[Senate Hearing 112-890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-890
THE PROMISE OF ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY, FOCUSING ON CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-669 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARK KIRK, IIllinois
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Daniel E. Smith, Staff Director, Chief Counsel
Pamela J. Smith, Deputy Staff Director
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Page
Committee Members
Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Witness--Panel I
Hill, Eve, Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Witnesses--Panel II
Riccobono, Mark A., Executive Director, Jernigan Institute,
National Federation of the Blind, Baltimore, MD................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Quick, John B., Superintendent, Bartholomew Consolidated School
Corporation, Columbus, IN...................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Turner, Mark, M.A., Director, Center for Accessible Media,
Accessible Technology Initiative, California State University,
Long Beach, CA................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
(iii)
THE PROMISE OF ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin and Enzi.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
The Chairman. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee will come to order.
This session of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will consider the topic of The Promise of
Accessible Technology: Challenges and Opportunities. This is
one of a series of hearings we have been holding since March
2011 to explore a range of issues that can impact the
employment situation for Americans with disabilities with the
overall goal of boosting labor force participation for this
community.
Earlier hearings have focused on those with intellectual
disabilities, how higher education can promote employment for
people who are deaf and hard of hearing, transportation
accessibility, and State and private strategies for employment
of people with the most significant disabilities. This is also
the first of the series of hearings that we will be holding
this year on the use of education technology to improve student
achievement.
Innovations in technology are already transforming
instruction in some schools and have great potential for
personalizing the learning experience for all students. The
education technology hearings will examine topics such as
blended learning, professional development, and open
educational resources. Today's hearing focuses on education,
accessible technology, and universal design.
We know without a strong education, the goals of the
American Dream are difficult to attain for many Americans. In
our modern classrooms, technology is playing an increasingly
important role. For students who use technologies like screen
readers to access text, a modern classroom can accelerate
learning and level the playing field by allowing students to
access digital content through screen reader technology.
In a classroom that enables computer monitors on each desk,
students can change the size of print and the background colors
so they can see better what is on the screen. Those with
learning disabilities and those with visual impairments can use
audio books, and devices such as iPods can be set to aurally
scan listings of books, music, and lectures.
These are all examples of accessibility built into the
technology that we use every day. But for every example we can
find of accessible technology and curricula, there are other
examples that are not accessible or are only accessible through
modifications that can cost hundreds of dollars.
In December, the U.S. Department of Education's Commission
on Accessible Instructional Materials issued its report on
Accessible Materials in Post-Secondary Education. The
Commission, one of whose members is a witness today, stated,
``Individuals with disabilities must have equal
opportunity and discrimination-free access to full
participation and success in post-secondary
education.''
The Commission is correct. Access to curriculum and
instructional materials is a civil right, one that all students
should be able to enjoy equally. Although technological
advances make accessibility readily achievable in modern
classrooms, the level of accessibility continues to be uneven.
The Commission itself states that even,
``some digital materials that hold the most promise for
equal access are often partially or completely
inaccessible to students with disabilities.''
We will hear from one of our witnesses about one of these
digital resources that was inaccessible and how that barrier
was overcome.
If a portion of our students, any students, are
systematically excluded from accessing their curricula because
of inaccessible technology and because we have not designed
curricula in a manner that allows them equal access to
knowledge and skills, then we are systematically denying a
portion of our next generation an equal educational
opportunity. As you will hear from our witnesses today,
technology and education itself must be made accessible from
the beginning, not just as an afterthought.
And it is not enough for us to ensure that the technology
is accessible. We must then work to make the curricula we use
in schools accessible to all students, designing the curricula
from the ground up to be used by all students. This means
ensuring that the ideas that are part of the curriculum are
represented in multiple ways, through words, through graphics,
through sound, through motion and movement.
Technology and universal design can make learning more
effective and more engaging. Today's witnesses will help us
explore these issues.
We have two panels before us. We will begin with Eve Hill,
Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights at the Department of Justice. Our second panel is
composed of Mark Riccobono, executive director of the Jernigan
Institute of the National Federation for the Blind; Dr. John
Quick, superintendent of the Bartholomew Consolidated School
Corporation, a public school district in Columbus, IN; and Mr.
Mark Turner, director of the Center for Accessible Media at
California State University.
Before we begin, I want to welcome a very large number of
members of the National Federation of the Blind from around the
country. I see you all here. We welcome you to this hearing.
And, of course, if I might, as a matter of pride, welcome Marc
Maurer, your president. Where is Marc sitting? Right in front--
from Boone, IA. I was in Boone last Saturday night. It is still
there. Boone is still going strong.
Congratulations, Marc, on your being the president of this
great organization.
Now I will yield to Senator Enzi for his opening statement.
Opening Statement of Senator Enzi
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is not a single aspect of daily life that hasn't been
transformed or made easier through the use of technology. We
only need to walk down the halls of this building to see how
Blackberries and iPhones have made each of us more accessible
to our colleagues as well as to our constituents. For me,
personally, there is not a day that goes by that I do not use
my Kindle to keep track of the volumes of messages I receive
from the people of Wyoming and the memos my staff send.
Now, you may have some ideas for some technology that will
improve your life and many others. I do an Inventors'
Conference in Wyoming once a year to encourage people to invent
something and to get it to the stage where they can market it
and sell it. So if you've got one of those ideas, consider
doing that. It could be a whole new business as well as
solutions for a lot of people.
Now, in other professions and aspects of life, technology
has been even more transformative. Last Thursday, the committee
heard how technology is changing higher education, making it
cheaper and more accessible to thousands of students. We heard
how Virginia Tech is cutting costs by moving many of its
introductory math courses online. MIT and Stanford are putting
classes online for free, and Western Governors University is
providing low-cost, high-quality degree programs completely
online to thousands of nontraditional students. This is a
welcome and necessary development if America is going to remain
the world's economic leader.
For individuals with disabilities, technology has been a
godsend. It has created countless opportunities for the
disabled that were beyond anyone's imagination just 5 years
ago. We take for granted how many technologies developed to
assist individuals with disabilities have been adapted for use
by the general population. For example, closed caption TV and
films. Once it was only available through the use of a special
transformer. Now, every TV has the built-in capacity for closed
captioning. And you cannot go to a single gym facility where
the TVs do not have the captioning for the members.
Now, just as we have benefited from technology developed to
address specific disabilities, we must also take steps to
assure that no one is left out of this technological
revolution. We have seen how technology can create new barriers
as well, as well-intentioned efforts to improve education
through technology have simply turned out to be inaccessible to
those with disabilities. That is what we need to know about.
Now, this is certainly not intentional. Many manufacturers
in their excitement to get new products to market simply do not
anticipate the needs of the disability community. In other
cases, technology reaches the consumer only to be used in ways
never imagined. Fortunately, the schools and colleges that are
innovating through technology are beginning to work with
manufacturers to ensure their products are accessible by all
students regardless of disability.
Today we have on the panel two school systems that have
found creative ways to increase access through technology and
improve student outcomes. I look forward to hearing how they
have enhanced their student educational opportunities as well
as how they have been successfully working with manufacturers
to benefit all of their students.
Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize because we are having a
markup in the Finance Committee on how to fund highways and
bridges in this country, and figuring how to pay for it around
here is pretty tough. So I am going to have to leave after a
little while to do that.
Mr. Chairman. I understand that.
Mr. Enzi. But thank you for holding the hearing, and I will
get a complete report on all of the suggestions that we get.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi, and thank you for
your close working relationship on this. While we may have
differences on some things that come before this committee, I
can tell you this is one on which there is very close
bipartisan agreement on the use of technology and making sure
that technology is accessible and available and making sure
curricula, as I said earlier, is designed. This is all
intertwined.
So I want to thank you, Senator Enzi, and thank your staff
for a very close working relationship. I understand we do have
to build some new bridges and roads in this country. I
understand that full well.
We will start with our first panel. Ms. Eve Hill joins us
from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice,
where she serves as a Senior Counselor to the Assistant
Attorney General. Over the course of her career, Ms. Hill has
worked at the State and Federal level as well as private
nonprofit organizations to ensure that education and job
training meet the needs of people with disabilities.
She was the first director of the Office of Disability
Rights in Washington, DC. Ms. Hill was also the executive
director of the Disability Rights Legal Center of Los Angeles
and a supervisory attorney with the Department of Justice's
Disability Rights section.
Ms. Hill, welcome to the committee. Your statement will be
made a part of the record in its entirety. I had the privilege
of reading it last evening. It is very thorough, very
comprehensive. I wish we had the time for you to read the whole
thing. But if you could sum it up in several minutes, I'd sure
appreciate it.
Ms. Hill. I will do my best.
The Chairman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF EVE HILL, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Hill. Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, thank you
so much for having me here today. It is really an honor to
appear before you to discuss the promise of assistive
technology and the civil rights aspects of accessible
technology.
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, and we have a substantial role in
implementation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These
statutes require accessibility for persons with disabilities,
and providing accessible technology is an integral part of
these statutes' requirements.
In this fast-paced information age in which we live, this
is a fundamental issue of civil rights for millions of
Americans. But cutting-edge technological advances will leave
people with disabilities behind if they are not accessible. The
department's work is making significant difference in access to
technology for our citizens with disabilities. While my written
testimony covered a broad range of technology issues, I will
focus today on educational technology, specifically.
In education, the current transition from print materials
to digital materials creates an incredible opportunity for
people with print disabilities to finally use the same products
as their peers and to gain the same benefits as their peers who
do not have disabilities. The emergence of electronic book
readers holds great potential to place students with
disabilities on an equal footing with other students. But that
happy result will only occur if the e-book reader is equipped
with text-to-speech capabilities and if the electronic texts
themselves are coded with structural data and text descriptions
of images.
Students who are blind or have low vision have long used a
form of electronic text as an accommodation that enables them
to access their peers' materials. But this traditional system
for providing special electronic text disadvantages blind
students, because it can take considerable time for a college
or university to locate and convert text into a digital form.
Imagine as a student being unable to access the course
materials for your class for the first 4 months of the
semester. Some types of textbooks, such as high-level science,
technology, engineering, and math texts, have not even been
available in electronic format.
In early 2010, the Department of Justice reached settlement
agreements with six colleges. The agreements require that the
schools not purchase, require, or use in their curricula the
Amazon Kindle DX e-book reader or any other e-book reader that
is not accessible. The schools must ensure that a student who
is blind or has low vision can acquire the same information,
engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as
sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use.
