What’s the Difference and What You Need to Know
Jim Julius and Jon Rizzo
Instructional Technology Services


“no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States…shall, solely by reason of his disability, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance…” (Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 1973)


“It is the policy of the CSU to make information technology resources and services accessible to all CSU students, faculty, staff and the general public regardless of disability.” (EO 926, 2005)


“San Diego State University is committed to providing an educational environment that assures comparable access to electronic and information technology for individuals with disabilities. … To the extent possible, the
University shall provide course material that is accessible to all persons regardless of disability.” (Senate Policy, 2008, p. 37)









1973 - Federal Rehabilitation Act
1986 - Sec 508 amendment
1990 - Americans with Disabilities Act
1998 - Sec 508 updated
2003 - California Government Code 11135 applies
Section 508 to the CSU via SB 302
2005 - CSU adopts EO 926, Policy on Disability Support and Accommodations
2006 - CSU announces the Accessible Technology
Initiative
2008 – SDSU Senate adopts Universal Access to
Information Technology Resources and Services policy

Complementary but different laws

Section 504: Accommodations Model (Reactive)
 providing accommodations or modifications based on a request by a person with disability
Section 508: Access Model (Proactive) proactively providing access in advance regardless of individual’s request or disclosure based on the universal design principle


Three priorities announced September
2006:
◦ Web Accessibility
◦ Instructional Materials Accessibility
◦ Accessible Electronic & Information
Technologies Procurement






June 15, 2007: Submission of Instructional Materials
Accessibility Plan (IMAP)



December 1, 2007: Campuses implement the
IMAP provisions related to timeliness of alternate formats for print-based instructional materials for
Spring 2008.
Fall 2008: New courses and new course content to be accessible. Existing course content will be made accessible at the point of course redesign or when a student with a disability enrolls in the course.
Fall 2012: Instructional materials and websites for all courses will be accessible, or alternative methods offered.


“If incorporating accessibility is not possible or would constitute an undue burden, a plan to provide equally effective alternate forms of access shall be developed.”

(1) Timely textbook adoption
(2) (including for late-hire faculty)
(3) Early alert when alternate format instructional materials needed
(4) Increased use of learning management system and electronic posting of instructional materials.
(5) Purchasing of accessible digital or multimedia instructional materials
(6) Accessibility as a component in educational policy addressing course development and delivery.
(7) Support for faculty.
(8) Communication and training about the campus
Instructional Materials Accessibility Plan.








Post syllabi on Web sites ASAP.
Notify Student Disability Services sufficiently in advance when texts must be converted to Braille.
Order textbooks by the deadline.
Provide clean copies of materials to ECR or
Montezuma Publishing.
Order from publishers that provide electronic versions, or use already-converted materials.
Use media owned by the university rather than personal tapes.
See http://access.sdsu.edu


As a university, we wish to take an educational rather than compliance approach, but we must follow the law and provide accessible materials to students with disabilities in a timely fashion.

We don’t want to stifle creativity or academic freedom, so success must involve faculty freely embracing the principles and goals of the ATI; however, academic freedom would probably not be considered a defense for not providing students the access they need to instructional materials of accessible web sites.

(1) How can faculty members be encouraged to submit their book orders and course reader packets in a timely fashion?
(2) How could we develop a process for identifying textbooks for late-hire faculty that respects their academic freedom but also allows for the production of alternate media?
(3) What would be required to increase the number of faculty who use Blackboard or other learning management systems?
(4) What current resources have you found helpful in making course materials available to your students?
(5) What type of training and support would you need to learn how to make your course content more accessible?