City College of San Francisco
January 9, 1998
Chancellor/President Del M. Anderson
City College of San Francisco
50 Phelan Ave, E200
San Francisco, CA 94112-1898
(In reply, please refer to Docket Number 09-97-2145.)
Dear Chancellor/President Anderson:
On June 12, 1997, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received a complaint
alleging that the City College of San Francisco (College), a California Community College, failed to
provide to a blind student (complainant) a Braille translation of a textbook assigned during the Spring
1997 semester.
OCR has jurisdiction over the College under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibit discrimination on the
basis of disability by recipients of federal funds and public entities, respectively. The College is both a
recipient of federal funds and a public entity. At this time, contingent upon the College's
implementation of its plan submitted to OCR on December 29, 1997, OCR finds the College in
compliance.
Obligation to Provide Textbook in Meaningful Alternative Format
Under Title II, a public college is required "to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with
students are as effective as communications with others... In determining what type of auxiliary aid and
service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual
with disabilities" [28 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 35.160].
OCR has repeatedly interpreted the term "communication" in this context to mean the transfer of
information, including (but not limited to) the verbal presentation of a lecturer, the printed text of a
book, and the resources of the Internet. In construing the conditions under which communication is "as
effective as" that provided to nondisabled persons, on several occasions OCR has regarded the three
basic components of effectiveness as timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in
a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual
with the disability.
With regard to the "significance of the message" of a textbook, OCR notes that a course-assigned
textbook constitutes a core component of the post-secondary academic curriculum. A course-assigned
textbook is customarily the primary reference tool upon which the student is expected to rely.
Moreover, the content structure of the course is often closely correlated to the textbook such that it is
difficult to actively learn and participate in the classroom if the student is unfamiliar with the assigned
1
textbook material. Finally, through examinations the student is ordinarily held accountable for knowing
the information in the assigned portions of the textbook.
One of the courses taken by the complainant during Fall 1996 and Spring 1997 was a course specifically
designed to assist students in taking the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), a standardized
test administered nationally by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The textbook "Longman
Preparation Course for the TOEFL" (hereinafter TOEFL textbook) was the primary educational resource
used inside and outside the classroom in this course. The complainant requested the Disabled Student
Program and Services (DSPS) Office to translate the TOEFL textbook as an accommodation to her
disability (blindness).
OCR finds that the College's responsibility to provide the complainant communication "as effective as"
that provided to nondisabled students required the College to provide the complainant a meaningful
alternative format of the TOEFL textbook.
Determining Appropriate Alternative Format
One of the most difficult tasks facing colleges today is providing textbooks in a timely accurate complete
appropriate alternative format to students with print impairments. OCR experience is that, with respect
to rendering course-assigned textbooks accessible to blind students, currently most colleges rely almost
exclusively on the auditory medium, specifically either personal readers or audio-cassettes from sources
such as Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic.
However, in some situations, the subject matter of the textbook is particularly ill-suited to an auditory
translation. For example, mathematics and science textbooks, as well as textbooks to assist in acquiring
proficiency in a written (rather than conversational) foreign language, ordinarily rely heavily on unique
symbols, equations, charts, grids, subscripts, punctuation, underscores, and accent marks, which are
often hard to effectively convey through auditory speech. Unfortunately, the type of subject matter for
which auditory speech is least appropriate is often the same type of subject matter that may be the
most expensive and time-consuming to translate into electronic/Braille, because the standard optical
character recognition scanner is usually not adequate for converting the specialized non-narrative print
into a meaningful electronic/Braille format.
Section 504 implementing regulation [34 C.F.R. § 104.43(c)] prohibits colleges from excluding students,
on the basis of disability, from any "course of study." As OCR has stated in prior opinions [OCR Case
Docket No. 09-91-2157 (January 15, 1992)], "Failure to translate specialized material, such as
mathematical symbols and equations, into a language [e.g., Braille] specifically created to communicate
such material to the visually impaired, has the result of strongly deterring visually impaired students
from taking courses, or concentrating in areas, that involve higher mathematics [or other "courses of
study" whose printed information is expressed in special symbols or punctuation]."
