HR-10203-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Higher Education Act to require every college and university to establish an "office of accessibility" for students with disabilities, expand competitive federal grant programs for faculty training and inclusive programs for students with intellectual disabilities, and create an independent commission to develop accessibility guidelines for digital instructional materials and technology. It would also extend related funding authorizations through 2027 and set new data collection and reporting requirements for participating institutions.
Who benefits
College students with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities, who would gain expanded support services, clearer accommodation processes, and new inclusive degree programs; institutions of higher education that receive competitive grants for accessibility initiatives; disability advocacy organizations and nonprofit service providers involved in the new commission; developers of accessible instructional technology who may see new market guidelines and demand.
Who is hurt
Colleges and universities, particularly smaller institutions with limited administrative budgets, that must establish and staff new accessibility offices and meet new documentation, reporting, and matching-fund requirements (a 25% match for intellectual disability program grants); taxpayers funding the new and reauthorized grant programs; institutions that do not win competitive grants but must still comply with mandatory accessibility office requirements; technology vendors who may face new compliance expectations tied to Commission guidelines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that students with disabilities continue to complete college at far lower rates than their peers, and that inconsistent accommodation policies across institutions create unnecessary barriers to access and completion. They contend that establishing accessibility offices, standardizing documentation requirements, and funding faculty training and inclusive programs would give schools proven tools to raise retention and graduation rates for a historically underserved population, citing existing pilot programs for intellectual disabilities as evidence the model works.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating a new administrative office at every institution of higher education imposes a one-size-fits-all federal requirement on an area traditionally left to individual schools and state oversight, raising compliance costs that could be passed on to students through tuition. They contend that competitive grants concentrate limited funds among a small number of institutions while every school still bears the new mandatory accessibility-office and reporting burdens, and that the 25% matching requirement may deter smaller or rural institutions from participating at all.