In June 2010, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the
Department of Education wrote to college presidents jointly
throughout the country explaining that the requirement to use
inaccessible emerging technologies in their classrooms violates
the ADA. In May 2011, the Department of Education issued
Frequently Asked Questions making clear that the concepts from
the 2010 letter extended beyond e-book readers to all forms of
technology and extended to all operations of schools, including
elementary and secondary schools.
E-book readers are not the only technology coming into the
educational context. Other new technologies are also making
their way into classrooms. One example is the wireless student
response devices, known as clickers or i-clickers, that allow
professors to take attendance, ask questions or take polls, and
allow students to respond, sometimes even anonymously, by
pressing buttons on their clickers or making choices on their
clickers. However, if the clickers continue to rely on LCD
displays that are visual only, they will exclude students with
print disabilities from that form of participation in class.
Accessible technology also encompasses access to
information on Web sites, which is of critical importance to
education. Many colleges offer degree programs online. Some
schools exist only online. Most colleges today rely on the
Internet and other technologies for course assignments and
discussion groups and for a wide variety of administrative and
logistical functions.
As schools offer online document sharing, Web conferencing,
streaming video, social networks, and even virtual reality
programs, accessibility of those technologies to students with
disabilities becomes essential. The Department of Justice has
long taken the position that both State and local government
Web sites and the Web sites of private entities that are public
accommodations are covered by the ADA and are required to be
accessible. Therefore, both public and private colleges and
universities are required to make their online offerings
accessible.
On April 26, 2011, the Department of Justice announced two
settlement agreements involving the accessibility of the Law
School Admission Council's online application service, which is
used by law schools across the country to allow students to
apply for their colleges. Under these agreements, LSAC will
make its online Web site accessible by the fall of 2012, and
Atlanta's John Marshall Law School will modify its own Web site
to provide an accessible application process.
In addition, the Department has issued an Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on the accessibility of information and
services on the Web. The Department anticipates publishing
separate NPRMs addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to
Titles II and III of the ADA in calendar year 2012.
It is also important for individuals with disabilities to
have an equal opportunity to use electronic and information
technology, commonly referred to as EIT. And equipment that
uses electronic information and technology is becoming very
pervasive in our society, things like kiosks and point-of-sale
devices. Just in the educational context, kiosks are used for
information and way-finding, for class registration, and for
library services.
Unfortunately, many of these technologies have been
developed without accessibility in mind. Even though
accessibility features like talking kiosks are available, as a
result, persons who cannot see a touch screen must rely on
other people to enter information, including personal
identification numbers.
The department's 2010 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on equipment and furniture included accessibility of EIT
equipment. And EIT equipment will be the subject of an NPRM
that the department anticipates publishing in early fiscal year
2013.
We are at a critical juncture for people with disabilities
and educational technology. Technology may prove to be both the
catalyst and the conduit to full integration of people with
disabilities into society, which is what is envisioned by the
ADA, or it may serve as the ultimate barrier. Accessible
technologies will increase and are already increasing the
educational opportunities, employability, and the social and
civic participation of individuals with disabilities.
History tells us that inaction and silence will result in
business as usual, that is, technological innovations that do
not consider accessibility for people with disabilities. But we
can break that pattern. The department's work, along with that
of other agencies, advocates, and the work of this committee,
is making a difference in raising the profile of this important
civil rights issue.
The Department of Justice looks forward to continuing to
work toward a world where accessible technology is the norm and
not the exception in full compliance with both the letter and
the spirit of the ADA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eve Hill
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the promise of
accessible technology. The Civil Rights Division enforces the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (``ADA'') and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (``Section 504''), and we have a substantial
role in implementing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These
statutes ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities. Providing
accessible technology is an integral part of these statutes'
requirements, and in the fast-paced information age in which we live,
this has become a fundamental issue of civil rights for millions of
Americans.
We are at a critical juncture for people with disabilities and
technology. As we come to realize anew each day, the pace of
technological change is amazing; what appeared impossible just years or
even months ago is now commonplace. Advancing technology can open doors
for many people with disabilities and can provide the means for them to
move closer to the goal of full, equal, and truly integrated access to
American life. But cutting-edge technological advances will leave
people with disabilities behind if the entities that develop,
manufacture, and offer technology do not make their products and
services accessible.
As public servants entrusted with the welfare of our citizens, we
in the Federal Government must provide the leadership to make certain
that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from the virtual
world in the same way that they were historically excluded from ``brick
and mortar'' facilities. Emerging technology promises to open up
opportunities for people with disabilities throughout our society. But
a digital divide exists between individuals with and without
disabilities. If we are not careful, as technology becomes more
sophisticated the gap will grow wider, and people with disabilities
will have less access to our public life.
Congress passed the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., in 1990. The
statute is a comprehensive, broad-reaching mandate to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of disability in all areas of American
civic and economic life. The Department of Justice is responsible for
enforcement and implementation of Titles II and III of the ADA, which
cover State and local government entities and private businesses,
respectively. We also enforce Title I of the ADA, which prohibits
disability discrimination in employment, in cases involving State and
local government employees. The Department also enforces the statute on
which the ADA is based, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. 794, which prohibits discrimination in federally assisted and
federally conducted programs and activities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, other agencies that provide Federal funding or
that provide Federal programs are responsible for enforcement of
section 504 for the programs they fund or conduct. The Department of
Justice has also designated eight other agencies to share enforcement
authority under Title 2 of the ADA for programs closely related to the
types of programs they fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Congress enacted the ADA and section 504, the Internet and
electronic and information technologies as we know them today--the
ubiquitous sources of information, commerce, services, and activities--
did not exist. For that reason, although the ADA and section 504
guarantee the protection of the rights of individuals with disabilities
in a broad array of activities, neither law expressly mentions the
Internet or contains specific requirements regarding developing
technologies. When Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act in 1998, it
added what is now known as section 508. That provision specifically
requires Federal Government agencies to ensure that their electronic
and information technologies, including their Web sites, are accessible
to individuals with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. 794(d). Within the Civil
Rights Division, the Disability Rights section is responsible for
enforcement of the ADA and the coordination of enforcement of section
504 as these two civil rights statutes apply to the accessibility of
information technologies to individuals with disabilities.
Enforcement of these laws by the Department of Justice has resulted
in public entities, public accommodations, and some technology
developers and manufacturers taking new approaches to technology
accessibility. The Department's work--along with the important work of
the Department of Education--is making a significant difference in
education for our Nation's students with disabilities.
My testimony will also address the importance of Internet access
for people with disabilities in the education context and beyond, and
will discuss the Department of Justice's rulemaking activities on
accessibility of information on the Web, as well as rulemaking
activities of the Access Board, the Department of Transportation, and
the Federal Communications Commission. Finally, I will turn to a
discussion of how the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts are
helping to ensure that other types of technology enhancements continue
to improve the lives of people with disabilities across a full spectrum
of activities, as Congress intended in enacting the ADA over 20 years
ago.
i. accessible technology in education: challenges and opportunities
We are at a critical juncture for people with ``print
disabilities''--that is, people who experience barriers to accessing
print in nonspecialized formats because of a visual, physical,
perceptual, developmental, cognitive or learning disability.\2\ The
current transition from printed materials to digital materials creates
incredible opportunity for people with print disabilities to finally
use the same products as their peers who do not have disabilities. It
promises a truly revolutionary kind of change for students with
disabilities, allowing them to integrate fully with their non-
disabled peers in terms of access to materials and class participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Higher Education Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. 1140k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the transition to digital materials also creates real peril for
people with print disabilities. Technology is transforming education in
this country, and electronic book readers appear to be on the front
lines. Electronic book readers are typically lightweight, hand-held
devices with screens and operating controls. Texts in an electronic
form appear on the screens of these devices to simulate the experience
of reading a book. Experts say that e-book reader use is likely to
become interwoven at all levels and forms of education.\3\ These books
are now starting to feature interactive graphics, built-in videos, and
other aspects especially attractive to educators; Apple's new iPad
textbook features built-in quizzes, note cards, custom glossaries, and
thumbnail navigation. Inaccessible e-book readers, that, unlike the
iPad, cannot convert text to speech, either for operational controls or
content, will leave people who are blind or have print disabilities
far, far behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., Nelson, M., ``E-Books in Higher Education: Nearing
the End of the Era of Hype?'' 43 EDUCAUSE Review No. 2 (March/April
2008) (originally published by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
(ECAR): Mark R. Nelson, ``E-Books in Higher Education: Nearing the End
of the Era of Hype?'' ECAR Research Bulletin, vol..... 2008, issue 1
(January 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students who are blind or have low vision have long used a form of
electronic text as an accommodation that enables them to access the
course materials their classmates use. These electronic texts, which
are converted from standard print texts, are read on a computer, using
a screen reader or a refreshable Braille display. In order for these
electronic texts to be truly usable by someone who is blind or has low
vision, however, the texts must be coded with structural data so that
the assistive technology can properly identify where to begin reading
or where a sentence or paragraph begins and ends.
This traditional system for providing ``special'' electronic texts
disadvantages blind students as compared with sighted students, because
it can take considerable time for a university to locate texts from
publishers, and convert the text to a format usable by a screen reader
or similar assistive technology. As noted in the December 2011 report
of the Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in
Post-Secondary Education for Students with Disabilities (``AlM
Commission''), disability student services offices at colleges and
universities face a number of challenges and delays in obtaining
accessible materials.\4\ As a result, all too often course materials
are not available to blind students until well after classes have
begun.\5\ Imagine as a student being unable--on a routine basis--to
obtain your course materials for the first 4 months of the semester. As
an alternative to obtaining converted texts from the publisher,
universities may scan printed texts in order to provide them in
electronic form. But this method can result in a ``text dump,'' which
lacks structural data to ensure proper reading by assistive
technologies. Conversion errors, too, are common. So, the choice often
available to blind students has been to receive accurate materials
months into the semester or inaccurate materials in a more timely
manner. Some types of textbooks and class materials, such as high-level
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics texts, charts, and
diagrams, have not even been available in electronic format, forcing
blind students to ask their peers, sometimes at their own expense, to
recreate the materials in tactile or other forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AIM Commission Report at 77 (December 6, 2011), available at
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/aim-commission-releases-report-
disparities-postsecondary-learning-material-stude.
