The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) provides a conceptual framework designed to promote equitable practices in higher education. This framework supports seamless access for students with disabilities through equal treatment and the provision of necessary accommodations i. This updated guidance reflects the evolving understanding of disability within society ii, incorporates the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [iii](#_edn3], and aligns with the latest regulations and guidance for Titles II and III of the ADA. These changes collectively encourage a more informed and positive campus-wide perspective on disability. The principles outlined here are interconnected components of a comprehensive and professional approach to using disability documentation to facilitate well-informed decision-making processes. This framework is consistent with both the legal requirements and the spirit of the law iv, reflects current legal and judicial interpretations [v](#_edn5], and is informed by scholarly insights into disability vi and its role in higher education and broader society vii. This document replaces AHEAD’s previous guidelines on this subject viii.
Background: Understanding the ADA Amendments
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 marked a significant shift by Congress, explicitly rejecting stricter interpretations of disability that had emerged from Supreme Court decisions. Congress emphasized its intention for the ADA’s protections to be applied broadly. Revised regulations for Title I clarify that the “primary purpose” of these amendments is “to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA” ix. Collectively, the updated statutes and regulations for Titles I, II, and III provide greater clarity on several key points. These include: (a) defining who qualifies as having a disability and is therefore protected under the ADA and Section 504, (b) determining who is entitled to accommodations, and (c) establishing the processes and responsible parties for making these determinations.
It is important to note that no laws or regulations mandate the request or acquisition of documentation x to establish an individual’s entitlement to legal protections due to disability or to seek reasonable accommodations. While postsecondary institutions are permitted to request a reasonable level of documentation, the regulations acknowledge this. However, demanding extensive medical or scientific evidence can perpetuate an outdated “deviance model” of disability. This approach also diminishes the value of an individual’s personal history and lived experience with disability, and it is considered inappropriate and overly burdensome under the revised legal framework.
Sources and Types of Disability Documentation
When substantiating a student’s disability and their request for specific accommodations, documentation can come from various sources and take different forms. It’s crucial to consider a range of documentation types, moving beyond solely relying on traditional medical models, especially when considering conditions like ADHD diagnosis.
Primary Documentation: The Student’s Self-Report
The student themselves is a critical source of information regarding how their impairment “limits” them xi. A student’s detailed account of their experience with disability, the barriers they encounter, and what accommodations they have found helpful or unhelpful is invaluable. When gathered through structured interviews or questionnaires and thoughtfully interpreted, this self-report can be sufficient to establish both the existence of a disability and the need for particular accommodations. This is particularly relevant in cases of Ahead Adhd Diagnosis, where the individual’s understanding of their own challenges is paramount.
Secondary Documentation: Professional Observation and Interaction
Disability professionals in higher education develop impressions and conclusions through their interactions with students. These observations, made during interviews, conversations, or while evaluating the effectiveness of existing or trial accommodations, constitute important secondary documentation. Experienced professionals should confidently utilize their observations of a student’s communication, performance, and coping strategies as valid tools to support the student’s self-reported narrative. For instance, observing a student’s organizational challenges or difficulties with sustained attention during an interaction might lend weight to a self-report related to ahead ADHD diagnosis and its impact on academic tasks.
Tertiary Documentation: External or Third-Party Information
Information from external sources represents tertiary documentation. This category includes educational or medical records, as well as reports and assessments from healthcare providers, school psychologists, educators, or the educational system. Documents reflecting educational and accommodation history, such as Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Summary of Performance (SOP) reports, and teacher observations xii, also fall into this category. The relevance and value of external documentation can vary significantly depending on its original purpose, the qualifications of the evaluator, the level of detail provided, and the comprehensiveness of the narrative. However, all forms of documentation can offer meaningful insights and should be examined for relevant information. For students with an ahead ADHD diagnosis, past IEPs or psychological evaluations can provide valuable context, but are not necessarily required for determining current accommodations in higher education.
The Documentation Process: A Collaborative Approach
The primary reason for seeking information about a student’s condition is to assist higher education professionals in confirming the disability, understanding its impact on the student, and making informed decisions about appropriate accommodations. Professional judgment is crucial throughout this process. Particularly when considering ahead ADHD diagnosis, a nuanced understanding of the individual’s specific challenges is more important than rigid adherence to diagnostic labels.
Ensuring that accommodations effectively provide equal access requires a thoughtful and collaborative process that is responsive to each individual’s unique experience, as emphasized by the ADA. Disability resource professionals should engage in a structured dialogue with the student. This conversation should explore their prior educational experiences, their history of accommodation use, and what has proven effective or ineffective in facilitating access in the past. The weight given to the student’s description will depend on its clarity, internal consistency, and alignment with the professional’s observations and any available external documentation.
