review, and revise policies/guidelines for settling formal complaints about reasonable accommodations.
Establish clear procedures for the review of accommodation requests and for addressing disagreements that may arise.
Outline compliance and investigation procedures for formal complaints regarding disability services.
Define conflict resolution processes designed to equitably address grievances between the grievant and institutional representatives.
7. Program Administration and Evaluation
7.1 Ensure services align with the institution’s mission/philosophy.
Develop a clear mission statement for OSD that is compatible with and supports the overall mission of the institution; ensure all staff understand and support this mission.
7.2 Coordinate services through at least one full-time professional dedicated to disability services, ensuring leadership and consistent oversight.
7.3 Collect student feedback to measure satisfaction and effectiveness of accommodations (timeliness, etc.).
Systematically include student satisfaction data as a key component of program evaluation to continuously improve services.
7.4 Collect data to monitor usage and effectiveness of services.
Provide regular feedback to facilities management regarding physical access issues identified through student use and observation.
Utilize collected data to identify areas for program improvements and to accurately project future funding needs, supporting evidence-based resource requests.
7.5 Report program evaluation data to administrators via annual evaluation reports, ensuring transparency and accountability.
7.6 Provide fiscal management of the OSD:
Develop a comprehensive program budget and effectively manage allocated resources.
Actively seek additional internal and external funds as needed to enhance and expand services.
Build strong political support for the program and its budget within the institutional hierarchy.
7.7 Collaborate on purchasing adaptive equipment to ensure equal access.
Determine specific assistive technology needs of students and advise other departments on appropriate procurement processes.
Arrange for adequate support and training for students to effectively operate assistive technology and equipment.
Context: A significant finding from Harbour (2004) indicated that of disability service providers surveyed expressed a need for more resources, highlighting persistent funding challenges.
8. Training and Professional Development
8.1 Provide disability services staff with ongoing professional development.
Ensure comprehensive orientation and continuous staff development opportunities for all new personnel.
Sufficient funds for professional development activities must be available and accessible to staff.
Assess ongoing training needs through regular knowledge and skills assessments to ensure staff remain current with best practices and emerging issues.
8.2 Ensure services are delivered by personnel with appropriate training/experience (e.g., student development, degree programs).
Confirm that staff possess the necessary skills to understand and accurately interpret assessments and disability documentation.
8.3 Ensure personnel adhere to relevant Codes of Ethics (e.g., AHEAD, APA).
Staff are expected to refer to and diligently apply established ethical codes in all professional practices, especially when navigating challenging or complex situations.
Consultation and Collaboration (Narrative Context)
Collaboration has become increasingly important due to the complex nature of disabilities, including many hidden conditions, and the resultant need for interdisciplinary problem-solving approaches.
A key distinction in the updated Standards is the emphasis on advocacy for systemic issues (Standard 1.1) rather than the older, primary focus on direct advocacy for individual students. This reflects a shift towards creating an inherently accessible environment.
The strong emphasis on self-determination shifts the OSD’s role from merely providing accommodations to actively enabling students’ autonomous decision-making and self-advocacy.
While disability representation on campus committees is essential, it is not strictly required to be housed solely within the OSD; implementation can be achieved effectively through various collaborative campus bodies.
Information Dissemination and Universal Design
Effective communication across the entire institution remains a central pillar of the Standards (Standard 2.x).
Universal Design expands the traditional concept of individual accommodation by advocating for the creation of environments that are inherently accessible to all students from the outset (Getzel, Briel, & McManus, 2003; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003).
Electronic dissemination of information and facilitated access to assistive technology are specifically prioritized within the Performance Indicators (2.2), reflecting the digital age’s demands.
Faculty/Staff Awareness and Instructional Collaboration
Faculty members play a pivotal role in ensuring equal access by directly implementing accommodations. Their expectations have broadened to include active involvement in accommodation processes and promoting overall accessibility in their courses.