\5\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report GAO-10-33
Higher Education and Disability; Education Needs a Coordinated Approach
to improve Its Assistance to Schools in Supporting Students, at 21 and
22 (October 2009), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-33;
As the Disability Resource Center at Arizona State University informs
blind students in its handbook, for example ``Textbook/print conversion
is a time-intensive process, especially for technical subject matter,
and can require up to 4 months (e.g., mathematics, science, foreign
language texts) to complete.'' http://www.asu.edu/aad/manual s/ssm/
ssm701-07.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As schools increasingly use electronic texts for all students, the
inaccessibility of some electronic book readers has become an important
issue for people who are blind or have low vision. The development and
deployment of e-book readers that are inaccessible to persons with
disabilities runs counter to the core principles of the ADA: equal
opportunity and equal treatment.
As the AIM Commission report notes, access to textbooks and other
instructional materials has historically presented a great barrier to a
truly equal education for blind students and others with print
disabilities. Historically, the accessibility of new hardware in the
education context has been addressed as follows: a new innovation comes
out, but accessibility is not built in. Time passes, and accessibility
issues are raised. Advocates file complaints, generally under civil
rights laws and against educational institutions; and gradually some
minimal access is included, primarily through assistive technology.\6\
The delay in access resulting from this process, and the burden placed
on people with disabilities to have to fight to receive what typically
turns out to be minimal access, is not equal opportunity, is not equal
treatment, and is not the world that the ADA envisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 61-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic book readers and other educational technologies can be
accessible if they provide text-to-speech or ``read aloud'' capability
for menus, operational controls, and electronic text.\7\ Appropriate
coding would mean that the text, mathematical formulas, or even poetry
in which line lengths vary, would be read aloud coherently. In this
way, the user with the disability would gain access to all the
information on the printed page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ From the user perspective, an accessible electronic book reader
might speak each option on a menu aloud, as the cursor moves over it,
and then speak the selected choice aloud once made by the user. Special
key strokes might be programmed specifically for blind users. For
example, the user would press the alt-A key any time something related
to accessibility is needed, at which point a menu with additional
choices would come up, allowing the user to scroll over the menu as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Department of Justice Resolution of Complaints Against Universities
Deploying Amazon Kindle Electronic Book Readers
In June 2009, the Department of Justice and Department of Education
received several complaints from the National Federation of the Blind
(NFB), the American Council of the Blind (ACB), and a coalition of
disability rights groups collectively known as the Reading Rights
Coalition. Each of these complaints alleged that colleges or
universities were violating their obligations under the ADA and section
504 by deploying Amazon Kindle DX electronic book readers to students
in the classroom setting. Among other things, the complaints alleged
that the Amazon Kindle electronic readers did not have text-to-speech
capacity for their menu or navigational controls, which prevented blind
students from knowing which book they selected or how to access the
search, note taking, or bookmark functions of the devices.
The Department of Justice investigated each complaint and, on
January 13, 2010, the Department issued a press release announcing that
it had reached settlement agreements with Case Western Reserve
University, Reed College, and Pace University.\8\ The Department of
Justice, the NFB, and the ACB also jointly settled similar allegations
against Arizona State University in an agreement signed on January 11,
2010. On March 29, 2010, the Department entered into a settlement
agreement with Princeton University, and, on July 27, 2010, the
Department of Justice and the Department of Education jointly entered
into an agreement with the University of Virginia Darden School of
Business regarding its use of the Kindle DX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Agreement between United States and Case Western Reserve
University, Jan. 13, 2010; Agreement between United States and Pace
University, Jan. 13, 2010; Agreement between United States and Reed
College, Jan. 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These settlement agreements provide that the universities will not
purchase, require, or in any way incorporate into the curriculum the
Amazon Kindle DX or any other dedicated electronic book reader unless
it is accessible or they ensure that a student who is blind or has low
vision can acquire the same information, engage in the same
interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with
substantially equivalent ease of use.
The purpose behind these agreements is to make clear that requiring
use of an emerging technology in the classroom that is inaccessible to
an entire population of individuals with disabilities--individuals with
visual disabilities--is discrimination that is prohibited by the ADA
and section 504. The Department is currently investigating other claims
that schools and libraries are using inaccessible technology and
failing to provide accessible online materials.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department's settlements do not prohibit students from
buying e-book readers of their own choice for personal use or in
connection with classes. Nor do the agreements bind e-book
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Department of Education and Department of Justice Guidance on
Accessible Technology
In June 2010, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of
Justice's Civil Rights Division and the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights of the Department of Education jointly issued a ``Dear Colleague
Letter'' to college and university presidents throughout the country
regarding the use of electronic book readers and other technology in
higher education. The letter explained that requiring the use of
emerging technologies, such as electronic book readers, in the
classroom violates the ADA and section 504 if the educational benefits
provided by the technology are not made accessible to students with
disabilities in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
That is, an educational institution has the obligation to either
provide accessible technology in the first instance or, if the
technology is inaccessible, provide reasonable accommodations or
modifications that permit students with disabilities to acquire the
same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same
services with substantially equivalent ease of use. The letter
emphasized the need to ensure that students with disabilities are
afforded an equal opportunity to participate in, or benefit from,
college and university aids, benefits, and services, and it called on
the institutions to refrain from requiring the use of any electronic
book reader, or other similar technology, in a teaching or classroom
environment as long as the device remains inaccessible to individuals
who are blind or have low vision. The letter also provided information
and resources to assist colleges and universities to achieve compliance
with Federal law on this issue.
The Department of Education clarified this guidance in May 2011,
when it issued a document entitled ``Frequently Asked Questions About
the June 29, 2010 Dear Colleague Letter.'' The FAQ made clear that the
concepts explained in the 2010 letter extended to forms of emerging
technology beyond electronic book readers and applied to all operations
of schools, including elementary and secondary schools, covered by the
ADA and section 504. The FAQ was sent to elementary and secondary
schools, as well as colleges and universities.
The emergence of dedicated electronic book readers holds great
potential to place students with disabilities on equal footing with
other students. The accessibility of electronic text readers stands to
improve dramatically the experience of students with visual
disabilities. The instantaneous downloading of texts is obviously a
``night and day'' difference for blind students who are used to waiting
for their materials until well into the semester or receiving inferior
materials that are difficult to follow.
Moreover, if accessible electronic book readers are used in the
classrooms of the future, students with and without disabilities will
be able to use the same devices, albeit in different ways, resulting in
an integrated experience for students with disabilities who will not
have to rely on separate accommodations to gain access to course
materials. Such integration is the core goal of the ADA and section
504. But that happy result will occur only if the electronic book
reader is equipped with text-to-speech capabilities, so that it may
read the electronic text aloud, and if the electronic texts are coded
with structural data and text descriptions of images.
Other new technologies are also making their way into classrooms.
For example, wireless student response devices, known as ``clickers,''
are being assigned to students. The clickers allow professors to take
attendance, pose questions, and get feedback from individual students
or from the class as a whole, including anonymously. Students respond
to questions and participate in class by choosing answers on their
clickers. However, if the clickers continue to rely on visual LCD
displays, they will exclude students with print disabilities from
participating equally in class.
As the AIM Commission report notes, one way to ensure access for
people with disabilities in compliance with Federal laws prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of disability is to encourage publishers,
developers, and manufacturers to develop mainstream educational
products that are accessible to the maximum extent possible, allowing
students with and without disabilities to obtain the same materials at
the same time and at the same price.\10\ It is up to the market--
elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, libraries,
government agencies, and public accommodations, who are covered by the
ADA, to ask about, and insist on, accessible technology from their
suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ AIM Commission Report at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is an example of this
``market model.'' Section 508 requires Federal Government agencies to
ensure that all electronic and information technology they develop,
procure, maintain, or use is accessible. Because the Federal Government
is a large market for technology, its insistence on accessibility of
its electronic and information technology can be expected to trickle
down to products and services for general markets. In addition, since
the enactment of section 508, at least 20 States have adopted their own
versions of section 508, requiring State agencies to buy accessible
technologies.
In 2011, the Department of Justice conducted a survey of Federal
agencies regarding their compliance with section 508 and expects to
issue a report on Federal Government implementation. In addition, in
2011, on the anniversary of the ADA, the President announced that the
Administration will develop a comprehensive strategic plan to improve
compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
ii. web site accessibility: challenges and opportunities
I have devoted significant time to discussing the importance of
accessible technology equipment in education. But accessible technology
also encompasses access to information on Web sites and more generally
on the Internet, which is also of critical importance in education.
Schools at all levels are increasingly offering programs and classroom
instruction through the Internet. Many colleges and universities offer
degree programs online; some universities exist exclusively on the
Internet. Even if they do not offer degree programs online, most
colleges and universities today rely on the Internet and other
electronic and information technologies in course assignments and
discussion groups, and for a wide variety of administrative and
logistical functions in which students and staff must participate. As
schools offer online applications and course management, interactive
online exercises and exams, document sharing, Web conferencing,
streaming video, social networks, and even virtual-reality programs,
accessibility of those technologies to students with disabilities
becomes essential.
On April 26, 2011, the Department of Justice announced its
participation in two related settlement agreements involving the
accessibility of the Law School Admission Council's (LSAC) online
application service, which is used by law schools nationwide for their
application processes. The Department of Justice determined that LSAC's
online application service was not accessible to persons with vision
disabilities. Moreover, the Department found that applying through the
LSAC Web site offers several convenient features to applicants,
including the bundling of applications into the required LSAC
Credential Assembly Service, which eliminates the need to obtain
multiple transcripts, letters of recommendation, and evaluations for
applicants to more than one school.
Under the first settlement agreement, which resolved a lawsuit
filed against LSAC by NFB and to which the Department was a signatory.
LSAC is required to ensure that is online application Web site is fully
accessible to individuals who use screen readers by the fall 2012
application cycle. The second settlement agreement, which was between
the Department and Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, requires the law
school to modify its own Web site to notify potential applicants with
vision disabilities of a process they may use to apply to the law
school until LSAC's online application process is made fully
accessible. The law school also committed to stop using LSAC's online
application process if it is not fully accessible by the fall 2012
application cycle under the terms reached in the first agreement.
Of course, limited access to information on the Internet does not
just affect education. As more and more of our social and economic
infrastructure is made available on the Internet--in some cases,
exclusively online--access to information and electronic technologies
is increasingly becoming the gateway civil rights issue for individuals
with disabilities. Information technologies play a significant and
ever-
expanding role in everyday life in America. Electronic and information
technologies are swiftly becoming a primary conduit to employment.
