Public universities should embrace students with intellectual disabilities — now
autside.substack.com
A new California law, AB 447, expands access to public universities for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A recent article argues this is imperative morally and practically. Practically, the author contends, it enriches campus life with diverse perspectives and promotes an inclusive culture. Graduates are also more employable, benefiting society economically. The author cites positive examples from over 300 US colleges where 31% of inclusive program students got paid jobs, 50% for the first time. However, challenges remain regarding faculty preparedness, mentors, and aligning classes to interests. Recommended implementation includes: accessible facilities/programs, staff training, peer mentors, agency collaboration, and internships. So in effect, this legislation tackles barriers to access for those with IEPs. With the right accommodations and supports, these students can thrive and contribute unique value on campus and beyond. The author urges California to boldly expand access as both a human right and pragmatic investment.
This advocacy is necessary as, based on the text of the bill, there appears to be a key difference in the language used for the University of California (UC) system versus the California State University (CSU) system regarding implementing inclusive college programs:
For CSU, the bill states "the California State University may...establish and maintain inclusive college programs..." This indicates that CSU has the authorization and discretion to establish these inclusive programs if it chooses to do so.
However, for UC, the bill states that UC "is requested to" establish such programs. The language merely requests or encourages UC to implement inclusive programs, but does not directly authorize or mandate UC to do so.
Thus, the bill grants direct authority for CSU to set up inclusive college programs, whilst it only politely asks and encourages UC to do the same. This soft "request" for UC likely reflects limits in what the state legislature can directly impose on the UC system. So whilst not requiring action from UC, the bill still signals strong support for UC to follow CSU's lead in expanding access and inclusion.
The softer language "requesting" rather than "mandating" action from the University of California system likely stems from the special constitutional autonomy granted to UC. Unlike the California State universities, which are more directly managed by the state, the UC schools historically insisted on independence from state control as a condition for becoming a public university system in the 19th century. UC's unique semi-autonomous status as a state-funded but independently managed institution is safeguarded in the state constitution. This means the UC Regents have sole legal authority over the organisation and operation of the UC system. Therefore, the state legislature has limited power to compel UC campuses to implement specific policies or programs via legislation. It cannot simply command UC to act as it can with other state agencies. The legislature can merely voice its strong preference through non-binding resolutions "requesting" UC to take certain desired actions, like establishing the inclusive college programs described here. But whether UC chooses to follow through remains within its constitutional purview. This political tension underpins the delicate language directed at UC within the bill.
Diving deeper, the unique autonomy enjoyed by the University of California emerged from negotiations in the 1860s surrounding the establishment of UC as a public university system for the state. Up until that point, private colleges like Santa Clara dominated higher education in California. In 1867, the state government proposed turning three existing private colleges - the College of California in Oakland, Pacific Medical College in San Francisco, and Toland Medical College in San Francisco - into a unified state-run university system that could be freely accessed by the public. However, the trustees of those three colleges were hesitant to cede control over academic and financial affairs to Sacramento. As a compromise, legislators put language into the state constitution in 1879 guaranteeing the "independence" of UC from political "partisanship" once it transitioned to a public institution. This gave the newly formed Board of Regents broad authority over UC, entrusting them to responsibly govern the system in the public interest whilst shielding UC from being manipulated for political ends by Sacramento. Additional UC campuses were then added in later decades, including UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles, which also came under the oversight of the UC Regents system. Thus, a bargain was originally struck in the 1860s balancing public ownership and support of the pioneering UC colleges with protected managerial autonomy for UC's directors. This model then became enshrined over time by legal precedent and custom, even as more schools came into the UC system fold.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to predict exactly how likely students with IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) are to gain admission to UC or CSU schools under this new law. However, here are a few key points:
The law creates more opportunities and support services for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities within public 4-year universities in California. This should incrementally increase access and enrollment for this population.
However, the law stops short of guaranteeing admission for these students. There is still an application process, and universities will likely accept students they deem qualified and a good institutional fit.
The University of California system specifically has more autonomy in determining how and whether to implement inclusive programs. So access may still vary considerably depending on each UC campus's approach.
Competition for admission into top UC campuses like UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley remains intensely competitive for all applicants. So students with IEPs may still face an uphill challenge when applying to those elite institutions.
Their chances may be higher when applying to less selective UC campuses or California State campuses which likely have more capacity to serve students with specialized learning needs.
So, this law is an important step in improving inclusion and opportunities in public higher education for those with disabilities. However, admission into California's public universities will still come down to each applicant's specific academic record and experiences.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming paid subscriber.