Often, it is possible to determine the reasonableness of a requested accommodation with minimal reliance on external documentation. This holds true even if a student has never previously received formal accommodations or is newly experiencing a disability and is seeking guidance on effective accommodations xiii. For example, a student with a recent ahead ADHD diagnosis might clearly articulate how extended time on exams would mitigate the impact of their attention and processing speed difficulties.
However, if a student struggles to clearly articulate the connection between their disability, a specific barrier, and a requested accommodation, the institution may then need to request third-party documentation specifically focused on clarifying this connection xiv. It’s important that the documentation process itself is accessible. If a student’s disability, such as executive function challenges associated with ahead ADHD diagnosis, affects their ability to clearly describe their needs, the disability services office must adopt flexible procedures.
Individualized Review: Focusing on Impact
Each situation requires individual consideration to understand if and how a student is affected by their described condition. The ADA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.” It’s important to note that there is no definitive list of conditions that constitute a disability. Therefore, the central question is not simply whether a condition is labeled a “disability,” but rather how the condition impacts the specific student. This determination should be interpreted broadly, to the greatest extent possible xv. This is especially relevant when considering the diverse presentations of conditions like ahead ADHD diagnosis.
There is no direct one-to-one relationship between a disability diagnosis and a specific accommodation. Institutions must consider the student’s disability, their history, their experiences, their requests, and the unique characteristics of the course, program, or requirement in question to determine if a particular accommodation is reasonable. A clear understanding of how the disability impacts the individual in that context is key to establishing the reasonableness of the accommodation for that person. However, assessing whether the accommodation is reasonable in the broader context also necessitates an evaluation of the specific attributes and requirements of the course, program, or activity. Accommodations that prove ineffective or fundamentally alter essential course elements are not considered reasonable xvi and would not meet the minimum standards set by the ADA and Section 504. The ADA establishes a baseline, not a maximum, level of protection. The upper limit is reached when a proposed accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of a course or program of study xvii.
Commonsense Standard: Reasonableness and Informed Decisions
Evaluating disability and accommodation requests should be approached using a commonsense standard, without requiring specific language or extensive diagnostic evidence xviii. This is particularly pertinent when considering ahead ADHD diagnosis, where functional limitations may be evident even without detailed clinical reports. Utilizing diagnostic information as one tool in reviewing accommodation requests differs from its use in clinical treatment. Determining appropriate accommodations requires a more focused, limited range, level, and type of information. These two processes – accommodation determination and clinical treatment – should not be conflated.
Third-party documentation may not be necessary to confirm a disability or evaluate accommodation requests when the condition and its impact are readily apparent or comprehensively described by the student. Specific terminology, tests, or diagnostic labels are not mandatory. Clinicians’ training or philosophical approaches might lead to the use of descriptive phrases rather than formal diagnostic labels in their reports. Therefore, reports lacking a specific diagnosis should not be interpreted as indicating the absence of a disability. The guiding question should be: “Would an informed and reasonable person conclude from the available evidence that a disability is likely, and the requested accommodation is warranted?” This is a crucial principle when considering ahead ADHD diagnosis, as diagnostic processes and criteria can sometimes vary.
Non-Burdensome Process: Ensuring Accessibility
Postsecondary institutions must ensure that their documentation processes are not overly burdensome or create barriers that discourage students from seeking the protections and accommodations to which they are legally entitled. This principle was established even before the ADA amendments [xix](#_edn19]. The non-burdensome standard applies both to the initial engagement with the disability resource office and to the process of establishing individual accommodations with institutional personnel, including course instructors. Students should not bear the burden of navigating cumbersome, time-consuming processes to gain access. For students with conditions like ahead ADHD diagnosis, who may already experience challenges with executive function and paperwork, a streamlined and supportive process is especially important.
Current and Relevant Information: Focusing on Present Impact
Disability documentation should be current and relevant to the student’s present needs, but it does not necessarily need to be “recent” in the sense of being newly generated xx. Many disabilities are stable, lifelong conditions. Therefore, historical information, supplemented by student interviews or self-reports, is often sufficient to describe how the condition currently impacts the student in their present circumstances. Institutions should avoid establishing blanket policies that arbitrarily limit the age of acceptable external documentation. However, when determining accommodations in significantly new contexts, more focused information may be needed to illustrate the connection between the impact of the disability, the identified barrier, and the specific accommodation requested. For instance, documentation from several years prior may still be relevant for a student with an ahead ADHD diagnosis, especially if it details the persistent nature of their challenges.