Besides the problem of translating certain types of subject matter into a meaningful auditory medium,
there are additional problems in using a personal reader to make a large volume of printed material,
such as an entire textbook, accessible. When a college offers a personal reader as the means for
2
translating a textbook into an alternative format, the student with the print impairment is asked to set
aside significant blocks of time which must be coordinated with the schedule of the reader(s) so that
both are present at the same time and place on campus. Such coordination may be especially difficult
for a blind student whose mobility is ordinarily dependent upon public transportation or other third
person drivers. As to the role of the student with the disability in asking fellow classmates to act as a
personal reader, some students prefer to secure their own service provider, while other students are
highly reluctant or even unwilling. Some students with disabilities state that having to personally
approach fellow classmates to request special services (even when offering compensation) undercuts
their ability to establish peer relationships.
In addition to the difficulties commonly associated with the use of personal readers (e.g., adequate
supply, scheduling conflicts, reliability, acceptable speaking voice), when a student is in the process of
learning English as a Second Language (ESL), comprehension of information presented in spoken English
is significantly less than would be expected of a native English-speaking blind student, and any foreign
accent by a personal reader would be more problematic than usual.
Finally, a personal reader (unless recorded) provides only one time exposure to the information and
does not allow the student to independently refer back when studying on his/her own. Even when the
personal reader is informally audiotaped, such recordings do not allow the student efficient internal
document flexibility to move between topical headings and from page to page. Thus, when later
attempting to review materials, the student generally finds it very time consuming to wind and rewind,
play and replay, the collected audiotapes in order to locate specific information. Consequently, personal
readers are often most effectively used for materials that a student will not be frequently referencing.
For a discussion of features to consider when making a textbook accessible in alternative format, see the
report "Accessibility of Information in Electronic Textbooks for Students Who Are Blind or Visually
Impaired," presented by the Texas Education Agency to the Texas Legislature, at .
The facts of this particular case illustrate many of the above problems encountered by colleges when
attempting to provide textbooks in an alternative format. During the Spring 1997 semester, the
complainant asked the College to translate three course-assigned textbooks: "Focus on Grammar," "In
Our Own Words," and the TOEFL textbook.
The College states that "Focus on Grammar" was made accessible to the complainant through an
already existing audiotape. The College states that "In Our Own Words" was provided in Grade 2 Braille
(229 printed pages or 350-450 Braille pages) through the efforts of a "typist proofreader" who input the
text using an Apple scanner, Ramsley converter software, and a Versapoint Braille printer. OCR notes
that during the Spring 1997 semester the College also translated approximately 80 printed pages of class
handouts into Grade 2 Braille for the complainant, as well as Brailling certain practice examinations,
three of which are from the TOEFL textbook. The College estimated that, when translating into Braille,
on average 10-15 printed pages per week was "an amount that could be provided without delay."
During the Spring 1997 semester, a total of approximately 410 printed pages were converted into Braille
for the complainant. (In the College's experience, one typed page converted to about one and a half to
two pages of Grade 2 Braille.)
3
For reasons discussed below, the College relied on personal readers to translate the TOEFL textbook
from hard copy print to alternative format.
The TOEFL textbook contains numerous charts and grids that, for sighted students, are more effective
than narrative description in presenting information such as verb conjugation and grammatical
sequencing. The TOEFL textbook also frequently uses special punctuation, underscoring, subscripts, and
accent marks to assist the sighted reader in comprehension and pronunciation. The College stated that
its DSPS optical character recognition scanner, used to convert hard copy print into Braille, was not
adequate for purposes of translating the TOEFL text, not only because of the type of printed text
involved, but also because during Spring 1997 DSPS staff/equipment was already operating at capacity
to translate into Braille other course-related materials for the complainant. The DSPS staff contacted the
American Printing House for the Blind, who indicated that the process of translating the TOEFL textbook
into Braille "could take anywhere from six months to one year. The Braille copy would then be sold to
the [College] District for several thousand dollars, depending on length."
In its written Data Response to OCR, the College stated that the DSPS counselor discussed the difficulty
of translating the TOEFL textbook into Braille "many times" with the complainant "who acknowledged
the problem and agreed that she did not need the Braille and that the reader/assistant could read the
TOEFL material to her." In interviews with OCR, the complainant states that she was always clear that
what she needed was a Braille translation, but that since the College indicated that translation of the
TOEFL textbook into Braille was not a feasible option, she "agreed" to take whatever accommodation
could be made available.
