[Ct-nfb] Action Alert: Schools against the TEACH Act!

[Edward]

Fellow Federationists,

I am writing to urge you to take action on some frustrating news. The
American Council on Education (ACE) is an outspoken lobbying association
that represents colleges and universities; and last Friday, ACE wrote a
letter to Senator Harkin outlining their position on his proposed higher
education draft. In that letter, ACE opposes a provision modeled, almost
verbatim, after the TEACH Act. This is what ACE said:

"Accessible Instructional Materials (Sec. 931): This provision creates an
impossible to meet standard for institutions and will result in a
significant chilling effect in the usage of new technology. Such a proposal,
if implemented, will seriously impede the development and adoption of
accessible materials, harming the very students it is intended to assist."

Most of you have hopefully seen President Riccobono's blog
post<https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/unachievable-or-unwanted-why-ace-opposed
-accessibility-guidelines> about this, so you probably already read this and
find it puzzling. The provision does not create any standards, let alone an
"impossible to meet" one, and ACE offers no explanation or data to back up
their claims that this will stifle innovation and result in the opposite
outcome of what the bill intends to do. Even more puzzling, it is in ACE's
best interest to get accessibility guidelines that will make it easier for
them to comply with the law and avoid litigation! The NFB has tried
repeatedly to engage ACE through Congressman Petri, but the best ACE can
offer is this two sentence statement that seemingly makes no sense. The
TEACH Act is almost a year old and is only four pages long - where is the
meaningful analysis and dialogue? We have no choice, but to assume they are
just against finding a solution for blind students. Are they worried that
universities will have even less of a case in court when they try to argue
that it wouldn't be reasonable to accommodate a print-disabled student?

Members of Congress are keen to listen to the higher education lobby at
times like this, but blind students are stakeholders too. We cannot allow
this empty statement to carry more weight than our sound, data-driven
position that guidelines are the best solution. The Members of Congress are
returning on Monday, so let's use this weekend to mobilize our membership
and make calls, send tweets, and email legislators' staff about this! Below
is a model letter, but please, pretty please, make it your own. At the very
end, I have included names and email addresses for the staff members with
whom I've worked in the past. Please share any contacts you know that I'm
missing. We have to come back from this recess swinging and ACE's statement
is the perfect springboard for a new wave of advocacy. Let me know how I can
be a tool for you in this effort, and share with me how it goes!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE copy me on all correspondence at
personal.edward at gmail.com.

Also senator Murphy's assistant is Mark Ritacco:

mark_ritacco at murphy.senate.gov

Yours,
Edward Shaham 

Sample letter:

Dear [Staff member's name],

I hope you had a nice recess! I am writing on behalf of the National
Federation of the Blind of Connecticut about the Technology, Education and
Accessibility in College and Higher Education Act (S. 2060/H.R. 3505), or
TEACH Act. I last reached out on [fill in prior date], but as a reminder,
the TEACH Act offers a simple, non-controversial solution to the very
complicated problem of inaccessible educational technology and the impact
that kind of discrimination has had on blind college students.

Most offices want to know what schools think about the bill. Last Friday,
the American Council on Education (ACE) sent a letter to Senator Harkin
regarding a provision in his higher education reauthorization draft that is
modeled after the TEACH Act. Their statement can be found here,
http://www.aascu.org/policy/federal-policy/outreach/LettertoHarkinHEA0929201
4.pdf, and they totally missed the mark. It says the provision creates an
"impossible to meet standard," that will chill the usage of new technology.
It goes onto say the provision will do the opposite of what it intends to do
without any data or explanation for how that is so.

You have wisely asked us careful and challenging questions about this bill,
so we hope you will look at ACE's position with the same critical eye. The
TEACH Act creates voluntary accessibility guidelines that tells schools what
accessibility looks like so they'll know what to demand and how best to
comply with the law; how is this an "impossible to meet standard?" The bill
also incentivizes schools to use those guidelines with a safe harbor from
litigation; isn't this what ACE should want? Our goal is to stimulate the
market, but ACE says guidelines will have the opposite effect. I hope you
will reach out to ACE and demand an explanation for why this is true and ask
if they have a substitute proposal that might have a better outcome.

We want to improve access for students with disabilities, so we developed a
solution that has widespread support. Fifteen different groups endorse the
initiative, and over fifty Members of Congress have cosponsored. You can see
how well-received our solution is by visiting
www.nfb.org/teach<http://www.nfb.org/teach>. ACE has offered no solution and
no public comment other than this two sentence statement. Who will you side
with? I hope your boss will overlook their rhetoric and come on board as a
cosponsor. Can we count on his/her support?

Sincerely,
[Your name and contact info.]


Edward Shaham 
Legislative coordinator for the NFB of Connecticut