[nfbmi-talk] Accessible Classrooms

[Fred Wurtzel]

hello,

 

Below is an excellent editorial from Lauren from our national Office.  

Here is a link to Lauren's original post.  

 

http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/inaccessibility/

 

By going to the link you can reach all the links and participate in the
process.

 

Warmest Regards,

 

Fred

 

Five more years of inaccessibility?

WCET welcomes Lauren McLarney of the National Federation of the Blind in
giving us

some recent history of and the next steps for proposed regulations regarding
accessibility

to educational technologies for those with disabilities.  Thank you Lauren.

I was in college a mere five years ago, but in that short period of time
things have

really changed.  The integration of technology into the educational sphere
has fundamentally

altered the teaching and learning process, and those changes - the arrival
of digital

instructional materials and the speed at which innovators come up with new
and revolutionary

things - are mostly for the good.

Technology has increased the accessibility divide

Before these changes, blind and other print-disabled students faced barriers
to education

and were segregated from mainstream students.  But now, curricular content
that was

once available only in textbooks and during lectures can be disseminated
through

electronic books, web content, digital library databases, advance software,
and mobile

applications. Compared to the print world, which excluded the print-disabled
because

it is inherently inaccessible, this intersection of technology and education
creates

opportunity to expand the circle of participation and allow universal access
to mainstream

products for all students, disabled or not.

Logo for the National Federation of the Blind

Instead, inaccessible technology has permeated the classroom causing
print-disabled

students to be segregated more so than ever before.  Rather than level the
playing

field, technology has created a whole slew of challenges to replace the
traditional

barriers to education faced by print disabled students.  What went wrong?

Commission reviews "accessible instructional materials" and makes
recommendations

In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act created the Advisory Committee
on Accessible

Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with
Disabilities

(AIM Commission) to find out.  The AIM Commission was charged with talking
to postsecondary

students, university personnel, parents, and industry experts.  They looked
at the

status of accessible educational technology in postsecondary education, the
reasons

manufacturers have failed to embrace accessibility solutions for their
products,

and what institutions are doing to minimize the impact on print disabled
students.

In June 2010, while the AIM Commission was doing its research, the
Department of

Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) jointly issued a "Dear
Colleague"

letter reminding K-12 and postsecondary schools that deploying inaccessible
technology

was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation

Act.  In late 2011, the

AIM Commission released its findings

: "students with disabilities have experienced a variety of challenges,
including

blocked access to educational opportunities and matriculation failure
resulting from

inaccessible learning materials and/or their delivery systems," and ".while
there

are a variety of emerging improved practices in the area of AIM, there is
still persistent

unmet need."  The AIM Commission made eighteen recommendations (

see EDUCAUSE summary

) for fixing this - some calling for legislation, some targeting industry,
and some

directed at the DOE.

After years of inaction, action is required

Fast forward to 2013.  Not a single recommendation has been implemented.

That is two years since the report's publication and five years since
Congress first

noticed a problem.  Five years of minimal progress.  Five years of disabled
students

being further segregated and challenged to finish their education without
equal access.

In the interim, DOJ and DOE attempts at enforcement have failed to solve the
problem.

Schools continue to embrace inaccessible technology at ever-growing speed.
When

will schools stop retrofitting inaccessible products and start demanding
full accessibility

from the start?

The

Technology, Education and Accessibility in College and Higher Education
(TEACH) Act

is our solution.  It calls on the Access Board to develop accessibility
standards

for electronic instructional materials and their delivery systems used in
postsecondary

education.  The DOJ will then issue regulations based on those standards,
and enforce

them as requirements under the ADA.  The standards will also apply to
agencies of

the Federal government under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, should
those

agencies choose to purchase instructional materials.

TEACH is based on the first recommendation of the AIM Commission report,
which calls

on the Access Board to develop accessibility guidelines for instructional
materials

used in postsecondary education.  Second, TEACH does not create new
liability for

postsecondary institutions.  Rather, it provides clarity to the pre-existing
mandate

of equal access, which is already required under ADA and enforced by DOJ and
DOE

(as stated in the Dear Colleague).

If TEACH becomes law, all pre-existing flexibilities, statutory provisions,
and implementing

regulations under the ADA would still apply.  This means no new private
right of

action, no new penalties, and no new exemptions.  TEACH simply provides
focus to

a pre-existing legal obligation.  The objective of TEACH is to significantly
increase

the amount of accessible instructional materials in the marketplace and in
the classroom

without creating any new liabilities that are unfamiliar to postsecondary
institutions

or would inhibit innovation.

Help us in supporting students through the TEACH Act

Most postsecondary institutions want to provide their disabled students with
equal

access, but they aren't sure what accessibility looks like and they claim
there are

not enough affordable options in the marketplace.  Manufacturers say they
are willing

to embrace accessibility solutions, but they do not see a large demand for
it.  Institutions

are blaming manufacturers; manufacturers are blaming institutions.

In the end, the burden falls on the student.

It has been that way for more than five years - it is time we take action.
The AIM

Commission report gave us the data to know where to start, and the ADA
provides the

legal framework to get this done without reinventing the wheel.  TEACH will
make

it happen.

If your entity (institution, state agency, organization, corporation, etc.)
would

like to add your name to the growing list of those endorsing the TEACH Act,
please

contact me.  Once the bill is introduced, contact your U.S. Senator or
Congressperson

to obtain their support.  Meanwhile, take action on your own by making sure
your

technologies are accessible without waiting for TEACH.

Will you support this initiative - or will we ask disabled students to wait
another

five years?

Lauren McLarney

Government Affairs Specialist

National Federation of the Blind

LMcLarney at nfb.org