The College indicated to OCR that it believed a personal reader was an adequate method for translating
the TOEFL textbook for the complainant because the prior semester (Fall 1996) when taking the same
TOEFL course the complainant had used one personal reader throughout the semester and, according to
the College, this arrangement had been satisfactory to the complainant. (OCR notes that the
complainant, after taking the TOEFL course the first time in Fall 1996, did not pass the TOEFL test taken
Spring 1997.) The College explained that this personal reader did not merely read the printed TOEFL text
aloud, but instead attempted to be highly interactive with the complainant so as to try to make as clear
as possible the non-narrative text, with its underscoring, accents, subscripts, etc. In short, the College
described the role of this personal reader in many ways as more akin to that of a tutor rather than a
reader who merely reads the printed text aloud word for word. The College indicated that the students
recruited to provide this audio-interpretation of the TOEFL textbook had no special training in how to
teach English as a Second Language or in how to most effectively read aloud specialized text such as
underscoring, subscripts, charts, etc.
In Spring 1997, the College offered to provide the complainant a "personal reader/assistant" to meet in
the library for up to four hours per week. The College indicated that "Finding students who were
available at the same time as [the complainant] was difficult because [she] was unable to be flexible
with meeting times... [she] was unable to meet any other time than Wednesday and Friday 11-1]. [She]
rejected the first reader/assistant because the reader/assistant was unable to meet at the times
specified by [her]. [She] rejected the second reader/assistant because the reader/assistant had an
4
`accent'. The third reader/assistant was only able to meet once a week on Fridays for three hours; this
was agreed to by [the complainant]. With three weeks left in the semester, DSPS was informed by [the
complainant] that the reader/assistant was no longer showing up. A fourth reader/assistant was
provided for the last two weeks of the semester. [The complainant] was not willing/able to assist in
finding fellow students on campus who might be able to assist her for pay (using DSPS funds)."
OCR finds the evidence indicates that the personal readers/assistants provided by the College during the
Spring 1997 semester did not provide the complainant communication "as effective as" that provided to
sighted students who were able to read the printed text in the TOEFL textbook.
Role of Textbook Publishers
As evidence of its good faith efforts to provide the complainant a Braille translation of the TOEFL
textbook, the College described to OCR efforts made to obtain an electronic version of the TOEFL
textbook. Longman Publication, publisher of the TOEFL textbook, also publishes other textbooks which
are used in courses at the College's Institute. More than a year prior to the complainant's enrollment in
her first TOEFL course in Fall 1996, the College first contacted Longman Publication requesting its
cooperation in making accessible Longman textbooks being used by the complainant. By letter dated
November 22, 1995, the College's DSPS counselor wrote to the Executive Editor of Longman Publication
stating that "an international student who is visually impaired has enrolled in our ESL program. The texts
the class will be using are: Focus on Grammar - High Intermediate... [and] Workbook for High
Intermediate... Books on tape does not work in this instance because an auditory presentation of the
material does not allow the student to learn spelling. I request a Braille version of the texts or a copy of
the texts on computer disk so that I may convert the text to Braille in our high tech department... [I also
request] appropriate copyright permission."
Longman Publication responded by telephone that its policy was not to provide either Braille
translations or an electronic disk version for any of its textbooks. Moreover, Longman Publication
indicated that in any event their own electronic disk version of their textbooks was "protected and
would not be readable by any system DSPS might use to convert the text to Braille." When the
complainant enrolled in her first TOEFL course in Fall 1996, the College again contacted Longman in an
attempt to obtain either a Braille or electronic computer disk version of the TOEFL textbook. Again,
Longman was unwilling to provide either.
Publishers benefit when college faculty select the publishers' product as a course-assigned textbook
(which all students in the class are then required to purchase). On the other hand, colleges report to
OCR that publishers have been almost entirely unwilling to voluntarily alleviate the cost or otherwise
participate in the process of making their product accessible to students with print impairments.
Recently the disability community has turned to lawmakers for relief.