Illustrative Points: Addressing Common Questions
-
Is ‘X’ a disability? While some conditions will always be considered disabilities, framing the question this way is not best practice. Instead, ask: “Does the impact of ‘X’ for this particular student constitute a disability?” For example, instead of asking “Is ADHD a disability?”, ask “Does this student’s ADHD, as they describe it, substantially limit their ability to learn in this educational context?”
-
If documentation standards are relaxed, will every student qualify for accommodations? The ADA amendments are intended to provide broad protection against disability-based discrimination. Therefore, when students identify as having a disability, it’s essential to ensure they are protected from discrimination. However, this does not automatically mean accommodations will be provided to every student. Appropriate and equitable accommodations can be ensured by focusing on the individual student’s specific accommodation request, the information supporting that request, and the essential components of a course or program. A supported request that is neither a fundamental alteration nor an undue burden is considered reasonable.
-
How can fairness and consistency be maintained without requiring uniform documentation from all students? Consistency is achieved by applying a consistent process, not by demanding identical information from every student. The process should consistently evaluate the student’s self-report and any available external documentation within the context of the barriers that the requested accommodation aims to remove.
-
What if the student is unavailable at the time of the request? While phone, email, and video conferencing usually provide sufficient opportunity for student interviews, situations like placement testing or the start of online courses might limit interaction. In such cases, evaluate the available information, giving weight to any history of accommodations. Is the disability and the requested accommodation supported (rather than just likely) by the available information?
-
A student requests accommodations but only submits a 504 plan, IEP, RtI history, or SOP. Review these documents and interview the student to gather supporting evidence. IEPs, 504 plans, and SOPs offer insights into a student’s educational and accommodation history. While some information might be irrelevant in a postsecondary setting, relevant information should still be considered. If, using this information and a student interview, you can understand the current impact of their condition and identify the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation, proceed with the accommodation. If not, request additional, focused information to gain the necessary clarity. This is particularly relevant for students with ahead ADHD diagnosis who may have a history of school-based support.
-
What if the connection between the condition and the accommodation is unclear based on the submitted documentation? Considering all information from the interview and external documentation, would a reasonable person believe that additional information could establish this connection? If so, provide provisional accommodations and request supplementary external documentation within a reasonable timeframe. However, if neither you nor the student can describe a potential connection or identify documentation that would support the request, the accommodation might not be reasonable. In complex cases, especially if you are unfamiliar with a particular disability or a student has multiple interacting impairments, consulting external experts, such as the student’s clinician, may be appropriate. This could be relevant in complex presentations of ahead ADHD diagnosis where co-occurring conditions are present.
Footnotes
i As is common practice, the term “accommodation” is used throughout this document as synonymous with the modification of policies, practices, and procedures; the provision of auxiliary aids and services; academic adjustments and modifications to the environment intended to remove barriers to equivalent access.
ii As a social construct, there are hundreds of definitions of disability that inform the process of providing equity for disabled individuals. The U.N. Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides a broad and appropriate context for higher education professionals as they work to ensure access: “The loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical, social, attitudinal and cultural barriers encountered by persons having physical, sensory, psychological, developmental, learning, neurological or other impairments (including the presence in the body of an organism or agent causing malfunction or disease), which may be permanent, temporary, episodic or transitory in nature.”
iii P.L. 110-325
v Colloquy between Representatives George Miller and Fortney Stark on the floor of the House; Congressional Record 9/17/2008, Page: H8286
vi Scholarship in the relatively new academic discipline of disability studies seeks to shed light on the experiences of disabled people and explore disability from social, political, cultural, and economic perspectives. The Society for Disability Studies (SDS) (http://disstudies.org ) promotes this multidisciplinary scholarship through its professional network, journal (http://dsq-sds.org ), and conferences. While disability studies research and writings are abundant, a foundational work for the higher education professional is Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York, NY: New York University Press.
vii “The emergence of disability studies in the academy has created a new analytic space to examine disability and normalcy from a critical lens. Disability studies scholars illustrate how the ‘border” between ability/disability is constructed, artificial and arbitrary, yet made to appear natural and static across time and place through the interconnected and pathologizing diagnostic, medical, and legal discourses.” Ferri, B. (2008). Teaching to Trouble. In S. Danforth & S.L. Gabel (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. 289-290). New York, New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
viii This document should not be considered legal advice; Institutions should consult with legal counsel before implementing policies. Disability resource offices should follow institutional practices and are encouraged to include the full range of stakeholders and experts when reviewing and developing policy. As with other policies, documentation policies and practices should be reviewed every 3-5 years to ensure that they stay consistent with accepted practices and changes in the legal landscape.