Employment, recruiting, and hiring systems are often Web-based. In many
cases, the only way to apply for a job or to sign up for an interview
is on the Internet. Job applicants research employment opportunities
online, and they use the Internet to most efficiently learn about
potential employers' needs and policies.
The Internet has also become a doorway to the full range of
activities, goods, and services that are available offline.
Constituents of State and local government use the Internet to file tax
forms, renew driver's licenses and library books, and to correspond
with elected officials. Increasingly, businesses--even those with
substantial physical sales facilities--use Web sites to sell goods and
services to their customers. E-commerce is a rapidly expanding segment
of the American economy. Ensuring nondiscriminatory access to the goods
and services offered through the Internet is, therefore, essential to
full societal participation by individuals with disabilities.
For many individuals with disabilities who are limited in their
ability to travel outside their home, the Internet is one of the few
available means of access to the goods and services in our society. The
broad mandate of the ADA to provide an equal opportunity for
individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all
aspects of American civic and economic life will be served in today's
technologically advanced society only if it is clear to businesses,
employers, and educators, among others, that their Web sites must be
accessible.
Millions of people have disabilities that affect their use of the
Web--including people with visual, auditory, physical, speech,
cognitive, and neurological disabilities. People who have difficulty
using a computer mouse because of mobility impairments, for example,
may use an assistive technology that allows them to control software
with verbal commands. But Web sites and other technologies are not
always compatible with those assistive technologies. Captioning of
streaming videos and Web conferences may also be necessary in order to
make them accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
And individuals with memory loss or cognitive impairments may be
affected by complex Web sites. People who are blind or have low vision
are often the most affected by inaccessible information and electronic
technology.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Many individuals with visual impairments use an assistive
technology known as a screen reader that enables them to access the
information on computers or Internet sites. Screen readers read text
aloud as it appears on the computer screen. Individuals who are blind
may also use refreshable Braille displays, which convert the text of
Web sites to Braille. Sometimes, those individuals will use keyboards
in lieu of a mouse to move up and down on a screen or sort through a
list and select an item. The most common barriers on Web sites are
posed by images or photographs that do not provide identifying text. A
screen reader or similar assistive technology cannot ``read'' an image.
When images appear on Web sites without identifying text, therefore,
there is no way for the individual who is blind or who has low vision
to know what is on the screen. The simple addition of a tag or other
description of the image or picture will keep an individual using a
screen reader oriented and allow him or her to gain access to the
information the image depicts. Similarly, complex Web sites often lack
navigational headings or links that would make them easy to navigate
using a screen reader. Web designers can easily add those headings.
They may also add cues to ensure the proper functioning of keyboard
commands: They can also set up their programs to respond to voice
interface technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that people with disabilities have a full and equal
opportunity to access the benefits of emerging technologies is an
essential part of our disability rights enforcement at the Department
of Justice. Because the Internet was not in general public use when the
ADA was enacted, nor when the then-Attorney General promulgated
regulations to implement it in 1991, neither the statute nor the
regulations expressly mention the Internet. But the statute and
regulations create general rules designed to guarantee people with
disabilities equal access to all of the important areas of American
civic and economic life. And the Department made clear, in the preamble
to the original 1992 ADA regulations, that the regulations should be
interpreted to keep pace with developing technologies. 28 CFR pt. 36,
App. B.
The Department of Justice has long taken the position that both
State and local government Web sites and the Web sites of private
entities that are public accommodations are covered by the ADA. In
other words, the Web sites of entities covered by both title II and
title III of the statute are required by law to ensure that their sites
are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department
of Justice has affirmed the application of these statutes to government
Internet sites in a technical assistance publication, Accessibility of
State and Local Government Web Sites to People with Disabilities
(http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/websites2.htm), and in numerous
agreements with State and local governments and recipients of Federal
financial assistance. Our technical assistance publication also
provides guidance with simple steps to ensure that government Web sites
have accessible features for individuals with disabilities.\12\
Further, the Department has included Web site accessibility
requirements in a number of settlement agreements, such as its
agreements with Wells Fargo, QuikTrip, and Hilton Hotels Worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ There are several sets of standards describing how to make Web
sites accessible to individuals with disabilities. Government standards
for Web site accessibility were developed pursuant to section 508. The
U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(``Access Board'') is updating the section 508 Standards, as well as
the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines. The Access Board
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on December 8, 2011 and
is currently accepting comments. Many entities elect to use the
standards that were developed and are maintained by the Web
Accessibility Initiative, a subgroup of the World Wide Web Consortium
(``W3C7'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also recently became involved in a case involving
access to Web-streamed content. In October 2011, the Department filed a
Statement of Interest opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss in
National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (D. Mass.). NAD is a
private title III action challenging Netflix's failure to provide
captioning for many of its ``Watch Instantly'' Internet-based streamed
videos, as well as to ensure equal access to other Netflix member
services (such as Netflix ``recommendations'' and genre-sorted movie
listings). The Department took the position that Title III of the ADA
applies to Netflix's ``Watch Instantly'' videos and that the court had
subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim.
In addition, the Department has issued an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPRM'') on the accessibility of information and
services on the Web, and has solicited public comment from the broad
range of parties interested in this issue. The pubIic comment period
closed on January 24, 2011.
The Department received approximately 440 public comments and is
reviewing them. The Department anticipates publishing separate NPRMs
addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to Titles II and III of the
ADA in calendar year 2012.
iii. using technology to fulfill the promise of the ada: technology-
based solutions in doj enforcement and regulatory actions
Of course, technology has long played an important role in
advancing equal opportunity for people with disabilities, and the
Department of Justice investigates, litigates, and resolves cases
across the spectrum of disability that rely on technological solutions.
a. Technology and Testing Accommodations
Assistive technology is of particular importance for individuals
with disabilities seeking to take examinations required for admission
to secondary or post-secondary school and for professional
certification. Under the ADA, these examinations must be administered
in a manner that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. To
ensure accessibility, entities offering these examinations are required
to provide testing accommodations \13\ so as to ``best ensure'' that
the examination measures an individual with a disability's aptitude and
achievement rather than the individual's disability. In many cases,
technology is the key to ensuring accessibility. For example, a high
school student with hypotonia that results in illegible handwriting may
need a testing accommodation on the essay composition portion of a
college entrance exam to allow him to draft an essay using a computer
instead of having to write out his essay by hand. Some testing entities
are reluctant to provide access to technology-based testing
accommodations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term '``testing accommodations'' used throughout this
document encompasses both those ``modifications'' and ``auxiliary
aids'' required by 28 CFR 36.309(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Technology and Access to Events (Ticket Sales)
Over the past 20 years, some public and private venues, ticket
sellers, and distributors have not provided the same opportunity to
purchase tickets for wheelchair-accessible seats and non-accessible
seats. The general public has been able to directly and immediately
purchase tickets for non-accessible seats, whether through a venue's
Internet site or its box office, or through a third-party internet-
based vendor. However, these direct-purchase options have sometimes
been unavailable to individuals who use wheelchairs because
transactions frequently could not be completed. Instead, the purchaser
was directed to send an e-mail or to call a separate telephone number
to request tickets and wait for a response. As of March 15, 2011,
revised regulations issued by the Department require venues that sell
tickets for assigned seats to implement policies to sell tickets for
accessible seats in the same manner and under the same conditions as
all other ticket sales. Specifically, tickets for accessible seats must
be sold during the same hours; through the same methods of purchase (by
telephone, onsite, through a Web site, or through third-party vendors);
and during the same stages of sales (pre-sales, promotions, general
sales, wait lists, or lotteries) as non-accessible seats.
c. Technology and Access to Transportation
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is also working to update
its regulations to reflect the growing use of the Internet and
electronic and information technology to access goods, services, and
information. In September 2011, DOT published a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) that addresses the accessibility of air
carrier Web sites and automated airport kiosks to ensure that travelers
with disabilities can independently access the convenience and cost
savings of booking the best airfares and check-in options (both online
and through self-service kiosks) that travelers without disabilities
widely enjoy. The public comment period recently closed and DOT is
reviewing those comments and preparing for the next stage in its
rulemaking.
d. Accessibility Issues in Electronic and Information Technology
Equipment
The Department's experience in the 21 years since the ADA was
enacted has given it a better understanding of the barriers posed by
inaccessible electronic and information technology (EIT) equipment and
the solutions provided by accessible EIT equipment. Accessible EIT
equipment is often critical to an entity's ability to provide a person
with a disability equal access to its goods and services. The
Department believes that it is important for individuals with
disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use EIT equipment, such as
kiosks, interactive transaction machines (ITMs), point-of-sale (POS)
devices, and automated teller machines (ATMs). Individuals with
disabilities who engage in financial or other transactions should be
able to do so independently and not have to provide third parties with
private information, such as a personal identification number (PIN).
Among the available equipment that uses EIT are kiosks, which
provide a wide range of services, including information sharing,
ticketing, hospital check-in, prescription dispensing, Internet access,
vehicle registration, library services, movie ticket sales and DVD
rentals, security screening, building permits, bill paying, and photo
developing. POS devices, such as credit card payment terminals, retail
store self-checkout stations, machines used for ordering food at quick
service restaurants, and gas station pay-at-the-pump systems continue
to grow and offer more services for both businesses and government
entities.
Unfortunately, many of these emerging technologies have been
developed without accessibility in mind, even though accessibility
features like ``talking'' kiosks are available. Often, with the advent
of touch-screen technology, customers are required to enter data using
a flat screen while reading changing visual information and
instructions. Persons who cannot see the flat screen must rely on other
people to enter their information, including their personal
identification numbers (PINs). At least one State (California) already
requires all check-out locations with a flat screen POS device to have
a permanently attached tactile keypad that is usable by individuals
with vision disabilities.
