[nfbmi-talk] Fw: [NFBAffiliatePresidents] FYI: NFB Comments on National EducationTechnology Plan

Fred Olver goodfolks at charter.net
Mon May 17 20:21:53 UTC 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net>
To: "NFB Affiliate Presidents List" <nfbaffiliatepresidents at nfbnet.org>; 
"nfbmo list" <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [NFBAffiliatePresidents] FYI: NFB Comments on National 
EducationTechnology Plan


> Mark, this is a fantastic write-up which I will share widely. I am so 
> proud to be associated with it.
>
> Gary
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Riccobono, Mark" <MRiccobono at nfb.org>
> To: <nfbaffiliatepresidents at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:14 AM
> Subject: [NFBAffiliatePresidents] FYI: NFB Comments on National 
> EducationTechnology Plan
>
>
>> Comments on the DRAFT National Educational Technology Plan 2010
>>
>> Prepared by:
>>
>> National Federation of the Blind
>>
>> 200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
>>
>> Baltimore, Maryland 21230
>>
>> (410) 659-9314
>>
>>
>>
>> We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft plan
>> entitled, "Transforming American Education:  Learning Powered by
>> Technology" as released by the Office of Educational Technology, U.S.
>> Department of Education, on March 5, 2010. The below comments offered by
>> the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) express our serious concern
>> that this plan fails to recognize the need for the U.S. Department of
>> Education to provide concentrated leadership, in both policy and
>> practice, in order to ensure that students with disabilities can take
>> full advantage of the opportunities offered by emerging educational
>> technologies in America's classrooms.
>>
>> We are pleased to see the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP)
>> embraces principles of universal design for learning, including for
>> students with disabilities.  However, the attention the NETP pays to
>> accessibility for people with disabilities is disproportionately minimal
>> to its importance.  The significance of accessibility to people with
>> disabilities must play a more prominent role within and throughout the
>> NETP. Because accessibility to students and teachers with disabilities
>> relates to every aspect of the NETP, the impact on people with
>> disabilities should be acknowledged consistently and repeatedly
>> throughout the report.  Further, because accessible mainstream
>> technology requires specific and significant considerations beginning in
>> its design phase, accessibility for people with disabilities must be
>> treated with greater detail in the NETP, as opposed to merely a bullet
>> point within the section on universal design.
>>
>> Overall, what is missing from the NETP is an appreciation of the
>> opportunity and challenge that technology presents for teachers and
>> students with disabilities.  We have the opportunity to change the
>> paradigm-to drastically reduce the necessity for separate and unequal
>> special education resources by allowing, for the first time, persons
>> with print disabilities in particular to have the same access to
>> education as their nondisabled peers. If properly implemented, we have
>> the opportunity to ensure that access to educational materials is a
>> nonissue for a blind student or one with cerebral palsy who cannot hold
>> her head and hands steady enough to read a book.  At present, these
>> students are consigned to a separate and not equal access, and the
>> mainstream resources (many of which will be developed by mainstream,
>> highly capitalized technology companies) will always outstrip any
>> separate special streams.
>>
>> The challenge is that as technologies are adopted in the schools, the
>> disability community will be left behind and thus left out.  Because of
>> the logarithmic pace at which technology develops, there is no such
>> thing as being a near-follower of technology and if the early decisions
>> are made without consideration of students and teachers with
>> disabilities, then the educational gap between those with disabilities
>> and those without will widen from the width of the Grand Canyon to that
>> of the Pacific Ocean.  If the message of inclusive technology is not to
>> be lost, it must be stated not just as a bullet point in a section on
>> universal design but be included consistently and repeatedly (as when a
>> goal is stated for equal outcomes for persons without regard to income
>> or race, but not for persons with disabilities), and with particularity.
>>
>> So that the report can strike effective notes, let's briefly consider
>> some of the barriers.  First, there is the "cubby-holing" of
>> accessibility at the Department of Education.  For example, the
>> Department of Education funds grants for both accessible technology and
>> for mainstream educational technology, but in the latter case it fails
>> to include accessibility as a requirement in the RFP or in the actual
>> grant itself, thereby perpetuating a separate and unequal status for
>> those with disabilities.  This dichotomy is to be found throughout the
>> educational system.  Universities and colleges, for example, routinely
>> procure and adopt new technologies, such as course management systems,
>> iTunes U, and digital reading systems like the Kindle without any
>> consideration for their accessibility, and it is nearly unheard of for
>> the CIO of a college, university, or a school system to consult with
