Accessible IT Policy in K-12 Education

1. Accessible IT Policy in K-12 Education Pat Brown AccessIT University of Washington pabrown@u.washington.edu

2. Background IT Accessibility, States & effected entities • Strategies to promote – require IT accessibility • Broad State Application- Top Down • Local - Bottom Up • Where are we now? • How can we do it better? Learning from others

3. Characteristics of Effective Policies • Issues covered in the policy: • Does the policy: • identify who is accountable for planning, implementation and evaluation of accessible IT? • address how it will be disseminated? • address monitoring and enforcement? • address how resources will be provided for the necessary training and support? • allow for flexibility in changing specifications when technology changes without renegotiating the entire policy?

4. Characteristics of Effective Policies • Policy development process: • Include all stakeholders • Clearly state how accessibility will be determined, enforced, and maintained • Address the issue of awareness, training and support for faculty, staff, and departments

5. Limitations of Current Policy Process • Inconsistent Definitions • Accessible – “easy to get to, approachable, available” • Inconsistent Scope - Varies state to state- covered entities may be extended by policies • Narrow Vs. Broad Scope of Applicability • State governmental entities • Public Schools and Universities • Judicial branches of state government • Follows the $$$$ • Entities supported in whole or part by the state required to comply. • Entities in receipt of state funds (AR, CA $ used for IT, WV • Efforts and ability to enforce are unclear • Inconsistency means training and support cannot be universalized to the maximum extent

6. Limitations of Current Policy • Inconsistent Authority • Responsibility & Authority mesh • No one given authority • Inconsistent Standards • Standards- Guidelines-Best Practices • Policy commits entity to IT accessibility, yet standards adopted limited to web access • Inconsistent Understanding of Accommodations vs. Accessible Infrastructure

7. Policy Filters StatePolicy National Policy Classroom?

8. States with “508-like” Legislation

9. States with IT Accessibility…

10. State Policies and K-12 • Arkansas: • All programs and activities supported in whole or part by public funds shall conform • Target individuals who are blind or visually impaired • California? • All government entities • Kentucky & Maryland • Both specifically apply to K-12 • Maryland has state legislation, “Technology for Education Program, Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities” • North Carolina • Takes an ADA approach—non-discrimination statement • Applies to state agencies & political subdivisions of agencies

11. State Ed.Tech Plans What’s in • Access to technology for students with disabilities mentioned in 15 state ed. tech plans (typically non-discrimination statement) • Sample guidelines • 6 states provide some guidelines on accessible IT • 3 states provide guidelines for meeting NCLB • 1 state provides some guidelines regarding AT • 1 state provides references to other sites with information about accessible IT • 9 states provide some training in accessible IT (most online; web accessibility) • Technical Assistance provided in 2 states* *Note: for most, we were unable to determine whether or not TA is provided

12. State Ed.Tech Plan What’s out • Connection to State policy • Consistency • Variability in state DOE technology plans • technical standards, especially for web sites • proposed strategies • value statements • Clear understanding of AT and IT • Considering accessible IT - a special education responsibility • Provision for training and technical assistance

13. Example: State Level Policy South Carolina • General Assembly should consider following Section 508 … as well as Section 504 and the ADA • …consider investigation, funding and inclusion of other methods…for providing access to electronically stored information which could promote overall accessibility compliance, but are not addressed or required by any specific statutory provision or standard. • State agency & college programs

14. Example: State DOE Tech Plan • Addresses accessible IT (emphasis on web accessibility) • Outlines state & district responsibilities • Includes standards to be met

15. State Responsibility • (The SDE will) provide the school districts with the necessary guidance and training in creating Web pages to ensure that electronic information is accessible to students and teachers with special needs

16. District Responsibility • (district will) provide schools with the necessary guidance and training in creating Web pages to ensure that electronic information is accessible to students and teachers with special needs

17. Standards • The SDE and the school districts will increase their ability to design Web pages and Web-based instruction that are accessible to students and staff with special needs in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by the Workforce Improvement Act of 1998.

18. District Level Greenville County Schools • Accessibility Guidelines for Web Pages • District Tech Plan • objective: Ensure that all students, including those with special needs, and teachers have access to electronic information resources. • strategy: addresses network & internet access, hardware & software • assigned responsibility: general education, special education and IT tech

19. Conclusions • Broaden approach beyond web accessibility • Some combination of government policy and institutional response from various levels • “top down” and “bottom up” strategy that is most conducive to systemic change • Training & TA at all levels