The Modern History of Disability Services in Higher Education
This note set summarizes Madaus & Kunkes’ (2023) comprehensive review of the last quarter-century in postsecondary disability services, building upon the foundational landscape first described by Madaus (2000). It establishes critical connections to the recently updated AHEAD ethics, competencies, standards, and program domains.
The overarching emphasis across this updated review is a significant paradigm shift: moving from a strict compliance-driven or medical model of disability toward a more holistic focus on campus accessibility, social justice, and equity. This shift is accompanied by a considerable growth in the adoption and sophistication of assistive technology, an expansion in the types of disabilities served (e.g., intellectual disabilities, mental health conditions), the increasing prominence of online and digital modalities in education, and the crucial role of professional standards in guiding effective practice in the field.
Abstract and scope
The 2000 Madaus review served as a pivotal document, identifying key historical events and emerging trends that would profoundly shape the subsequent two decades of postsecondary disability services. These included:
Significant policy and procedural changes that influenced how disability services were delivered and regulated.
Evolving definitions of disability, largely driven by landmark court decisions and new legislative mandates.
A growing and essential collaboration between disability resource professionals (DRPs) and faculty members to ensure academic access.
The expansion and application of Universal Instructional Design (UID) principles, which later evolved into Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
The increasing utilization of technology as a critical tool to improve access for students with disabilities.
In the two decades since the 2000 review, several new and impactful developments have emerged, further transforming the landscape, most notably:
The global COVID-19 pandemic, which forced rapid adaptations in educational delivery and highlighted universal accessibility needs.
A profound movement from primarily compliance-based supports to a more expansive framework centered on equity, access, and social justice as core tenets of disability services.
The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD)'s updated ethics, competencies, and program standards, which serve as a foundational basis for many contemporary discussions and practices, including this specific JPED (Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability) issue.
The article systematically tracks this history through these key updates and concludes by drawing out critical implications for both current practice and future policy directions in higher education disability services.
Key concepts and terminology
DRP: disability resource professionals – individuals working in disability services offices on college campuses.
DRO: disability resource offices – the administrative units within higher education institutions responsible for providing disability accommodations and support.
AHEAD: Association on Higher Education and Disability – the primary professional organization for disability services providers in higher education.
DARO: Disability and Accessibility Resource Offices (proposed reframing) – a suggested new name for DROs, emphasizing a broader scope of accessibility.
DRPs/DARPs: Disability Resource Professionals (reframed) – a proposed new term for professionals, reflecting the DARO renaming.
UDL: Universal Design for Learning – a framework for designing curricula that provides all students with equal opportunities to learn, offering flexibility in the ways students access curriculum, engage with it, and demonstrate what they know.
UID: Universal Instructional Design (early term for UDL lineage) – an earlier concept similar to UDL, focusing on designing instruction to be accessible to diverse learners.
DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion – a broad institutional commitment often encompassing disability among other dimensions of identity and experience.
IEP/504: U.S. K-12 documentation tools that profoundly influence postsecondary eligibility – Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Section 504 Plans are K-12 educational blueprints for students with disabilities that are frequently used, though not directly applicable, in determining eligibility for accommodations in higher education.
TPSID: Transition Postsecondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disability – federally funded programs designed to provide postsecondary educational opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities.
NCCSD: National Center for College Students with Disabilities – a national research and resource center authorized by HEOA to support college students with disabilities.
ETS: Educational Testing Service – a major provider of standardized tests (e.g., GRE, Praxis) whose policies on disability accommodations have significant implications for access.
RISE Act: Respond, Innovate, Succeed, and Employ Act – proposed or enacted legislative provisions aimed at streamlining documentation for disability services and potentially increasing funding for related programs; discussed as a significant future driver impacting policy.
NLTS/NLTS2: National Longitudinal Transition Study and follow-on study – comprehensive national studies tracking the educational and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities, providing valuable data on postsecondary access.
ADA/ADAAA: Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008) – landmark federal legislation prohibiting discrimination based on disability; the ADAAA significantly expanded the definition of disability.
Continued growth of the profession
Student enrollment and disability prevalence on campuses
In the academic year 2003-2004, approximately of all beginning college students reported having a disability (Berkner & Choy, 2008).
This percentage increased to by the 2007-2008 academic year (NCES, 2015).
A substantial rise was observed by 2015-2016, where of all undergraduate students reported a disability, indicating a near doubling in prevalence over roughly a decade (NCES, 2018).