>> their own disability service offices in selecting the technology that is
>> adopted.
>>
>> Without market demand or insistence by the Department of Education on
>> compliance with federal law, the result, inevitably, is inaccessible
>> technology and a deepening discrimination against those with
>> disabilities.  It should be noted that the barriers are not
>> technological in nature and that mainstream access occurs when it is
>> required, as witnessed by (1) the latest version of Blackboard becoming
>> substantially more accessible after Cal State refused to let Blackboard
>> bid while its course management software was inaccessible; (2) iTunes U
>> becoming fully accessible after the NFB threatened Apple's collegiate
>> partners with law suits; and (3) Amazon announcing it would produce an
>> accessible Kindle after the Department of Justice secured consent
>> decrees from the colleges to cease and desist its inaccessible Kindle
>> pilot projects.
>>
>> Although these examples come from higher education, the lesson is
>> equally true for K-12.  Unfortunately, however, disability groups do not
>> have the legal opportunities to be an agent for change in K-12 that they
>> do in the college arena.  Thus, the responsibility of the Department of
>> Education to take a leadership role here is correspondingly greater.
>>
>> At present, by largely confining accessibility to people with
>> disabilities to a bullet point within the NETP, the Department of
>> Education loses a unique opportunity to ensure that technology is
>> transformative for this group.  It is also critical that the demand be
>> stated unambiguously:  That all technology that is adopted be
>> accessible.  Since this is the law, it is a reasonable request.  It is
>> in that spirit that we offer the following suggested actions for
>> inclusion in the final version of the plan:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Throughout the NETP, "disability" should be added when
>> identifying achievement gaps. Blind students and other students with
>> disabilities are underserved in the same way as students of a racial
>> minority or of a lower socioeconomic status. To ensure the current
>> inequality of service delivery is addressed, the NETP must include
>> disability as an overarching theme as it does race, income, and
>> neighborhood.
>> 2. The standard of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) cited in the
>> NETP is very broad and as a result deemphasizes the type of
>> accessibility required for viable nonvisual access. The UDL definition
>> should be appended to include items 3.a.i and 3.a.ii below.
>> 3. Far too many of the interactive educational technologies that
>> enrich the learning experiences of students today are inaccessible to
>> blind, dyslexic, and other print-disabled children. If educational
>> technology continues to be made without the consideration of
>> accessibility at the outset, the gap in service delivery-and
>> consequently achievement-between those students with print disabilities
>> and those without will grow exponentially. Accessibility fits the
>> definition of a "grand challenge problem" as outlined in the NETP and
>> should be added as an additional problem to address. The problem should
>> be addressed in the following manner:
>>
>> a. Research should be done in collaboration with the
>> National Federation of the Blind and other blindness and print
>> disability organizations to create standards for the development of
>> accessible educational technologies.
>>
>>                                                              i.
>> The standards will ensure the nonvisual experience with technology is as
>> rich as the visual experience.
>>
>>                                                            ii.      The
>> standard will require that the ease of use of all technologies is the
>> same regardless of whether the means of access is visual or nonvisual.
>>
>> b. Once standards are developed they should be published
>> and manufacturers of educational technology should be required to adhere
>> to the standards when producing new technologies.
>>
>> 3. Accessibility must be treated with particularity within the
>> NETP. Though there are some overlapping issues between students with
>> disabilities, English language learners, pre-k students, and low-income
>> and minority learners, accessibility for learners with disabilities is
>> distinct. Substantial action must be taken in the design phase of
>> technological development to produce an accessible product. For this
>> reason accessibility should be addressed both throughout the report and
>> in a separate section. The necessity of accessibility needs to be
>> prominent in this report to ensure that all learners can truly benefit
>> from the resulting technological and pedagogical reform.
>> 4. As the medium of textbook production shifts from physical books
>> to digital content, the field must move away from the NIMAS standard-a
>> separate and inferior regulation-and capitalize on mainstream
>> technology. The production of mainstream accessible textbooks is a far
>> superior solution for students with disabilities. This issue should be
>> addressed in the separate section on accessibility that we recommended
>> in item four.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NFBAffiliatePresidents mailing list
>> NFBAffiliatePresidents at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbaffiliatepresidents_nfbnet.org
>>
> 





More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list