[nfbmi-talk] ahead on teach act

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Mon Sep 22 23:51:30 UTC 2014

The TEACH Act – A need for clarification

Regarding the Opposition to the proposed TEACH Act Legislation

Recently there has been much debate about the proposed TEACH Act and the opposition to it being circulated.  As the landscape in higher education has evolved,
and most educational opportunities now require interactions with electronic and information technology (EIT), institutions have been left without an effective
structure for taking access for all into account.  Currently, institutions have only lawsuits and enforcement actions to guide them; the point of the TEACH
Act is to pave the way for consistent national guidance in this arena.  The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) supports the proposed
legislation and seeks to clarify a few points.

First, it is important to remember that the TEACH Act comes directly from a recommendation made in the Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM)Commission
Report, and second to remember that the AIM Commission was authorized within the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 and had representation
of AHEAD as well as additional representation from both two-year and four-year colleges, among many stakeholders representing advocacy groups, service
providers, and publishers.

In addition, it is helpful to take a close look at the TEACH Act language itself, and compare it to the arguments being raised in articles such as the recent
“Good Intentions, Bad Legislation” published by Inside Higher Education. While there are several arguments that were raised within the opinion piece that
warrant a closer look, one particular statement claimed:

“Rather than simply providing helpful, voluntary guidelines, the TEACH Act would effectively require colleges to only use technologies that meet guidelines
created by a federal agency, or risk being sued.”

In reality, voluntary guidelines are precisely what the legislation would authorize the Access Board to establish. While it is conceivable that a federal
agency could choose to adopt those guidelines at some point in the future, which would potentially lead to the adoption of standards, this legislation
itself is simply outlining a means for guidelines to be established. Guidelines would not require institutions to adopt or not adopt any given technology;
they would, however, serve as navigational structures that institutions could use to chart their course.

The bigger point, though, is that Colleges and Universities are already required to honor the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended in 2008
(ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), as well as any relevant state or local statutes. This responsibility is already
established, but as court case after compliance review after investigation has proved, institutions are struggling to meet the existing obligations.  This
legislation does not add new responsibilities or any additional burden, undue or otherwise, to educational institutions, but could, by establishing a common
baseline for due diligence, help alleviate some of the existing burden.

In addition, having recognized guidelines allows the commercial publishers, software developers, and others who produce for the educational market to create
products that will assist their customers in meeting their current obligations under the law. The TEACH ACT would not change the existing requirements
surrounding the adoption of technology, but it would provide guidance for both the producers and consumers of educational products.

Under both the ADA and Section 504, colleges and universities are required to provide equally effective access to students with disabilities. Currently,
campuses struggle to meet this obligation when it comes to technology.  We know that the individual accommodation process is not an effective way to ensure
equal access in regard to information and communication technology related barriers. This legislation expressly allows the individual accommodation process
to be utilized where appropriate, and would offer institutions a more effective framework within which to operate to better ensure efficient, proactive
accessibility rather than second-class service to some of their students.  Currently, most institutions can only “accommodate” inaccessible technology
with patches, workarounds, and other local ad hoc approaches that result in not only unequal and less effective access, but are also unsustainable.

The point of the Teach Act, we believe, is to end after-the-fact decision-making processes in how to accommodate technology. The point is not to force certain
choices upon the institutions but to ensure that the needs of individuals with disabilities are seriously considered and taken into account at the right
point in the acquisition process.

The American people long ago concluded that “separate but equal” was inappropriate treatment of a portion of the population in our country; why do we think
it is acceptable now?  We support consistency in practices with technology across all college and university campuses to ensure all students with disabilities
are afforded the same opportunities as other students.  Continuing to operate without national guidelines would not ensure equal access.


Text of the proposed TEACH Act:

AIM Commission Report:

“Kindle letter”:

More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list