Rising prevalence of specific disability areas: This growth was particularly pronounced in conditions such as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), various learning disabilities, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and a notable increase in psychological/psychiatric conditions (GAO, 2009). These trends highlight a diversification of the types of support needed.
Disabled veterans in postsecondary education: The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 significantly spurred participation of disabled veterans in higher education. By 2021, over veterans had accessed postsecondary education, of whom approximately identified as having disabilities (VA, 2018; Zhang, 2020). It's important to note that Disability Resource Office (DRO) counts may underrepresent the actual number of disabled veterans, as many may not register with these offices.
Intellectual disabilities (ID): Grigal et al. (2022) reported an striking increase in the number of postsecondary programs specifically designed for students with Intellectual Disabilities from 2009 to 2019, reflecting a targeted expansion of opportunities for this population.
College student mental health: There are significant and escalating concerns regarding college student mental health:
The Healthy Minds Study (2020-2021) revealed that over of college students met criteria for one or more significant mental health concerns, indicating widespread challenges.
Concurrently, the National College Health Assessment reported that nearly of students experienced moderate to severe psychological distress, underscoring the severity of the mental health crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified these mental health needs and drastically increased the demand for related services on campuses (Roche et al., 2022).
DRP workforce growth
AHEAD membership, a key indicator of professionalization, grew from approximately in 1984 to around at the turn of the century (early 2000s). By 2023, this membership had expanded to over professionals, spanning all U.S. states and more than countries.
This substantial growth signifies both an expanding professionalization of the field and its increasing geographic reach and influence.
Changing legislation and major acts (historical milestones)
Early federal roots: The 1857 chartering of what would become Gallaudet University laid crucial groundwork, predating much modern policy and setting a precedent for federal involvement in specialized education, ultimately influencing postsecondary disability policy development.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and ADA (1990): These two landmark pieces of legislation served as primary catalysts for the establishment and expansion of broader postsecondary services for students with disabilities, mandating nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodations.
IDEA reform era
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). While primarily mandating Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for disabled children in K-12 settings and not directly applicable to postsecondary education, its enhanced emphasis on transition planning significantly increased college readiness among students with disabilities.
The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) found that by 2009, of disabled students had accessed some form of postsecondary education within eight years of high school exit. This compared to for the general population, highlighting a persistent, though narrowing, gap (Newman et al., 2011).
IDEA changes also influenced the scope of documentation provided to students transitioning to college and impacted the age of eligibility for services in postsecondary settings.
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)
This crucial amendment was enacted to address overly restrictive judicial interpretations of disability, particularly those that had narrowed the scope of who was considered disabled under the original ADA. It significantly expanded the definition of disability to include a broader range of major life activities, such as thinking, learning, concentrating, and communicating (a total of 19 such activities).
A key provision prohibited the consideration of mitigating measures (e.g., medication, assistive devices) in determining whether an impairment substantially limited a major life activity. It also clarified that conditions in remission or episodic conditions (like epilepsy or specific mental health conditions) are covered if they substantially limit a major life activity when active.
The ADAAA shifted the focus away from rigid documentation thresholds toward an interactive process between the student and the institution to determine eligibility and appropriate accommodations, thereby reducing many prior barriers to accessing services.
Legal cases shaping postsecondary accessibility post-ADAAA
Alexiadis v. New York College of Health Professions (2012): This case reinforced that an HIV-positive condition is deemed a protected disability, emphasizing that disability status is based on the legal protection afforded, not solely on a specific diagnosis or perceived severity of active symptoms.
Girard v. Lincoln College of New England (2014): This decision was significant for clarifying that auditory processing deficits, even without a formal medical diagnosis, are protected under the ADAAA if they are shown to objectively impact major life activities. This further emphasized functional impairment over a strict diagnostic label.
United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney (2015): This settlement applied the Fair Housing Act to campus housing, specifically addressing the rights of students to have emotional support animals in university residences, setting a precedent for housing accommodations beyond academic settings.
High-stakes testing and accommodations
The ETS settlement (2022) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey represented a major shift. It relaxed documentation guidelines for accommodations on tests like the GRE and Praxis, placing greater emphasis on an applicant's documented history of accommodations and the recommendations of qualified professionals, rather than requiring extensive, current impairment-focused documentation.