Public universities should embrace students with intellectual disabilities — now
Public universities should embrace students with intellectual disabilities — now
Public universities should embrace students with intellectual disabilities — now
A new California law, AB 447, expands access to public universities for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A recent article argues this is imperative morally and practically. Practically, the author contends, it enriches campus life with diverse perspectives and promotes an inclusive culture. Graduates are also more employable, benefiting society economically. The author cites positive examples from over 300 US colleges where 31% of inclusive program students got paid jobs, 50% for the first time. However, challenges remain regarding faculty preparedness, mentors, and aligning classes to interests. Recommended implementation includes: accessible facilities/programs, staff training, peer mentors, agency collaboration, and internships. So in effect, this legislation tackles barriers to access for those with IEPs. With the right accommodations and supports, these students can thrive and contribute unique value on campus and beyond. The author urges California to boldly expand access as both a human right and pragmatic investment.
This advocacy is necessary as, based on the text of the bill, there appears to be a key difference in the language used for the University of California (UC) system versus the California State University (CSU) system regarding implementing inclusive college programs:
For CSU, the bill states "the California State University may...establish and maintain inclusive college programs..." This indicates that CSU has the authorization and discretion to establish these inclusive programs if it chooses to do so.
However, for UC, the bill states that UC "is requested to" establish such programs. The language merely requests or encourages UC to implement inclusive programs, but does not directly authorize or mandate UC to do so.
Thus, the bill grants direct authority for CSU to set up inclusive college programs, whilst it only politely asks and encourages UC to do the same. This soft "request" for UC likely reflects limits in what the state legislature can directly impose on the UC system. So whilst not requiring action from UC, the bill still signals strong support for UC to follow CSU's lead in expanding access and inclusion.
The softer language "requesting" rather than "mandating" action from the University of California system likely stems from the special constitutional autonomy granted to UC. Unlike the California State universities, which are more directly managed by the state, the UC schools historically insisted on independence from state control as a condition for becoming a public university system in the 19th century. UC's unique semi-autonomous status as a state-funded but independently managed institution is safeguarded in the state constitution. This means the UC Regents have sole legal authority over the organisation and operation of the UC system. Therefore, the state legislature has limited power to compel UC campuses to implement specific policies or programs via legislation. It cannot simply command UC to act as it can with other state agencies. The legislature can merely voice its strong preference through non-binding resolutions "requesting" UC to take certain desired actions, like establishing the inclusive college programs described here. But whether UC chooses to follow through remains within its constitutional purview. This political tension underpins the delicate language directed at UC within the bill.
Diving deeper, the unique autonomy enjoyed by the University of California emerged from negotiations in the 1860s surrounding the establishment of UC as a public university system for the state. Up until that point, private colleges like Santa Clara dominated higher education in California. In 1867, the state government proposed turning three existing private colleges - the College of California in Oakland, Pacific Medical College in San Francisco, and Toland Medical College in San Francisco - into a unified state-run university system that could be freely accessed by the public. However, the trustees of those three colleges were hesitant to cede control over academic and financial affairs to Sacramento. As a compromise, legislators put language into the state constitution in 1879 guaranteeing the "independence" of UC from political "partisanship" once it transitioned to a public institution. This gave the newly formed Board of Regents broad authority over UC, entrusting them to responsibly govern the system in the public interest whilst shielding UC from being manipulated for political ends by Sacramento. Additional UC campuses were then added in later decades, including UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles, which also came under the oversight of the UC Regents system. Thus, a bargain was originally struck in the 1860s balancing public ownership and support of the pioneering UC colleges with protected managerial autonomy for UC's directors. This model then became enshrined over time by legal precedent and custom, even as more schools came into the UC system fold.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to predict exactly how likely students with IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) are to gain admission to UC or CSU schools under this new law. However, here are a few key points:
The law creates more opportunities and support services for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities within public 4-year universities in California. This should incrementally increase access and enrollment for this population.
However, the law stops short of guaranteeing admission for these students. There is still an application process, and universities will likely accept students they deem qualified and a good institutional fit.
The University of California system specifically has more autonomy in determining how and whether to implement inclusive programs. So access may still vary considerably depending on each UC campus's approach.
Competition for admission into top UC campuses like UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley remains intensely competitive for all applicants. So students with IEPs may still face an uphill challenge when applying to those elite institutions.
Their chances may be higher when applying to less selective UC campuses or California State campuses which likely have more capacity to serve students with specialized learning needs.
So, this law is an important step in improving inclusion and opportunities in public higher education for those with disabilities. However, admission into California's public universities will still come down to each applicant's specific academic record and experiences.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming paid subscriber.