1 / 22

Accessibility Discussion

In this presentation, Pat Burns discusses the issues and challenges related to accessibility in education, particularly for students with disabilities. He shares his experience and expertise in evaluating student needs and providing reasonable accommodations. The presentation also highlights high-profile situations and proposed legislation to improve accessibility in education.

ricker
Download Presentation

Accessibility Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accessibility Discussion Pat Burns Westnet CIO Meeting Tempe, AZ January 12, 2014

  2. My Credentials • A member of CSU’s Assistive Technology Committee since ~2000 • On the Association of Research Libraries’ Assistive Technology Committee • Have a son profoundly disabled at birth, who is 23 years old • Have followed proposed DOJ rulemaking & federal legislation, including (2nd) TEACH Act

  3. The Old Way • Students need to be evaluated by their institution to designate them as needing an accommodation • Done at CSU by the Office of Resources (RDS) for Disabled Students • Then, students assessed to determine the “reasonable accommodations” they need to have essentially equivalent access to education • Done at CSU by the Assistive Technology Resource Center (ATRC)

  4. Issues • We get to determine what is “reasonable” • “Equivalency” needs to be attained, but within “reason” • Content • Timeliness • Student expectations have grown significantly in the last five years • Evolving toward many more “learning disabilities” • Can be very expensive

  5. Equivalency Can require • A person to shadowin class • A person to read and (audio) record information • Personalized technology • Laptop with Jaws screen reader • Specialized mice and other peripheral devices • Server technology • Library books to be scanned and delivered as PDF

  6. Equivalency • Can introduce significant risk in terms of lack of timeliness • Think converting the material in time for tests, final exams, etc. • Typically there are issues with high peak loads vs. average load • Can be deucedly expensive

  7. High-profile Situationshttp://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/atteam/lawsuits.html • Law School Admissions April 2011 • Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School • Cardozo School of Law • Chapman University School of Law • University of Chicago School of Law • University of Denver • Gonzaga University School of Law • Lee University School of Law • Northeastern University School of Law • Sturm College of Law • Thomas Jefferson School of Law • University of California Hastings College of the Law • University of Miami School of Law • Washington School of Law • William Mitchell College of Law • Whittier College Law School • Yeshiva University • June 2009 – Kindle DX (ASU) • Nov. 2010 Penn State • March 2011 Northwestern & NYU • June 2011 Florida State • Sept. 2012 Montana • 2010 Netflix • Capella University • Louisiana Tech • South Carolina Technical College • Minnesota • Berkeley • …

  8. Shel Waggener • They’ll never sue me. I just spent $1 million on accessibility!

  9. High-profile Situationshttp://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/atteam/lawsuits.html • Law School Admissions April 2011 • Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School • Cardozo School of Law • Chapman University School of Law • University of Chicago School of Law • University of Denver • Gonzaga University School of Law • Lee University School of Law • Northeastern University School of Law • Sturm College of Law • Thomas Jefferson School of Law • University of California Hastings College of the Law • University of Miami School of Law • Washington School of Law • William Mitchell College of Law • Whittier College Law School • Yeshiva University • June 2009 – Kindle DX (ASU) • Nov. 2010 Penn State • March 2011 Northwestern & NYU • June 2011 Florida State • Sept. 2012 Montana • 2010 Netflix • Capella University • Louisiana Tech • South Carolina Technical College • Minnesota • Berkeley • …

  10. Berkeley Must • Provide scanned copies of any and all books requested from their Library within two days of the request • Unsure about books borrowed via Inter-Library Loan • Devoted two full-time librarians to book scanning • Purchased an automatic book scanner @ $25k

  11. Internet2 eText Pilot • Launched with a member of the NFB on their steering committee • Yet, NFB threatened to sue Internet2 for lack of accessibility • Shel Waggener identified an internal communications issue • Issue was accessibility of the front-end interface, making progress • No help from the publishers on the back end: making textbooks accessible • “We are not subject to 508.”

  12. But, a Small Victory • Hathi Trust lawsuit by authors finding: • Scanning books is a suitable transformation allowed under the Fair Use provision under U.S. Copyright, as it makes them accessible

  13. Proposed New Way: TEACH Act • H.R.3505 - TEACH Act, 113th Congress (2013-2014) • Due to the increasing numbers and diversity of college students with disabilities: • Do not make students self declare and undergo assessment • Rather, make all information on line and all systems accessible, without exception

  14. There are • Diligent, right-minded staff on our campuses who would like us to comply in this fashion • But, we cannot • A CIO must broker a reasonable compromise, yet ensure progress is occurring

  15. Barnes and Thornburg LLC Analysis http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Analysis-of-the-2014-TEACH-Act.aspx • Commissioned by AAU, APLU, ACE, ARL, EDUCAUSE, and NAICU • Opposed as overreaching • Would raise the bar for us in higher ed, much higher than in any other segment • Full compliance impossible due to range and scope of technology in our environments • Only addresses compliance, not how to get there • Too vague • Insufficient time to comply • Would squash innovation

  16. But • There is formed a working committee to seek a compromise that may make it into the Higher Education Reauthorization Act in the next Congress

  17. What Should We be Doing • Develop formal “Guidelines” not a policy • Provide oversight to make progress • Cornell has a good one • Work with your Accessibility Committee • Make web pages accessible (WAVE) • Administrative: through departmental layer 3, then… • Academic: more difficult • Provide training for faculty and GTAs • Ensure book scans are timely • Include accessibility as a requirement for web development, and in web developer job descriptions (HR department) • Include a provision for accessibility in all purchases (VPAT)

  18. Consider • Working with your library to provide accessibility systems and services • An ARL initiative • A good, central location • Example, CSU has 7 AT study rooms equipped with accessible technology, and reservable only by students with disabilities

  19. CSU Libraries AT Rooms

  20. Inside One AT Room

  21. CSU Library: AT Software • Audio Notetaker • Dragon Naturally Speaking 11.0 • Dropbox • EasyReader 6.02 • Inspiration 9.0 • Kurzweil 3000 v.13 for PC • Learning Ally (formerly RFB&D) • Microsoft One Note 2007 • Microsoft Office Suite • Natural Reader • Rapid Reader • Read & Write Gold 10 (Old) • Read & Write Gold 11 for PC • Read Please 2003 • SSOverlay • T-Bar • Text Aloud 2 • Vu-Bar 4.5 • WordQ 3 • WYNN 7.0 • ZoomText 10

  22. Stay Tuned • Questions are most welcome

More Related