x 28 CFR 36.309(iv) states that “Any request for documentation, if such documentation is required, is reasonable and limited to the need for the modification, accommodation, or auxiliary aid or service requested” indicating that entities can require documentation though they are not obligated to do so.
xi Disability is defined by the ADA as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C 126 §12102
xii Revisions to Title III regulations provide, “When considering requests for modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services, the entity gives considerable weight to documentation of past modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services received in similar testing situations, as well as such modifications, accommodations, or related aids and services provided in response to an Individualized Education Program (IEP) provided under IDEA or a plan describing services provided pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” (28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)(v)) Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis provides these examples of types of information to consider: “recommendations of qualified professionals familiar with the individual, results of psycho-educational or other professional evaluations, an applicant’s history of diagnosis, participation in a special education program, observations by educators, or the applicant’s past use of testing accommodations.” 28 CFR Part 36 (2010)
xiii Department of Justice guidance advises “that the inclusion of this weight (referenced in note xii above) does not suggest that individuals without IEPs or Section 504 Plans are not also entitled to receive testing accommodations. Indeed, it is recommended that . . . entities must consider the entirety of an applicant’s history to determine whether that history, even without the context of an IEP or Section 504 Plan, indicates a need for accommodations. In addition, many students with learning disabilities have made use of informal, but effective accommodations. For example, such students often receive undocumented accommodations such as time to complete tests after school or at lunchtime or being graded on content and not form or spelling in written work. Finally, [one should] consider that because private schools are not subject to the IDEA, students at private schools may have a history of receiving accommodations in similar settings that are not pursuant to an IEP or Section 504 Plan. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A.
xiv See note xiii above.
xv “Substantial limitation is not meant to be a demanding standard” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i).
Congress rejected cases holding that “substantial limitation” required a “significant restriction” 42 USC 12101(A)(8) and mandated that the EEOC revise it regulations accordingly (42 USC 12101 (b)(6)) See, 29 CFR 1630.2 (j)(10(i) (“Substantially limits shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted”) .
xvi See US Airways v. Barnett, “An ineffective modification or adjustment will not accommodate a disabled individual’s limitations.” 535 U.S. 391, 400 (2002).
xvii 42 U.S.C. 12201(f)
xviii “The threshold issue of whether an impairment ’substantially limits’ a major life activity should not demand extensive analysis. The comparison of an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the performance of the same major life activity by most people in the general population usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” “The ADA Amendments Act”; the Honorable Chair Feldblum and the Honorable Victoria A. Lipnic, Commissioners, U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. May 2011
xix “A university is prevented from employing unnecessarily burdensome proof-of-disability criteria that preclude or unnecessarily discourage individuals with disabilities from establishing that they are entitled to reasonable accommodation.” Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F Supp 106, 135-136 (D. Mass. 1997)
xx Medical, sensory, cognitive, and other types of disabilities are persistent. An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. While students may develop compensatory strategies that reduce their use of accommodation naturally, the underlying impairment is still present. Such coping strategies do not typically translate 100% to a new context. The amended ADA clarifies that students with episodic conditions or disabilities that are in remission and those who have developed compensatory skills are protected by the law.
The concept of “recency” of documentation has, for some, taken on meaning that is not supported by science or law, but is more an outgrowth of assumptions within the special education field, which has required that students be reevaluated on a regular basis to establish the continued eligibility for special education. When the IDEA was first enacted, school systems wanted to be assured that if a child no longer required special education, she would not remain classified for no reason, increasing school district costs unnecessarily. The rule was not meant to reflect that declassifying a child for special education meant that the child no longer had a disability, only that such child might no longer need special education – which can be quite extensive and in-depth. The ADA and Section 504 are civil rights protections, generally providing a less intensive level of benefit or intervention than special education, but to a larger group of individuals. Recent informal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education indicates that children with disabilities who may not be in need of special education are still protected against discrimination by the ADA See “Dear Colleague Letter”, dated January 19, 2012, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201109.html and “Questions and Answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-504faq-201109.html.
xxi ‘‘Any person that offers examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or post secondary education, professional, or trade purposes,’’ 42 U.S.C. § 12189. 2010 Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis 28 C.F.R § 35
This documentation guidance was developed by a committee of AHEAD member-experts at the request of the AHEAD Board of Directors.
Suggested citation: AHEAD. (2012, October). Supporting accommodation requests: guidance on documentation practices. Huntersville, NC: Association on Higher Education and Disability.