The Department's 1991 ADA Accessible Design Standards contained
requirements for physical accessibility for fixed (built-in) ATMs and
also required that ``[i]nstructions and all information for use shall
be made accessible to and independently usable by persons with vision
impairments.'' The recently revised 2010 Standards for Accessible
Design provide more specific requirements for the accessible design of
fixed ATMs and fare machines, but do not address non-fixed ATMs and
fare machines and do not address other fixed and non-fixed EIT
equipment, such as ITMs. In March 2010, the Access Board published an
ANPRM seeking public comment on its plans to amend the 2004 ADA/ABA
Accessibility Guidelines to include technical guidelines for self-
service transaction machines used for ticketing, check-in or check-out,
seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants and
cafeterias. In the ANPRM, the Access Board noted the proliferation of
inaccessible POS machines, kiosks, and other self-service machines and
referenced ADA litigation against various public accommodations over
the past 10 years that has resulted in numerous settlement agreements
and structured negotiations requiring the installation of tactile POS
devices.\14\ DOT's recent SNPRM also addresses the accessibility of
automated kiosks at airports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Any final ADA Guidelines adopted by the Access Board will
still have to be adopted by the Department of Justice in order to
become enforceable standards under the ADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its 2010 ANPRM on equipment and furniture, the Department
focused on, among other issues, the accessibility of fixed and non-
fixed EIT equipment. While some types of fixed equipment and furniture
are explicitly covered by the 1991 and 2010 Standards, in its ANPRM,
the Department emphasizes that whether a type of EIT equipment is fixed
or not is generally not relevant from the perspective of the user. For
example, an ATM or vending machine that is fixed is used for the same
purpose and in the same manner as an equivalent ATM or vending machine
that is not fixed. To the extent that ADA standards apply requirements
for fixed equipment, the Department will look to those standards for
guidance on accessibility standards for equipment that is not fixed.
In the ANPRM on equipment and furniture, the Department posed
questions and sought public comments about the nature of accessibility
issues and proposed solutions for making equipment and furniture, such
as EIT equipment, accessible to persons with disabilities. The
Department received more than 400 comments in response to its ANPRM and
is reviewing these comments. Most of the categories of this ANPRM,
including EIT equipment, will be the subject of an NPRM that the
Department anticipates publishing in early fiscal year 2013. As we move
forward, we will continue to collaborate with the Access Board and DOT
to ensure consistency in our approaches to regulating EIT equipment
within our respective jurisdictions.
e. 2151 Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act
In addition to the efforts by DOT, the Access Board, and the
department on technology accessibility, the FCC is working to implement
the provisions of the 21st Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, 47 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (``CVAA''). Among
other items, the CVAA addresses accessibility of communication
equipment with respect to hearing aid compatibility, internet-based
services and equipment, television and other video-programming devices,
and closed captioning decoders and video description capability. For
example, under the CVAA smart phones will be required to be usable by
blind and visually impaired people, as well as people with hearing
aids. The law aims to ensure that people with disabilities are not left
behind as technology changes and the United States migrates to the next
generation of internet-based and digital communication technologies. On
August 25, 2011, the FCC released a report and order, pursuant to the
CVAA, that will make television programming more accessible to children
and adults who are blind or have a vision impairment. The new rules
require each of the affiliates of the top four broadcast networks
located in the top 25 television markets and each of the top five non-
broadcast networks to provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of video-
described children's and/or prime time television programming. On
October 7, 2011, the FCC issued a report and order implementing the
advanced communications accessibility provisions of the CVAA and
released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on certain provisions.
On January 12, 2012, the FCC adopted its final report and order that
sets out the obligations and schedule for requiring programming shown
on television with closed captions to be closed captioned when
distributed using Internet protocol.
f. Next Generation 9-1-1
In the past decade there have been major changes in the types of
communications technology used by the general public and by people with
disabilities. Among the devices now commonly used by individuals with
hearing or speech disabilities are both wired and mobile videophones,
text messaging, wireless devices (including smart phones), as well as
computers (including Web cams) and captioned telephones. Many
individuals with disabilities now use the Internet and wireless text
devices as their primary modes of telecommunications.
The original 9-1-1 system is based on traditional analog voice
telephone technology, which cannot process text, data, images, and
video sent from handheld devices and computers (e.g., personal digital
assistant [PDA], cellular phone, portable media player, video phone, or
camera). Most Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) or emergency 9-1-1
call-taking centers are not yet equipped to directly receive video
calls, photos or videos sent from mobile devices such as smartphones
and cell phones, or text messages (except for text transmitted by a
TTY). As a result, individuals with hearing or speech disabilities who
have to call 9-1-1 using their Internet protocol (IP)-based videophone
or a non-TTY text device must call through a Telecommunications Relay
Services (TRS). TRS uses a relay operator called a communications
assistant (CA) who relays the call between the caller using text or
video and the PSAP. In most IP-based video or text-relay services, the
CA receives the call from the person originating the call, places the
call to the PSAP, and then relays the conversation between the caller
and the PSAP. This process can result in harmful delays in reporting
emergencies or in requesting emergency assistance for individuals with
disabilities.
To address changing technology, State and local governments are
working to improve their 9-1-1 emergency communications systems and are
moving toward an IP-enabled network. The ultimate goal is to have an
emergency network that will enable the general public to make a 9-1-1
call via voice, text, or video from wired and wireless devices and
directly communicate with personnel at the PSAP.\15\ Migration to IP-
enabled 9-1-1 systems in general represents the critical path for
meeting the needs of people with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The FCC has recently undertaken a number of broadband
initiatives. One initiative seeks to improve the Nation's current 9-1-1
system by establishing the foundation for the transmission of voice,
data, or video to PSAPs during emergency calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's current title II regulation requires that PSAPs
provide direct access to individuals with disabilities who use TTYs.
Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities now rely on IP-
based and digital wireless devices, rather than analog-based ITYs, as
their primary modes of telecommunications, and that 9-1-1 call-taking
centers are shifting from existing traditional telephone emergency
services to new IP-enabled Next Generation (``NG'') 9-1-1 services, the
Department published an ANPRM in 2010 to begin to develop appropriate
regulatory guidance for PSAPs that are making this transition. The
Department is completing its review of the approximately 146 public
comments it received in response to its NG 9-1-1 ANPRM and expects to
publish an NPRM addressing accessibility of NG 9-1-1 in fiscal year
2012.
g. Movie Captioning and Video Description
Evolving technologies in movie production, including the increasing
movement to digital cinema, as well as the development of systems that
deliver digital audio description and display captions only to the
person who needs it, are making going to the movies an accessible
experience for people with a hearing or vision disability. Therefore,
the Department issued an ANPRM in July 2010 on the issue of ADA
requirements for movie captioning and audio description. The Department
received approximately 1,171 public comments in response to its movie
captioning and audio description ANPRM. The Department is in the
process of completing its review of these comments and expects to
publish an NPRM addressing captioning and video description in movie
theaters in fiscal year 2012.
iv. conclusion
As I stated at the outset, we are at a critical juncture for people
with disabilities and technology. Technology may prove to be both the
catalyst and the conduit to full integration of people with
disabilities into society as envisioned by the ADA--or it may serve as
the ultimate barrier. As the population ages, more and more Americans
will need access to emerging technologies to continue working and to
access the healthcare system. Advances in the availability of
accessible technologies will increase--and are already increasing--the
educational opportunities, employability, and social and civic
participation of individuals with disabilities.
History tells us that inaction and silence will result in business
as usual; that is, technological innovations that do not consider
accessibility for people with disabilities. But we can break the
pattern. The Department's work--along with that of the Department of
Education, the Department of Transportation, the Access Board and the
Federal Communications Commission, and the work of this committee--is
making a difference in raising the profile of this important issue. The
Department of Justice looks forward to continuing to work toward a
world where accessible technology is the norm, and not the exception,
in full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the ADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Pursuant to the CVAA the FCC created the Emergency Access
Advisory Committee (EAAC) to determine the most effective and efficient
technologies to enable access to NG 9-1-1 emergency services by
individuals with disabilities and to make recommendations to the FCC as
a part of the migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network. A
representative of the Department serves as a Federal member of this
committee. The committee issued its first report on July 21, 2011. On
December 7, 2011, the EAAC issued technical and policy recommendations
to the FCC that aim to ensure that individuals with disabilities can
access current and future emergency communications services. Further,
to assist in this effort, DOT and the Commerce Department provided more
than $40 million in grants to help 9-1-1 call centers nationwide
implement next-generation 9-1-1 technologies. See http:// www.911.gov/
pdf/911-Grant_
Program_Final_Reg.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to answering any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hill, for a great
statement, and thanks for a wonderful written statement, which
I said I read last night.
Again, thank you. You covered a wide variety of things in
your written statement. I noted that the Department of Justice
and the Department of Education issued a letter in June 2010,
as you mentioned, to college and university presidents
regarding the use of electronic book readers and other
technology in higher education and the need to ensure
accessibility under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act.
I saw that the Department of Education issued a similar
guidance to elementary and secondary schools in May 2011. You
kind of mentioned those, also. What kind of feedback have you
gotten on that? That is what I'd like to explore with you. What
kind of feedback have you gotten on these guidance documents?
Do you think colleges and universities and elementary and
secondary schools are taking the issue seriously and are really
addressing it?
Ms. Hill. I think it is a mix in terms of how schools are
addressing it and to what extent they are addressing it. Some
States and some schools have come up with guidance or
regulations for either e-book technology, educational
technology, or any government technology. Some schools have
come up with procedures or standard contract language requiring
accessibility, which really asks the question in each case
about the accessibility of the product or service being
purchased.
Some developers and providers of educational technology
have paid attention to what this has said about the
availability of that educational market and have incorporated
accessibility as, of course, part of what they provide. Some
publishers of electronic books have incorporated accessibility
as central parts of what they provide.
But the level of commitment and the level of understanding
varies. So some schools appear to assume that what they are
buying is accessible without asking the question or without
checking it themselves. Some entities developing technology for
the general market do not think accessibility matters. And we
do periodically hear the argument that students without
disabilities should not have to wait while the technology is
made accessible, and I think that one, in particular,
misunderstands what needs to happen for accessibility to
happen.
It is like if you build a school, a physical school, and
you build it inaccessibly, well, yes, then it takes time to
remediate and is a delay. Should the student with a disability
take the punishment for that? I am not sure. But if you build
the school correctly, it does not add time. Similarly, with
technology, if it is built in from the beginning, it does not
add delay, and nobody has to wait for it.
I think some companies that have really incorporated
accessibility routinely, like Apple, have demonstrated that it
does not cause a delay. I do not think anyone could say that
this has slowed down the innovation of these companies.
The Chairman. No, I think they are coming out with their
iPads--now the iPad 2. I am sure iPad 3 will be pretty soon and
iPad 4. But I think you touch on another point I want to
explore with you, and that is this idea that we tend to focus
on the technology and making it accessible. But then you have
to have the curricula, and that needs to be designed from the
very beginning.
