A Clear Standard for Access to Instruction

1. A Clear Standard for Access to Instruction A review the recent AHEAD Session for the Fall 2013 ORAHEAD Conference Review Facilitated byGabriel Merrell, Oregon State UniversityKaela Parks, Portland Community College

2. The Issue – There are Barriers Websites are not usable – they do not align with WCAG or provide an intuitive user experience Procurement or adoption processes allow for inaccessible technology to become required putting institutions at risk Not enough pressure is felt byvendors for them to createaccessible offerings

3. Who is Impacted – Quick Statistics A little over 2 million undergraduate college students have a disability (11%) Compared to all college students: 1% (194,000) have a visual, hearing, or speech related disability 1.6% (300,000) have a mobility related disability 5.4% (1,040,000) have a cognitive and/or mental disability Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. Almost 57 million individuals in the U.S. have a disability (19%) Compared to the general pop: 6.2% (14.9 million) have a visual, hearing, or speech related disability 20.8% (50.5 million) have a mobility related disability 6.3% (15.1 million) have a cognitive and/or mental disability Source: Brault, Matthew W., "Americans With Disabilities: 2010," Current Population Reports, P70-131, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012.

4. Rate of Disability in Oregon by County

5. History of IT Accessibility Cases • NFB v. Target (2006 – settled $6M) • NFB v. LSAC/Cal Law Schools (Feb 2009 – settled) • NFB/ACB v. Kindle (Jan 2010 – all 6 colleges settled) • Dear Colleague Letter (June 29, 2010)– and follow-up (May 26, 2011) • NFB complaint v. Penn State (Nov 2010 - settled) • websites (including dept level sites, library catalogue, etc.), software, hardware, vendors • NFB - “wakeup call for universities” • pervasive discrimination against employees /students • NFB complaint v. Google, NYU, Northwestern, Oregon K-12 districts (March 2011)

6. Target Lawsuit • The National Federation of the Blind sued Target on behalf of a consumer under CA law in 2006 • Settled for $6,000,000 in 2008 • No wrong doing confirmed – agreement to fix site • No case law to clarify obligation under ADA

7. Law School Admissions • An action was filed against the Law School Admissions Counsel in 2009 by the NFB • Settlement required that LSAC must provide “Full and Equal Access” and allow blind guests using screen-reader software to acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions that are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease for use.

8. Kindle Case Arizona State University sued by NFB • Had been one of several schools piloting kindle • Settled with agreement to only use accessible tech • Letters to College presidents from DOJ and DOE (June 2010 - expanded scope in May 2011)

9. Dear Colleague Letters June 29, 2010 • Letter to all college presidents from DOJ/DOE confirming that use of inaccessible book readers is a violation of civil rights May 26, 2011 • Follow up FAQ confirming that it is not just book readers but any inaccessible technology

10. Penn State – System-Wide Access • NFB filed a complaint in 2010 citing pervasive and ongoing discrimination • Resolved in 2011- no admission of wrongdoing but agreement to conduct accessibility audit, develop policy, & train • Penn State promised to implement strategy to improve Web sites, classroom technology, library resources, banking services, and more

11. Google Apps in Education • New York University and Northwestern University named in complaint filed by NFB • Google Apps are not Accessible yet many schools are using them – This is not resolved Learn More! • The California State University Accessible Technology Initiative and ATHEN Reports • Videos demonstrate Google Apps Barriers • Read and Write for Google Apps

12. Review of “A Clear Standard” AHEAD Panel was facilitated by Scott Lissner • Louisiana Tech University (DOJ) • South Carolina Technical College System (OCR) • UC, Berkeley (Disability Rights Advocates) Documents on each case are available at: http://www.ahead.org/DOJ_Louisiana_Tech_Settlement "Accessible" means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use.”

13. Louisiana Tech Findings • Student was enrolled in a course using inaccessible third-party website • Student complained, fell behind, then withdrew • In an other course, the Instructor did not provide accessible hard copy materials in timely manner Actions • Establish policy that prevents inaccessible online offerings or technology • Establish procedures with timelines for grievances • Train instructors, administrators and students

14. South Carolina Tech College System Findings • Websites not readily accessible • Untagged PDF and Images, uncaptioned videos and keyboard navigation problems • Calendar and LMS accessibility problems Actions • Update websites to be accessible • Create resource guides, monitor progress • Each college of the system submit annual report documenting compliance reviews

15. Berkeley (Private Law – Not DOJ) Findings • Inaccessible course materials • Claims of unreasonable time waiting for conversion of materials Actions • Set very specific timelines • textbooks in 10 business days • course readers in 17 days • Instructors select 7 weeks prior • Library conversions ~ 5 days • Interim accommodations • Annually train staff and administrators - enforcement • Tracking transparency for alt format process • Self-Serve scanning stations • AT in labs/libraries

16. Key Ideas to Take Away • “ensure that…all technology, including websites, instructional materials and online courses, and other electronic and information technology for use by students or prospective students, is accessible.” • Have a plan for how to get there – a policy and a plan • We all work to provide accommodations, does this language shift our responsibilities more towards institutional change? • Ensure equal access is understood across the institution with all staff and faculty up to speed on procedures

17. Group Activity – 30 minutes • Break into groups and each share a highlight of work that is happening at your institution regarding – 15 min • Policy – top down • Procedure – ground up • Training – any level Share out examples from each group – 5 min each

18. Interesting Trends • DOJ looking at websites when investigating other issues • Accreditation will look for confirmation of institutional capacity and good faith efforts regarding accessibility • Need to look beyond student accommodation and ensure accessible computing environments for employees as well • Regional consortiums or other means of collecting voices can increase impact of messages

19. What about your Institution? Who are the Stakeholders • How are they identified • How are they involved Are there Policies/Plans • What do they include/cover • How are they implemented • Is training and technical support useful • Is evaluation from multiple perspectives

20. What will work in the culture? • What is the campus culture? How is accessibility understood? • Do textbook adoption processes include accessibility of online or technology related components? Are VPAT’s collected and reviewed? • Is there anything you can point to that confirms your institutions commitment to ensuring accessibility of online engagement points?

21. Focusing in on Practice • How is the web presence cultivated – who authors, who approves, who reviews, who get’s trained and on what? What about contracted web design? • Is there guidance for the community regarding expectations, resources, technical assistance? If so, does it live with IT, with DS, with Compliance? • How are courses preparing students to enter the workforce with accessibility skills?

22. Building Institutional Capacity National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE) • Gaining Accessible Online Learning through Self-study (GOALS) Benchmarking Tool • PCC and OSU both use GOALS • We need to move forward because Accreditation will look at Accessibility

23. Resources • Portland Community College • www.pcc.edu/publishers language faculty can use • www.pcc.edu/access web access standards • Oregon State University • www.oregonstate.edu/accessibility comprehensive site • California State University • www.calstate.edu/accessibility templates to adapt