[Pibe-division] Re-Defining the Term "Accessible" for preK-12 in the Digital Education Era - We Need a Better & More Effective Definition

[DrV]

Hi All,

This is a follow up to a prior post. I got a few private responses. The
best proposal was put forth by Sharon Maneki who wrote: “*Here is a
definition of accessibility that we are trying to get the Maryland State
Department of Education to adopt.  Much of this language comes from the
Department of Justice uses.  I think it is a good definition.  *

* *

*"Accessible" means fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by blind individuals so that blind students and professionals are
able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and
enjoy the same services as sighted students and professionals, with
substantially equivalent ease of use.*”



The proposed definition is a good one & is based on the precedent set by US
Dept of Ed & US Dept of Justice definitions, however I will be provocative
& state that I don't feel it is specific enough to address the needs of
pre-K through 12 students.



It needs to be acknowledged that different tools (laptop, i-device,
electronic braille notetaker) provide different levels of accessibility to
the same e-content. It is critically important to understand that the same
webpage that may technically be accessible to an experienced blind adult,
or a student in middle school or high school (who has been trained in blind
technologies) may very well not be independently accessible to a student in
the younger grades, for various reasons including:

- the technologies may not yet have been introduced,

- or they may not yet have the required proficiently,

- or they may not have the needed software or hardware to access required
assignments both at school & at home.



As I heard so many times in my pediatric training - "Children are not just
little adults".



*Thus I think that the Educational Definition of “Blind-Accessible” in
Childhood should be more specific, for it includes the following components:
*

1.     *Content needs to be designed and presented in a universally
accessible format* (ie: reading assignment, presentation, video, graphic,
i-textbook). For this to be a consistent reality, districts need to assure
that all teachers are not only aware of this legal requirement, but must
ensure they have the training and tools to create or otherwise provide
accessible content. Likewise, suppliers of textbooks to blind students need
to be held accountable for making sure that the materials they provide are
compliant with the described current accessibility requirements. The same
holds true for iBook publishers - rules and procedures should be set in
place to make sure that all i-textbooks are vetted to assure adherence to
access standards.

2.     *Students need to have full-time access (at school & at home) to the
needed accessible “hardware”*. For a blind/VI child that includes: a
laptop, an i-device, an electronic braille notetaker, and/or an independent
portable refreshable braille keyboard.

3.     *Students need to have round-the-clock access to needed
software.*For a blind child that includes: screen-reading software, a
braille
translation program, accessible apps, etc.

4.     *Students need to receive training that assures they acquire
grade-appropriate proficiency in the skills to use the various devices and
programs* & how to best integrate them to access and manipulate information
and data. The new reality is that this training needs to be initiated much
earlier than has been the historical norm, ideally starting in elementary
school or sooner. Likewise, the student’s VI service team needs to be
up-to-date and proficient with the tools and skills as well.

5.     *Accessible tactile back-up plans must be in place.* It is critical
to assure that there is an identified effective mechanism to assure that
content that can’t be presented effectively in an accessible digital format
be presented in hard copy in real time (math, maps, graphics).

Any other thoughts?

Eric



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:02 AM, DrV <pumpkinracer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Education is moving more & more into the digital realm.
>
> Students of all ages are being asked or required to access teacher
> websites, web-based calendars, and are being directed to watch on-line
> videos clips, download assignments, upload assignments, or perhaps blog.
>
> Some districts have adopted digital textbooks, other are seriously
> planning to do so.
>
> Some students are being expected to do on-line drills.
>
> An increasing number of students are starting to be tested using on-line
> quizzes & tests, including for math & foreign languages.
>
> Many school districts are creating Technology Departments & Committees to
> address & some are trying to standardize their districts digital education
> needs & operation.
>
> A student’s performance & grade is increasingly being assessed based on
> their digital performance.
>
> There are many tools young blind & low vision students can use to access
> what they need.
>
> What information is “visible” on a given website can vary depending on the
> tool used to access it; the same website may look very different to a
> student using a Braille Notaker vs iphone vs ipad vs laptop with JAWS vs a
> Mac laptop.
>
> This is no longer an issue just for students at the upper grade levels,
> but also in the early education years down to kindergarten & preschool.
>
> As parents, vi professionals, & students interact with classroom teachers
> & with school districts they need to figure out how accessible things are.
>
> This is not an academic or philosophical question, but rather a very real
> issue.
>
> Given the spectrum of tools & age groups pre-k through grad school, has
> anyone come across an accepted working definition of what “accessible” now
> means?
>
> I look forward to your thoughts, insights & discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> EricV
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/pibe-division_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130220/2cb10529/attachment.html>