The one thing that we are concerned with and we look at a
lot, not only in this committee but other committees--and that
is that sometimes the technology is developed without the
thought about the curricula. A lot of times, the curricula is
developed without the thought of how it interfaces with
technology. How do we bring those two together?
Ms. Hill. I think that is really on the teachers and
technologists to work together. We know what we want to teach.
We should assume that people of all types, people with and
without disabilities, people with different English
proficiencies and different language capabilities, people who
learn in different ways, are all going to be part of our
classrooms. And if we started to assume that and to build our
curricula in ways that responded to that, I think a lot of that
question would be answered.
The Chairman. OK. I understand that. It seems to me,
though, the Federal Government, as you note, is a big purchaser
of technology and technology that incorporates instructional
materials. Under section 508, it must ensure that the
technology it purchases is accessible to Federal employees and
the public. You noted that President Obama last year called for
the administration to develop a strategic plan to improve
compliance with section 508's requirements.
Do you have any more you can tell us about that? Who's
going to be involved in developing this strategic plan? I hope
and assume that you are reaching out to a broad disability
community out there to get their input and their suggestions
and advice as to what is needed. But are we also looking at not
just that the technology it purchases is accessible, but the
material that is in the technology, the curricula, the
instructional materials, is also developed so that people with
disabilities can access it?
Ms. Hill. I do know about the plan to create a national
strategic plan for the implementation of section 508. But that
effort is not being led by the department, so I cannot speak
further to it. What we are working on is a report on section
508 implementation governmentwide. And in the spring of last
year, we conducted a really extensive survey of government
agencies and how they are implementing and to what extent they
are implementing their 508 obligations, and we expect to have a
report out about that this year.
The Chairman. Who's leading that effort?
Ms. Hill. The Civil Rights Division at the Justice
Department. You mean, about the national plan?
The Chairman. Yes. Right.
Ms. Hill. I believe that is being led by a group of
agencies that are involved in accessibility--in technology
accessibility. But we can certainly get you more information on
who is leading that.
The Chairman. Yes. We need to find out who's in charge of
that. I would like to know myself. We are trying to find that
out. If you could help us, I would appreciate that.
Do you have more you could elaborate on about that recent
Kindle case? It was very interesting. I want to know what does
it mean for students with disabilities in higher education, if
there's any more you want to add on that Kindle case.
Ms. Hill. It really is a focus that says think about
accessibility from the beginning. Think about accessibility
when you are choosing to buy new products and ask every time
you choose to buy a new product whether it is accessible. This
will allow the educational institutions to be the market that
they really are and to exercise the market power that they
really have, as well as allowing them to serve their clients,
their students, without having to think of a work-around or
make up something at the last minute or give something that
does not work as well to the student with a disability.
I think that up front thought is really essential, and it
is really the way that they avoid placing themselves in an ADA
violation situation by making sure from the front that the
person that created that, that developed that technology,
developed it accessibly and gave it to them accessibly.
The Chairman. You mentioned something else that, quite
frankly, Senator Enzi in his statement alluded to, and that is
that many times, things that we thought were designed to
respond to a situation in a disability environment has broader
applications. Senator Enzi mentioned closed captioning. As the
author of that bill in 1993, it was--let's face it--our focus
was simply on making it easier for people who had hearing
problems, deaf, hard of hearing. We also morphed into English
language learners after the bill passed, and we started moving
into closed captioning.
We mandated, that every television set in America, sold in
America, that had a size 13-inch screen or bigger had to have
the decoding chip built into it. It was a mandate, one of those
awful Federal mandates. And, oh, I remember the hearings. I
chaired them. And we had the television people in and
everything and representing--manufacturers were there--that the
cost was going to be prohibitive. It was going to cost a couple
of hundred dollars more a set for TV for the consumer to
purchase out there.
So I contacted one of my friends in the chip business, and
I wanted to find out if this was true or not. How much more
would it cost? And he said,
``Yes, if you are only going to make 10 or 20 of
them, it will cost you several hundred dollars per set.
But if you are going to make zillions of them, it
probably is not going to cost too much.''
Today, the price of a television set--they do not even
factor in the price of the chip. It is free. That is not even a
factor of the cost anymore. So sometimes you have to take the
long view. But my point, I think, that I wanted to make is that
we found that after the bill passed and after sets started
getting the chip built into it, we found that its uses
broadened out.
And as I said, it was being used for English learners.
Sesame Street started being in Spanish and English, and words
were in Spanish, spoken in English, vice versa, so kids were
learning. And sports bars--need I mention sports bars?
It may be a little secret. I am sure it is not much of a
secret. I mean, you can go in any Senator's office here--I will
bet every Congressman's office, too, and they've got their TV
set on, and it is on the Senate floor or on the House floor.
The mute button is on, and the closed captions go across the
bottom, because we want to keep up on what is going on, but we
do not want all that noise. A lot of what is said probably is
not very useful, anyway, but you want to catch those little
gems once in a while that come across the screen. We never
thought of it being used that way before.
So, my point is that a lot of times, when technology is
accessible for users with disabilities, it becomes better for
people without disabilities. We've found that time and time
again. Is that your experience, too?
Ms. Hill. It certainly is. Imagine ramps for all of us who
travel with roller bags or have strollers.
The Chairman. Oh, of course.
Ms. Hill. Ramps are fantastic.
The Chairman. I know.
Ms. Hill. Not just for wheelchairs anymore.
The Chairman. That is true.
Ms. Hill. But, yes, in the technology field, the ability to
have flexibility of how you present the information, in
writing, orally, and the two together, so you can track what
the word sounds like and what it looks like, can be
transformative for people who learn differently. Whether you
have a disability or not, if you take in information orally
better than you take it in through the printed word, you need
that in order to get the information.
English language learners, similarly, can learn the
language better if you can follow both the printed and the oral
version. People with learning disabilities can do the same. And
think about how for some of us, or many of us, I think, hearing
something and seeing it reinforces the information, and you are
able to remember it and understand it better in that way. That
flexibility alone makes it much more than just something for
blind people or just something for people with disabilities.
But think about also the ability to make the font bigger,
the ability to hear the book, now that I am not able to see the
tiny font. As I age, personally, I find those to be very
valuable, and I think more and more people are going to find
those to be very valuable outcomes from accessible technology.
And then to think about--I know that hardly--that none of
us here do this, but that texting while driving thing that I
hear is a problem--if your text could be read aloud to you, we
might have much less accidents of that kind, less of the
texting while walking that leads to trip and fall accidents.
The Chairman. Right.
Ms. Hill. So it has a much broader impact than just people
with disabilities.
The Chairman. I can tell you as one of the early users of
Dragon Speak how they have developed that over the last few
years. And it is amazing now, how they can take the verbal
words and put it in written form. I've always wondered how
come--for example, if I call my bank or something like that
about something, I have to go through a whole series of voice
actuated things until I get to the right person or robot or
whoever it is I am talking to. Why cannot they do that in ATM
machines? That is just another point, you know.
Ms. Hill. They can.
The Chairman. Of course, they can do that in ATM machines.
Anyway, a friend of mine who's blind says they could make them
talking. You could go in there and say, ``Here's what I want,''
push these buttons with Braille, count your bills, how many
you've got--here's the twenties, here's the fives. It can be
done, and it is----
Ms. Hill. It can be done.
The Chairman [continuing]. Very simple technology, but,
again, if it is done from the beginning, you see. It works for
everyone that way. The point, I think, is so salient, and that
is to have universal design from the beginning, and it is
better for everyone.
You mentioned the Law School Admission Council's case, and
that is going to be done by this fall. Right?
Ms. Hill. Yes.
The Chairman. They are going to make that accessible by
this fall.
Ms. Hill. The LSAC is required to make their Web site
accessible by the fall.
The Chairman. Just one last thing. Do you have any
information that you can share with me, with this committee, on
what is being done internationally, international efforts to
address Web accessibility and technology more broadly, since
this is the worldwide Web? Do you know what we are doing
internationally?
Ms. Hill. I know some of what is going on internationally.
It is a very important global effort. In Europe, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand, there are all efforts to update
their laws or provide laws to ensure accessibility of Web
sites, both government Web sites and private Web sites. In
addition, some of these countries are having private litigation
go on that challenges the inaccessibility of the Web sites. In
Canada, for example, there was a case that found that Canadian
Federal Web sites needed to be accessible.
The Web is a global thing, and so the response should be
global. We should be consistent so that businesses can be clear
of what their obligations are across the world and not have to
have a different Web site in the United States than they have
in the U.K. I think our regulatory efforts and the efforts of
these other countries which are working toward very similar,
consistent, consensus standards about what accessibility means
are really starting to accomplish that.
It also provides clarity for businesses and for people with
disabilities to be able to know what to expect, wherever they
are, when they try to access a service or a good, that they can
expect this level of accessibility.
The Chairman. Very good. We are also, again, working with
the Department of Education, obviously, on this in terms of
curricula and everything else in making sure--but I just want
to make one last point before we bring on our next panel. And
that is the Federal Government is a huge purchaser of this,
driving the market, and we have to make sure that 508 is fully
implemented, that it is adhered to, that the Justice Department
makes sure of that, and that it goes not just after the
technology but the curricula development that goes underneath
it.
So I know you are on top of that, Ms. Hill. I thank you
very much for your great leadership and the whole Civil Rights
Division at the Department of Justice. I give my personal
thanks also to Attorney General Holder for his great leadership
in this area.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hill.
Now we will turn to our second panel. We have Mr. Mark
Riccobono, executive director of the Jernigan Institute of the
National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore. The Jernigan
Institute is the only research and training institute founded
and currently directed by people who are blind.
Mr. Riccobono was a member of the U.S. Department of
Education's Accessible and Instructional Materials Commission,
which released a report on The Disparities in Post Secondary
Education for Students with Disabilities that was issued in
December, just this last December 2011. At age 24, Mr.
Riccobono became the first director of the Wisconsin Center for
the Blind and Visually Impaired, and this followed his
successes on the Wisconsin State Superintendent's Blind and
Visually Impaired Education Council.
Next we have Dr. John Quick. Dr. John Quick has over 30
years of experience as an educational professional, over 20
years of service to Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation
in Columbus, IN. He has been the district superintendent since
2003.
Throughout his career, Dr. Quick has led efforts to improve
educational practices, including implementing state-of-the-art
technology, developing curriculum, and creating new educational
programs. He serves as a member of the Indiana Association of
Public School Superintendents and as an adjunct professor at
Ball State University.
