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

Justin Salisbury PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu
Sun Sep 7 02:58:43 UTC 2014


Motivated Members:

My contact in Senator Blumenthal's office is Andrew Miller Andrew_Miller at Blumenthal.Senate.Gov. He definitely covers labor issues and likely covers education, as well. Just in case, it may be wise to include a note about forwarding the information to the right person if he is not.

My contact in Joe Courtney's office, who definitely covers this bill, is Maija Welton Maija.Welton at Mail.House.Gov. Joe Courtney is the only Connecticut legislator signed onto this bill.

Justin


-----Original Message-----
From: Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nathanael T. Wales via Ct-nfb
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 3:40 PM
To: 'Edward'; 'NFB of Connecticut Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Action Alert: Schools against the TEACH Act!

And to Those of You in Congresswoman DeLauro's District:

Our contact in her office with whom several of us, including me, have discussed this matter on which Edward has asked us to take action urgently is Daniel Zeitlin: Daniel.zeitlin at mail.house.gov

Nathanael Wales


-----Original Message-----
From: Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Edward via Ct-nfb
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 2:51 PM
To: 'NFB of Connecticut Mailing List'
Subject: [Ct-nfb] Action Alert: Schools against the TEACH Act!


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 
-accessibility-guidelines> 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


_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb mailing list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/ntwales%40omsoft.com


_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb mailing list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.edu




More information about the CT-NFB mailing list