OSD personnel are tasked with balancing their broad range of responsibilities with the understanding that some instructional issues primarily reside with faculty. The Standards define minimum essential activities, rather than an exhaustive list of all conceivable services.
Self-Determination and Outcomes
Self-determination is precisely defined as a combination of critical skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable individuals to engage in goal-driven, autonomous action (Field et al., 1998).
Robust research demonstrates that self-determination is strongly associated with positive academic outcomes, including higher GPAs, increased graduation rates, and enhanced self-efficacy among students with disabilities (Field et al., 2003; Parker, 2004).
Policy Implications and Evaluation
Policies in disability services are dynamic entities; ongoing reviews are crucial to ensure their continuous alignment with evolving best practices and legal precedents (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002).
Program evaluation is absolutely essential given the limited research bases in some areas, the potential for litigation risk, and persistent resource constraints within higher education disability services (Goodin et al., 2004).
Systematic data collection and transparent dissemination (Standards 7.3–7.5) are critical for supporting evidence-based decision-making and fulfilling accountability requirements.
Practical Implications and Real-World Relevance
The AHEAD Program Standards serve multiple crucial audiences:
Postsecondary disability professionals: They offer comprehensive guidance for program design, ongoing evaluation, and the development of professional practice.
Institutions: They provide clear benchmarks for informed policy development, strategic resource allocation, and meticulous program planning across the institution.
Courts and government agencies: They serve as an authoritative reference for defining and interpreting what constitutes best practice in the field of disability services in higher education.
The strong emphasis on self-determination, universal design, and data-driven decision-making represents a fundamental shift towards proactive, rather than merely reactive, approaches to accessibility.
Ethical and Professional Considerations
The Training and Professional Development category directly links to adherence with established Codes of Ethics (such as AHEAD and APA), thereby underscoring the profound ethical dimensions inherent in eligibility decisions, maintaining confidentiality, and the delivery of all services.
The Standards explicitly advocate for the implementation of transparent and consistent policies regarding documentation requirements, accommodation provisions, and the clear articulation of the rights and responsibilities for both students and institutions.
Conclusion and Takeaways
The AHEAD Program Standards and Performance Indicators establish a foundational framework of essential service components necessary for ensuring equal access in higher education. They provide a robust structure for systematic program development, rigorous evaluation, and undeniable accountability.
These updated Standards reflect a significant philosophical and practical shift towards evidence-based practice, student self-determination, broader universal design principles, and data-informed decision-making in disability services.
Institutions are strongly encouraged to conduct formal, comprehensive needs assessments and to develop a strategic plan with a clear timeline for continuous program and staff development to ensure full alignment with these crucial indicators.
References (selected)
Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. .
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A practical guide to teaching self-determination. .
Field, S., Sarver, M., & Shaw, S. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. .
Getzel, E., E., Briel, L.W., & McManus, S. (2003). Strategies for implementing professional development: Activities on college campuses. .
Goodin, S., Parker, D.R., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (2004). Program evaluation for postsecondary disability services: From theory to practice. .
Harbour, W. S. (2004). The 2004 AHEAD survey of higher education disability service providers. .
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) of 2004.
NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) of 2001 (2002). Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/esea02/107-110.pdf
Parker, D. R. (2004). Voices of self-determined college students with ADHD: Undergraduates’ perceptions of factors influencing academic success. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut)
Price, L.A. (1997). The development and implementation of a code of ethical behavior for postsecondary personnel. .
Shaw, S.F., Parker, D.R. & Madaus, J.W. (2005). Assessment for transition from high school to postsecondary education. Proceedings of the International Association on Special Education 2005 Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Shaw, S.F., & Scott, S.S. (2003). New directions in faculty development. .
Shaw, S.F., McGuire, J.M., & Madaus, J.W. (1997). Standards of professional practice. .
Shaw, S.F., & Dukes, L.L. (2001). Program standards for disability services in higher education. .
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. .