Then we have Mr. Mark Turner. He began working at the
California State University's Accessible Technology Initiative
in 2006. His work focuses on the accessibility of instructional
materials. He is also responsible for the operations of the
Center for Accessible Media. The CAM Web application provides a
central clearinghouse for all University of California campuses
to efficiently locate and share curricula content that has been
adapted for students needing alternatives to standard textbooks
and other print materials.
I welcome you all here, and I thank you all for your
written statements which will be made a part of the record in
their entirety. Starting with Mr. Riccobono, then Dr. Quick and
Mr. Turner. If you could sum up in several minutes your
testimony, I would certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Riccobono.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. RICCOBONO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JERNIGAN
INSTITUTE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, BALTIMORE, MD
Mr. Riccobono. Thank you very much. There we go. And it is
an accessible button. Look at that. You can even feel it.
Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi,
and other members of the committee. It is a great honor and
privilege to have the opportunity to speak with you today on
behalf of the National Federation of the Blind.
Today's hearing deals with a critical question of civil
rights in the 21st Century. Will technology facilitate
unprecedented access to education for all, or will it be the
force that segregates students with disabilities into an
unequal learning environment? Technology offers a new
accessibility paradigm. In its basic form, digital content is
accessible to everybody. It can be easily moved, converted, and
translated into the form required by each individual student.
By universally designing technology to handle a broad range
of physical and sensory interfaces, we can achieve the equality
in education we seek. But in order to reach that goal, we must
move beyond the old model of accommodation. Imagine a classroom
where the iPad is used daily. A blind student now has the
possibility of equal participation by using the built-in
technology to access the same content and functionality as her
sighted peers.
She can connect a refreshable Braille display and read the
lesson the teacher uploaded just moments earlier. She can enter
quiz answers in Braille, and they can be seamlessly translated
into print and instantly transmitted to the teacher for
grading. She has unprecedented access, and this is not the
future. It is achievable today.
Alternatively, our blind student might be shut out of the
curriculum if her school adopts Google Chrome Books or Apps for
Education, My IT Lab, Barnes and Noble's Nook, Amazon's Kindle,
and dozens of other inaccessible systems and devices that are
being used to facilitate learning today. A school that wants to
fix inaccessible technology that is already deployed faces the
reality that the reconfiguration will be more expensive, and it
is unlikely to produce a solution that is equally effective and
equally integrated.
If the student chooses to file a formal complaint, she
faces the personal and professional costs of taking that
action. She has unequal access to education, and this, too, is
not the future. It is the reality for many students with
disabilities today. Congressional leadership begins with swift
action to significantly improve accessibility within the
Federal Government. We should no longer accept anything less
than complete accessibility of technologies purchased and
deployed by the Government. Similarly, all technologies used,
developed, and disseminated as the result of a Federal grant
award must unquestionably be accessible.
We need strong, functional, and enforced standards for
educational technology. And, furthermore, the liability for
failure to meet those standards must extend beyond the schools
to the technology manufacturers and distributors. Government
leadership could help make accessibility a core element of
training for all IT professionals, and the Government should
collect and disseminate best practices in accessibility.
America should be a world leader in the use of technology
to educate and empower each of its citizens. This is a rare
opportunity to establish a standard that will significantly
improve access to education, promote innovation, and provide
our Nation with both economic and social benefits. We know the
type of future we want. We understand the promise of
technology. We must now provide the leadership to secure that
future and fulfill that promise for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riccobono follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark A. Riccobono
executive summary
The promise that technology holds for enhancing education and
improving access to the curriculum is extraordinary. However, it is
equally true that technology, if not appropriately designed and
implemented, is the biggest threat to our Nation's ability to provide a
free, appropriate public education to students with disabilities that
we have faced since Congress enacted Public Law 94-142. Harnessing the
extraordinary promise of technology is within our reach, but it will
take leadership, commitment, and ongoing oversight. The alternative is
a future where we spend our time, money, and innovative capacity
retrofitting bridges to patch the digital divide rather than enjoying
the economic and social advantages gained by the increased usability of
technology and the increased leveraging of human capacity that results
from technology that is designed and built to be accessible to all.
As a blind individual educated in public schools and in post-
secondary institutions, an administrator of model educational programs,
and a father of two young children about to enter public education, I
am concerned that the future is still too unclear--will technology
cause segregation or integration for students with disabilities?
Technology changes the paradigm of accessibility because it can be
designed from the very beginning to provide the broadest access. In its
basic form digital content is accessible to everyone, as it can be
easily transformed, converted, and translated into the form that is
required by an individual student. By universally designing
technologies to handle a broad range of different physical and
informational interfaces, we can get significantly closer to equality
in education. The result is that we can move from the old
accommodations model to a new paradigm of mainstream accessibility, and
our practices and policies need to change to meet that new paradigm.
Recommendations for Federal Policy:
Stronger Oversight and Accountability in Government
Strong, Functional, and Rigorously Enforced Standards
Projects to Collect, Develop, and Disseminate Best
Practice Tools
Improved Protections Against Inaccessible Technology in
Education
Technology is transforming the way we create, share, and gain
knowledge. If built universally and implemented effectively, technology
will make the passion and skill of our greatest teachers even more
powerful as we nurture the next generation of leaders for our Nation.
If we fail to include accessibility in that technology, we will set
this generation of students with disabilities back decades. The cost to
those individuals and to our country is too great and the opportunity
is too promising to stand by and let that happen.
______
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, and other
witnesses, my name is Mark A. Riccobono. I am the executive director
for the Jernigan Institute at the National Federation of the Blind. My
address is 200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place, Baltimore, Maryland
21230; my telephone is (410) 659-9314, extension 2368.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on the
tremendously important topic of technology and its ability to make
education accessible to all students. I am happy to say that the
promise that technology holds for enhancing education and improving
access to the curriculum is extraordinary. However, it is equally true
that technology, if not appropriately designed and implemented, is the
biggest threat to our Nation's ability to provide a free, appropriate
public education to students with disabilities that we have faced since
Congress enacted Public Law 94-142. Harnessing the extraordinary
promise of technology is within our reach, but it will take leadership,
commitment, and ongoing oversight. The alternative is a future where we
spend our time, money, and innovative capacity retrofitting bridges to
patch the digital divide rather than enjoying the economic and social
advantages gained by the increased usability of technology and the
increased leveraging of human capacity that results from technology
that is designed and built to be accessible to all.
personal experience
By way of background, I was diagnosed as being legally blind at age
five. I entered the Milwaukee Public Schools (Milwaukee, WI) and
received all of my K-12 education as a blind student integrated into
the public schools in that district. My vision loss is a result of
glaucoma and aniridia. As I entered kindergarten, there was no doubt
that the prospect of my vision getting better was zero and the chance
of it getting worse as I progressed through school was very high. As it
turned out, my vision steadily got worse--by eighth grade I had lost
all of the vision in one eye and had less than 5 percent of normal
vision in the other eye.
When I was a student in the K-12 system, technology was something
used to supplement the educational curriculum. In my elementary school,
the technology was limited to a few computers in the school library,
which we used to play educational games in our free time. In middle
school, we had a small computer lab, but its regular use was not fully
integrated into the curriculum. In high school, we used computers to do
specific projects, and a handful of individual classrooms had dedicated
computers. However, technology was still not part of the daily
curriculum and was not central to the experience of gaining knowledge.
I learned to use a computer with software that read the text on the
screen aloud using synthesized computer speech as a means to write
papers--since I could not effectively read my own writing. Despite my
extremely limited vision, I was never given the opportunity to learn
Braille in school.
In 1994, I entered the University of Wisconsin-Madison to pursue a
degree in business. With the support of the State's vocational
rehabilitation program I was given a laptop computer that weighed about
20 pounds. I was able to use that computer to gain access to some
limited online resources, which were still largely in the DOS rather
than the Windows environment. Registration for classes was done on the
telephone--providing me equal access to the registration system--and
books were only available in hard-copy print from the bookstore. In
order to gain access to the printed books and course packets, I worked
closely with the disability resource center on campus. That office
facilitated getting the printed materials read onto cassette tapes if
the materials were not already available in that format from another
source. The recordings were made by volunteers who chose which parts of
the book to read based on where they fell in the course syllabus--
assuming I was able to get the syllabus ahead of time.
By the beginning of my junior year, Windows 95 had helped to
increase the computing power across campus and in individual dorm
rooms, the fast growth of the World Wide Web had created new means for
sharing knowledge, and the improvements in desktop scanning
technologies made it feasible to create reasonably good electronic
copies of printed books. During my junior year I was employed at the
McBurney Disability Resource Center on campus and helped to implement
improvements in the services to create accessible copies of reading
materials for students with disabilities. I helped develop and
implement the procedures for converting printed books into electronic
files that students with disabilities could access and helped to train
students on the systems necessary to access those files. The electronic
files significantly reduced the waiting time for students with
disabilities to receive their materials and improved our ability to
produce materials in Braille.
When I graduated in the spring of 1999, technology was becoming
increasingly more integrated into the fabric of the academic
experience, but the old paradigm of access to information for students
with disabilities still held true. Technology was implemented on
campus, and it was the role of the McBurney Disability Resource Center
to help figure out what modifications and additional access
technologies might be needed to allow students with disabilities to
gain access to those systems. Additionally, the primary means for
disseminating information was still in hard-copy print, which we worked
to convert to a format readable by students with disabilities. While
the World Wide Web was used to disseminate some information, the
configuration of Web sites was basic and generally easily handled by
screen reading technology.
In 2000, I was appointed to be director of the Wisconsin Center for
the Blind and Visually Impaired--the agency under the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction responsible for carrying out statewide
outreach services to K-12 students who are blind and the school
districts serving those students. I served in that capacity for 3\1/2\
years, during which time we spent thousands of State and Federal
dollars to purchase access technologies that students who are blind
used to access curriculum materials. These specialized access
technologies had very little interface with systems in the public
schools. We worked closely with school districts to advise them on how
to make their computer labs accessible, but we rarely faced instances
where the technology was used in a classroom on a daily basis. Our
agency had a high tech distance learning lab that we used to connect to
similar sites around the State. The lab was used for live interactive
learning experiences where students could talk to and be seen by a
presenter at another location. We rarely needed to troubleshoot a
situation where a student needed to take a course online, as distance
learning was still in its infancy in K-12. Finally, we worked to
further improve the accessibility of K-12 textbooks by supporting the
provisions in the law that ultimately created the National
Instructional Materials Access Standard (NIMAS). The theory behind
NIMAS was that access to instructional materials would be improved by
having a clear electronic file standard for book files coming from
publishers. The paradigm was still about accommodating students with
disabilities in educational environments largely dominated by
chalkboards and paper shuffling rather than keyboards and mouse clicks.