One barrier to educational institutions attempting to provide a printed text in an alternative format has
been copyright issues involved in reproducing the original text. On September 16, 1996, federal Public
Law 104-197 became effective, stating that "... it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized
entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic
5
literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats
exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities... "specialized formats" means braille,
audio, or digital text which is exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities" [17 United
States Code (U.S.C.) Ch. 1, § 121].
Besides eliminating the copyright barriers, steps have been taken to hold publishers responsible for
providing their product in an alternative format. For several years states such as Texas have required
publishers of elementary and secondary textbooks to deposit the electronic version of their textbooks
into a central registry, where the state then translates the text into Braille for elementary and secondary
students who are blind. In July 1997, the first state law applicable to publishers of college textbooks was
passed. Arizona now mandates the state board of education to require "the publisher of each literary
and nonliterary textbook used in the community colleges of this state to furnish computer software in a
standardized format when software becomes available for nonliterary textbooks, to the State Board of
Directors for community colleges from which Braille versions of the textbook may be produced" [Section
15-1425, Arizona Revised Statutes]. At this time there is no California state law requiring publishers of
textbooks used in public educational institutions to provide such textbooks in an electronic/digital
format for the purpose of accommodating a student with a disability.
In addition to the role of the publisher, there may also be a role for the campus bookstore to play with
regard to the task of providing course-assigned textbooks in alternative format. A survey of California
Community Colleges in April 1997 found that the campus bookstore markup on new textbooks is in the
range of 20-25%, and that in campus bookstores operated by the college/District (only about one in six
campus bookstores is privately operated) the college/District uses revenue generated from textbook
sales for a wide variety of purposes (Survey Question Six). OCR notes that at this time apparently no
college uses income from textbook revenue to cover costs arising when a student with a print
impairment requires translation of a textbook into an alternative format.
Interestingly, the same survey also found that a few community colleges restrict faculty selection of
textbooks to those by publishers who have certain business practices, such as book return policies
(Survey Question Seven). By contrast, OCR is not aware of any community college campus bookstore
that tracks the policy of textbook publishers regarding their willingness to provide the electronic version
of their textbooks to assist a college in translating the textbook into an alternative format. If so tracked,
faculty would have the option to at least consider this factor when selecting course-assigned textbooks,
and textbook publishers (as a result of campus bookstore inquiries) would be put on notice that such
assistance is valued by the consumer market.
OCR is pleased that the College actively sought to persuade the publisher of the TOEFL textbook to
provide the Braille or electronic version of its product. These efforts demonstrate that the College was
willing to explore solutions beyond the resources of the College's DSPS office. With regard to the task of
providing textbooks in an alternative format, the issue is usually not whether the DSPS staff has been
dedicated and hardworking. Rather, the question is whether the college, as an institution, has explored
all resources available. Cost- effective solutions may be found when departments on campus work
together cooperatively, and in some cases, when individual colleges collectively approach the task. OCR
6
notes that a centralized Braille Transcription Center, located at California State University, Fullerton,
currently serves all California State University (CSU) campuses.
Resolution
On December 29, 1997, the College provided OCR with a plan in which the College, conditioned on the
complainant's enrollment in the Spring 1998 semester, commits to (1) provide a Braille translation of the
TOEFL textbook, and (2) translate the complainant's textbooks for the Spring 1998 semester into an
appropriate medium that will be "as effective as" that provided to sighted students. Finally, in order to
further explore possible intercollegiate solutions, the College has promised to discuss this issue at the
next DSPS Coordinators meeting in its region, and to bring its need for a timely cost-effective method of
obtaining electronic/Braille translations of printed textbooks to the attention of the Chancellor's Office
of the California Community Colleges.
OCR appreciates the College's prompt response to issues raised by OCR in this complaint and OCR
acknowledges the strong commitment of College staff to providing students with disabilities full access
to the educational program. The College is to notify OCR in writing by July 1, 1998, that it implemented
the above plan during Spring 1998. For questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Sarah
Hawthorne, staff attorney, at (415) 437-7719.
Sincerely,
Adriana Cardenas
Team Leader
cc: Ms. Sandra Handler, Dean
Ms. Kathleen Kerr-Schochet, DSPS Coordinator
7