Jonathan Latko & Amy Lavin
CURRENT EVENTS
• Infiltration of Technology in Education
• Students have grown up with technology
• Laws mandate that disabled students are
presented with the same opportunities
FOCUS ON HIGHER EDUCATION
• Procurement
• Adaption of course materials
• Websites
TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY
A BRIEF HISTORY
• 1973: Revised Rehabilitation Act
• Section 504 – federal funding means you may not deny access
• Section 508 – electronic & information technology must be accessible
• 1975: Education for All Handicapped Children Act
• Ensures the same opportunity to receive educational experience for all children
• 1990: Individuals with Disabilities Act
• Provides money to states to funnel to education
• Creation of IEPs
• Required in K-12, no Higher Education requirements
TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY
A BRIEF HISTORY
• Individuals with Disabilities Act
•
•
•
•
In College, students self report disabilities
Responsibility is on the student, not the school
No IEPs
School maintains the documentation they feel is appropriate.
TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY
A BRIEF HISTORY
• 1990: Americans with Disabilities Act
• No discrimination of Americans from partaking in any opportunities or major life
events that they would be able to enjoy if not for their disability
TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY AND
THE ADA
• “Colleges and universities have specific legal obligations to
provide students, faculty, and staff with disabilities the same
- Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for civil rights
U.S. Department of Education
benefits, programs, and services.”
• For the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Education, their major
compliance interest and enforcement interest for the foreseeable
future is access to technology.
• College and Universities do not have a good handle on this
issue and their role in providing accessible technology.
WHY NOW?
Greater reliance on technology in education.







Course management systems (Blackboard, Moodle, ANGEL)
Smart classrooms with advanced audio visual technology
On-line administrative processes
Dramatic increase in on-line learning.
Growing adoption of electronic textbooks and eReaders in classrooms.
Proliferation of iPads
Growing use of Google and adoption of Google Apps (which isn’t accessible)
As technology gets more complex compliance is getting worse not
better.
Proliferation of lawsuits.
CURRENT LITIGATION IN HIGHER ED
National Federation for the Blind has filed complaints against EDUCAUSE & 13 institutions of Higher Ed:
Florida State – $150,000 Settlement (inaccessible clickers)
NYU – Google Apps
Northwestern – Google Apps
Arizona State University – Kindle
Case Western Reserve University - Kindle
Darden School of Business/UVA - Kindle
Pace University - Kindle
Princeton University - Kindle
Florida State University – Course Management Systems, eGrades
Reed College - Kindle
Mesa Community College – course registration, online course content, clickers, dropped from class by instructor
University of Montana – Online course content, Course Management System, Library database, clickers, course registration
EDUCAUSE – Electronic textbook project (Courseload and McGraw Hill)
Penn State – Settlement (comprehensive)
PENN STATE’S SETTLEMENT
develop and implement procedures to require purchasing only fully accessible technology
unless technically unfeasible to do so.
make the University’s library website fully accessible and perform a monthly scan thereafter
to assure it remains so.
implement a fully accessible search engine in the library.
make all pages hosted on the University’s websites that have been published or updated on
or after 8/1/09 fully accessible by 10/15/12, .
replace ANGEL, their course management system by August 2014.
make all classroom podiums and LCD equipment accessible to a blind faculty member
without assistance.
only use classroom “clicker” systems that are accessible and at the same price for all
students.
make sure all ATM machines on campus must be fully accessible.
ADOPTED POLICIES
• We will be accessible
• Accessible Technology Compliance Committee/Liaisons
have been empowered to effectuate change and will be
responsible for:




Setting standards & guidelines
Setting Timetables
Enforcement
Granting exceptions
• The person responsible for providing the technology or
information is responsible for making it accessible
• If it can’t be made accessible it needs to be removed
ACCESSIBLE RESOURCES
•Who?
•What?
•How?
ENACTING THE POLICY
• Create a committee of University peers –
• Faculty
• Administration
• Students
DETAILING THE POLICY
• Faculty must provide reasonable accommodations for
students with disabilities
• “Enjoy equal educational opportunity”
• If questionable, Accessibility Committee will make the
final decision
ACCESSIBLE RESOURCES
• Focus on the Faculty Experience with Classroom
instructional Technology and Materials
• Accessible locations
• Additional time for exams
• Providing early copies of the syllabus
• Allowing for notetakers
• Providing written outlines
ENACTING THE POLICY
Implement an institutional culture change:
 Get involvement from every school, college department and organization
 Accessibility should not be an afterthought
Develop standards for accessible instructional material
Work with the content providers (including faculty) to make their
content accessible
Revise every website and content that is not compliant
Evaluate our existing systems, where not compliant and where
technically possible, replace them or make them compliant
Train faculty, web developers, and web designers, and system
programmers
RESPONSIBLE OFFICES
• Computer Services – main authority and leader
• Office of Disability Resources
• Office of Student Services
TANGIBLE COSTS
• Unfunded mandate
• Cost to update the websites, PowerPoints,
• Cost to locate accessible materials
• Be proactive!
INTANGIBLE COSTS
• Repuation - Lawsuits & negative publicity if ignored
• Loss of students
• Loss of community goodwill
MOBILIZE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
• Clear, decisive & inclusive
• Develop clear guidelines and procedures
• Provide training and additional help/resources
• Monitor resources for accessibility
ACCESSIBILITY LIAISONS
• An individual within each school or college, responsible for
coordinating the accessibility remediation and compliance efforts
for their respective area.
• Evaluates the accessibility of information and technology during
the procurement process and provides an assessment to the
interested parties.
• Provides annual reports on the individual school or, colleges,
progress towards remediation.
• Establishes priorities of remediation.
• Attends monthly meetings on accessibility.
• Attends accessibility training.
• Works with the budget unit head to determine funding
allocations for accessibility initiatives.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
Why can’t we wait until a student requests an accommodation?
 The Dept of Ed’s Office of Civil Rights has made it clear that ad-hoc remediation is
insufficient
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
What do I need to do now?
 Become aware
 Think about the materials you use in teaching
 Get ready and understand the periodic changes that will be announced over the next
several years
 Understand that we don’t know magnitude just yet
 Plan to make use of the resources that will become available to you
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
What areas are being evaluated?
 Web sites
 Procurement of technology
 Instructional materials
When does all this have to be done?
 We are currently determining the remediation timeframes – it will take several years