Implications: This settlement has potential ripple effects across the entire high-stakes testing industry and is likely to influence postsecondary admissions and assessment practices, pushing for more flexible and individualized documentation reviews.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) and related infrastructure
Reauthorization in 2008: The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) was reauthorized in 2008. This reauthorization was pivotal as it formally defined Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in federal law and provided dedicated funding for programs aimed at expanding accessibility and transition supports, particularly for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) and other significant needs.
Funding and centers
HEOA led to the significant expansion of TPSID (Transition Postsecondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disability) and provided funding for a National Coordinating Center to support these programs. This resulted in nationwide growth and enhanced infrastructure for ID-focused postsecondary programs.
The NCCSD (National Center for College Students with Disabilities) was specifically authorized by HEOA and established in 2015. It receives funding for five-year cycles (reauthorized in 2021), serving as a vital national resource for research, data, and technical assistance related to college students with disabilities. The funding and activity of are central to advancing the field.
Financial aid access enhancements: HEOA provisions were instrumental in opening federal financial aid avenues for students with intellectual disabilities, easing some prior restrictions that had limited their access to crucial funding for postsecondary education.
Impact: HEOA directly contributed to the counted growth in postsecondary ID programs (an increase between 2009-2019) and significantly expanded national coordination and support for a wide range of disability-related postsecondary initiatives, creating a more robust ecosystem for students with disabilities.
From disability supports to campus accessibility: a shift in focus
Compliance era to DEI era
Early Disability Resource Office (DRO) practice was predominantly framed by a legal compliance mandate, focused on meeting the minimum requirements of Section 504 and the ADA. However, with the rise of social justice movements and a broader institutional emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), DRPs have actively begun reframing their services. The shift is towards a more proactive, campus-wide inclusion, comprehensive accessibility, and true equity for students with disabilities, moving beyond mere reactive accommodation.
Rebranding and organizational implications
This philosophical shift has led to discussions and actual changes in organizational nomenclature, with proposals to rename DROs to emphasize their broader accessibility missions (e.g., Disability and Accessibility Resource Office - DARO). Correspondingly, DRPs might be reframed as DARPs. However, ongoing debate exists within the field regarding whether disability should be explicitly central to, or fully embedded within, broader DEI efforts.
Scheff, Caniglia, & Barrio (2020) highlighted a concerning underrepresentation: only of university mission statements mentioned disability when referencing diversity, and only included disability in their broader diversity statements, indicating an enduring need for greater institutional visibility of disability.
Similarly, Leake & Stodden (2014) found that a mere out of articles (approximately ) in a prominent journal focused specifically on disabled students, signaling a historical underrepresentation in academic scholarship and research.
Intersectionality and broader inclusion
Disability is frequently treated as a separate, singular axis of identity. However, its complex interactions with other identities such as ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual orientation are often overlooked in both practice and research. There are increasing calls for more inclusive and explicit intersectional analyses in disability services practice and scholarly work to truly address the multifaceted experiences of students.
Determining eligibility and documentation practices
Documentation evolution: from third-party dominated to lived experience emphasis
In the late 1990s, the 1997 AHEAD standards and 1998 ETS guidelines were instrumental in establishing the prevailing norms for disability documentation. Historically, these norms often favored extensive, recent, third-party medical or psychological reports.
However, post-ADAAA, there has been a significant shift towards a more flexible, student-centered approach, often referred to as a three-tier documentation model, formally guided by AHEAD (2012):
Primary Documentation: Student Self-Report: Emphasizes the student’s own description of their experience with disability and how it impacts them in the academic environment.
Secondary Documentation: Observation and Interaction: Relies on the direct observations and professional interactions between the Disability Resource Professional (DRP) and the student, often through intake interviews.
Tertiary Documentation: External/Third-Party information: Comprises traditional external reports from medical professionals, psychologists, or K-12 educational records (like IEPs or 504 plans). This is still valuable but viewed as one piece of a broader mosaic of evidence.
AHEAD's 2012 guidance promoted this three-levels-of-evidence approach to prioritize the student’s lived experience and current functional impact over a sole reliance on external diagnostic reports. However, AHEAD cautioned that this guidance was not legal advice and should be reviewed in consultation with institutional legal counsel.
Ongoing debates and tensions
Debates continue among DRPs regarding the optimal balance: whether to primarily prioritize the three-tier model, which heavily values student self-reports and interactive processes, versus situations where more traditional, extensive external documentation might still be deemed necessary.
These post-2019 debates intensified due to the