Improving Access to Higher Education Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 1, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to comprehensively improve access, support, and successful completion of higher education for students with disabilities through a combination of federal grants, institutional mandates, and standardized accessibility guidelines.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to significantly enhance support and accessibility for students with disabilities in postsecondary education. It reauthorizes and expands grant programs for faculty training and inclusive programs for students with intellectual disabilities, mandates the establishment of Offices of Accessibility at all institutions of higher education, and creates a commission to develop guidelines for accessible electronic instructional materials.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to address persistent barriers faced by students with disabilities, ensuring equitable access to postsecondary education and improving their retention, completion, and employment outcomes. They contend it will modernize accessibility standards, empower students through clearer processes, and equip educators with necessary skills.
Opponents contend
Opponents may raise concerns about the administrative and financial burden placed on institutions of higher education, particularly smaller ones, due to new unfunded mandates like the Office of Accessibility and data reporting requirements. They might also question the cost-effectiveness of new federal programs and the potential for federal overreach into institutional operations.
The bill is moderately long but well-structured with a table of contents, making it manageable for an informed reader to review within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 101, amending HEA Sec. 762
Competitive Grants for Accessible Education Training
This provision reauthorizes and expands competitive grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) to train faculty, staff, and administrators. The training focuses on innovative teaching methods, appropriate accommodations (consistent with universal design for learning), effective transition practices for students with disabilities, accessible distance learning, and career pathway guidance. The goal is to improve retention and completion rates for all students, including those with disabilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for equipping educators with the necessary skills to effectively support students with disabilities, leading to better academic and career outcomes by fostering inclusive learning environments.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while well-intentioned, such grants may not be sufficient to address systemic issues across all institutions or could lead to inconsistent training quality without stronger oversight.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for specialized training and support for educators with the administrative burden on IHEs to apply for and manage competitive grants.
Sec. 102, inserting new HEA Sec. 765A
Mandate for Office of Accessibility at IHEs
This section requires every institution of higher education to establish an 'Office of Accessibility' (or equivalent) to develop and implement policies supporting students with disabilities. These offices must provide information on services, accommodations for work-based learning, and legal rights. Crucially, they must adopt transparent policies for determining accommodation eligibility, accepting various forms of documentation, and explicitly providing accommodations for mental health disabilities.
Sec. 102, inserting new HEA Sec. 765B
Competitive Grant for Innovation and Accessibility (Universal Design for Learning)
This section authorizes competitive grants for Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to develop and implement a universal design for learning (UDL) framework across the institution. This framework would apply to course design and instructional materials, or be used to improve accessible distance education courses. The overarching goal is to enhance campus-wide accessibility to instruction, materials, and the learning environment for all students.
Sec. 103
Commission on Accessible Postsecondary Electronic Instructional Materials and Technology
This section establishes an independent commission, comprised of key stakeholders, to develop guidelines for accessible postsecondary electronic instructional materials and related technologies. The commission will review existing accessibility standards, identify unique pedagogical needs, and ensure consistency with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. It will also produce an annotated list of information technology standards to serve as a reference tool.
Sec. 104, amending HEA Sec. 766 and 767
Expansion of Inclusive Higher Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities
This section reauthorizes and expands competitive grants for Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) or consortia to create or expand comprehensive transition and postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities. These programs must focus on academic and career development, socialization, independent living skills (including self-advocacy), and integrated work experiences leading to competitive integrated employment. Programs must award a degree, certificate, or recognized postsecondary credential and include matching fund requirements and data collection mandates.
Sec. 105, amending HEA Sec. 777
Establishment of National Technical Assistance Center and National Coordinating Center
This section establishes two national centers. The National Technical Assistance Center will provide information and support to students with disabilities, their families, and IHEs on postsecondary planning, accommodations, and best practices. The National Coordinating Center for Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disabilities will provide technical assistance, evaluation, and data collection for the inclusive programs funded under Sec. 104, and develop recommendations for program standards and accreditation.
Sec. 201, amending HEA Sec. 487(a)
Data Collection on Students with Disabilities
This provision requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) participating in Title IV federal student aid programs to submit key data to the Department of Education regarding undergraduate and graduate students formally registered with their office of accessibility. This data includes the total number of students with disabilities enrolled, the number accessing accommodations, the percentage of students with disabilities among all undergraduates, and the total number of undergraduate certificates or degrees awarded to students with disabilities.
Mandates that Offices of Accessibility at IHEs adopt policies to accept specific forms of documentation (e.g., IEPs, Section 504 plans, private school records, licensed professional evaluations, records from other IHEs, military disability documentation) as sufficient to establish an individual's disability for accommodation purposes.
Sec. 102, new HEA Sec. 765A(b)(4)(A)
Why it matters:This level of detail is common in legislative text for defining specific operational requirements to ensure consistent implementation across diverse institutions.
Case for: Proponents argue this standardizes and simplifies the process for students to prove disability status, reducing arbitrary denials and administrative hurdles often faced when transitioning to postsecondary education.
Case against: Some IHEs might argue that this limits their discretion to request specific, current documentation relevant to the postsecondary environment, potentially leading to accommodations based on outdated or less relevant information for current academic needs.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly impact how IHEs process accommodation requests, potentially increasing the number of students receiving accommodations and reducing administrative friction for students navigating the system.
Clarifies that the guidelines developed by the Commission on Accessible Postsecondary Electronic Instructional Materials are not a mandate for IHEs to require, provide, or recommend conforming materials. However, if IHEs select or use nonconforming materials, they must still comply with existing obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act to provide access through appropriate modifications, accommodations, and auxiliary aids.
Sec. 103(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the legal effect of new guidelines and avoid unintended interpretations, particularly concerning potential unfunded mandates or changes to existing civil rights law.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides flexibility for IHEs and technology developers, allowing for innovation while still upholding existing civil rights protections. It prevents the guidelines from becoming an unfunded mandate for technology adoption.
Case against: Critics might argue that without a stronger mandate for IHEs to adopt conforming materials, the guidelines may not lead to widespread proactive accessibility, leaving institutions to continue relying on reactive accommodations rather than systemic design improvements.
Estimated impact: This provision limits the direct financial burden of the guidelines on IHEs and tech companies by not mandating specific technology adoption, but it reinforces and maintains the existing legal obligation for accessibility through accommodations.
Requires institutions of higher education (or consortia) receiving grants for inclusive higher education programs for students with intellectual disabilities to provide matching funds of not less than 25 percent of the program's cost. These matching funds can be provided in cash or in-kind.
Sec. 104, new HEA Sec. 767(e)
Why it matters:It is common practice for federal grant programs to include matching requirements to ensure institutional commitment, shared investment, and potentially enhance the sustainability of the program beyond federal funding.
Case for: Proponents argue that matching funds ensure institutional buy-in and sustainability, demonstrating a commitment beyond federal grant cycles and fostering stronger local partnerships.
Case against: Critics might argue that a matching requirement could disproportionately disadvantage smaller or less affluent IHEs, limiting their ability to participate in these beneficial programs despite a strong need in their communities.
Estimated impact: This provision increases the financial commitment required from IHEs to run these programs, potentially limiting participation to institutions with greater existing resources or strong community partnerships capable of providing in-kind contributions.