I began overseeing national education programs for the National
Federation of the Blind in late 2003, and soon after, I enrolled in a
program at Johns Hopkins University to pursue a master's degree in
education. My experience as a blind student in higher education was
dramatically different than it had been just 5 years earlier as I
finished my bachelor's degree. The vast majority of my interactions
with the systems of the university were through the Internet. I
registered for classes, accessed library materials, communicated with
professors and advisors, downloaded course packets, and bought books
online. The online systems were frequently challenging and forced me to
find workarounds due to inaccessibility. Compared to my undergraduate
experience, there was much more reasonably accessible digital content
available, which resulted in my ability to navigate my coursework with
a greater degree of independence than ever before. Where there were
barriers, I was determined to figure out a way around them so I could
get my degree. However, many students with disabilities are not
prepared to fight through the frustration and delays. Had I been
pursuing a degree in science or engineering, I would have had even more
difficulty. Technology was rapidly becoming more complex and more
integrated into the fabric of education, and blind students were
beginning to face more barriers to accessibility. Meanwhile, in my
coursework we studied the education system and the impact of technology
on teaching and learning interactions. I came to understand that the
future is uncertain--whether technology would facilitate unprecedented
access to information and full integration or be the force that
unintentionally segregates students with disabilities into an unequal
learning environment.
Today as a lifelong learner still seeking new knowledge, and an
administrator of model educational programs, and a father of two young
children about to enter public education (one of whom has the same eye
condition I have), I am concerned that the future is still too
unclear--will technology cause segregation or integration for students
with disabilities?
a new paradigm
There are two central elements to making education accessible to
all students. The first is access to educational facilities. Although
there still is work to be done in this area, the implementation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has significantly improved this
Nation's infrastructure for providing all people physical access to the
educational environment. The second is access to information. For
decades now we have been working to improve access to information in
education for students with disabilities. Some of those efforts have
been to make curriculum adjustments that better facilitate students
obtaining and integrating knowledge. Other efforts have been to convey
information in the form that makes it accessible--such as converting
printed materials into Braille or using American Sign Language.
Technology will either enhance our progress or make some of our
previous efforts meaningless.
The schoolhouse is now more accessible to students with
disabilities than at any other time in history. But how will history
view the great progress we have made when students with disabilities
can get in the front door, to the classroom, and to a desk, but in the
end they are shut out of the curriculum because the powerful
technological tools used to convey knowledge are inaccessible to them
and/or the alternative technologies are inadequate? Will we wait until
families of young children with disabilities opt for home schooling in
mass numbers because there are too many barriers to fight through in
the mainstream educational technology in their local schools? Will we
wait until students with disabilities stop coming to mainstream
universities because the systems central to the student experience--
everything from putting money on your meal card to reading the
literature of the world--are not accessible to them in an equally
integrated manner? Technology is no longer a supplement to the
educational experience; it is an essential access point for education
and employment in the 21st century.
Technology changes the paradigm of accessibility because it can be
designed from the very beginning to provide the broadest access. In its
basic form digital content is accessible to everyone, as it can be
easily transformed, converted, and translated into the form that is
required by an individual student. By universally designing
technologies to handle a broad range of different physical and
informational interfaces, we can get significantly closer to equality
in education. Today we are getting a glimpse of what the well-designed
future can be. Consider the blind student in a classroom environment
that uses the iPad. The student can use Apple's built-in VoiceOver
screen reading technology and participate in lessons alongside her
sighted peers, and she can take out a refreshable Braille display (a
supplemental access technology) and connect it to the iPad to read in
Braille the reading lesson the teacher uploaded an hour before class.
With this powerful accessibility built into a mainstream device, we
begin to understand that technology can get us much closer to equality
in education than even the most vocal advocates had imagined. But the
opposite is also true.
When the old paradigm of ``accommodation'' persists, educational
institutions adopt technologies that are incredibly complex but have
not been designed for access by students with disabilities--they miss
the opportunity and unknowingly create new challenges. This means the
educational institution has to find an alternative, which brings an
additional expense and will most likely be unequal. Imagine the blind
student who attempts to log on to the university library site, search
for research articles, and obtain relevant digital copies of articles
for a course project. Imagine the frustration when the student cannot
effectively perform the search because the database was not designed
according to well-accepted Web accessibility standards. The student
contacts the library (during normal business hours only), and the
librarian is pleased to meet his responsibility to accommodate by
performing the search for the student and pulling the relevant
articles. The student provides as much information as possible about
the desired search terms (even though nondisabled students use the
process of searching to narrow their focus), and the librarian agrees
to e-mail the student the digital copies of the articles. The librarian
identifies 25 relevant articles but only 10 are available as full text
(accessible to the student). The other 15 are provided in inaccessible
PDF files, which the student must take and run through a program that
attempts to perform optical character recognition on the files. All of
that has to be done before even getting to the abstract of the article
to know if it is one that is worth reading for the project. And just
imagine if the search terms were not quite right and another search is
needed but the library is closed until Monday. Meanwhile, other
students in the project group are uploading notes to an online wiki for
planning the project. Of course, the wiki is a Web platform that was
also not built with accessibility in mind. The student decides to
switch to work for another course so she attempts to pull up a required
class video from an online learning management system. The video is
offered in Flash, and accessibility has not been properly implemented,
which results in the student being unable to play the video. All of
these barriers and more are faced by students today, even though
providing accessibility in these technology applications is possible.
Unless we commit ourselves to the new paradigm, this is the experience
for a student with a disability in the future where technology is built
and implemented without accessibility from the beginning.
the shift of technology in education (the opportunity)
As technology becomes more central to the educational experience
and accessibility is built into the mainstream technology, we should
observe the technology market becoming more effective in its delivery
of products to increase accessibility for people with disabilities. In
the old paradigm, very expensive, low-volume products were created to
assist people with disabilities to gain access to information.
Specialized electronic devices allowing a blind person to write and
read back the Braille code in electronic form have been produced for
decades. These devices--generically referred to as electronic Braille
notetakers--have historically had limited interaction with mainstream
computers and have generally cost more than $5,000. As mainstream
technology incorporates more accessibility into the native design, the
need for these highly specialized and segregated devices goes down.
This means that the access technology industry can focus on needs that
the mainstream market is unlikely to effectively address. For example,
although Apple's iOS devices include great accessibility support
(screen reading and screen magnification technology for blind users)
and interoperability with third-party refreshable Braille displays,
Apple itself is unlikely to get into the business of designing,
building, and distributing Braille display devices. However, Apple's
leadership in native accessibility in the iOS platform opens up a new
market for devices that further enhance the accessibility of the Apple
products and provide innovative solutions to the access to information
challenge. In addition to refreshable Braille displays, there will
still be a need for a number of products that are critical in providing
access to the curriculum but are unlikely to come from the mainstream
market. Examples of such technologies are tools for producing hard-copy
Braille (Braille embossers) and tactile graphics.
To illustrate this technology shift, let's compare the old
specialized model to the new paradigm of accessible mainstream
technology. The old access technology model is represented by the
BrailleNote Apex--a Braille notetaking/PDA device available from
HumanWare at a retail price of $6,379. The BrailleNote Apex has a
fairly wide distribution in K-12 education as a specialized device for
blind students. The new paradigm is represented by an Apple iPhone 4S
16GB with a retail price of $199. Because the iPhone does not include
refreshable Braille built into the device, we need to add a separate
piece of access technology. In order to make the comparison fairly
equal, I chose to add the Alva BC640 40-cell refreshable Braille
display at a retail price of $4,199. This means on price alone our new
mainstream option retails for $4,398 (almost exactly $2,000 less than
the specialized technology option). Table 1 compares the products based
on hardware capacity and processing speed. In this comparison we find
that the mainstream option is not only less expensive but far more
powerful than the specialized option. Finally, the chart does not
compare the availability of applications between these two solutions.
While we could easily detail the applications available for the
BrailleNote Apex (those built in and those available for hundreds of
extra dollars), we would not be able to do that for the iOS platform.
There are hundreds of thousands of applications in the Apple App
Store. Even when you consider that Apple does not currently require
applications to be accessible to be in the App Store, blind users of
the iOS platform have found a growing number of powerful accessible
applications to serve every need from taking notes to reading books to
engaging in social networking. It is fair to say that the applications
available in the mainstream model exponentially exceed those in the
specialized model.
the failure in technology implementation (the challenge)
I believe it is fair to say that, with only a few limited
exceptions, educational institutions at the K-12 and post-secondary
level are currently failing to make a passing grade in the subject of
realizing the promise of technology for students with disabilities.
However, it is not entirely their fault. These institutions have 100
percent of the responsibility for ensuring their programs and services
are accessible and, while they should develop more capacity to ensure
the accessibility of the technologies they purchase, the reality is
they cannot effectively test the accessibility for every piece of
technology on the market--the technology vendors need to do better.
There is a need for shared responsibility, clear standards, and strong
enforcement.
books and instructional materials
Let's examine just a few technologies in the educational space to
understand the barriers students with disabilities currently face.
Central to the educational experience is the book. In growing numbers
K-12 schools and universities are moving away from static hard-copy,
expensive print books to the use of dynamic, easily updated and
supplemented, and less expensive e-books. The mainstream move to e-
books has great promise for students with disabilities. Digital content
is not inherently inaccessible like the print book. The basic digital
content of a book can be read aloud using speech technologies or
enlarged using magnification software without much trouble. In fact,
people with disabilities, specifically those with ``print
disabilities,'' have been using digital versions of books since the
late 1980s. The e-book is frequently delivered via a device or reading
system (e.g., Amazon's Kindle, Apple's iPad, or Adobe's PDF product).
As long as the delivery system for the e-book includes accessibility,
students with print disabilities will have equal access to the content
of the book and the functionality of the reading system. In practical
terms this means that we have the promise of all students having access
to the same book, at the same time, and at the same price. This is a
tremendous leap forward in terms of timely access to materials compared
to the old paradigm, and it saves the significant amount of human
resources that were being used to convert inaccessible print back into
an accessible format.
The reality of e-book adoptions in both K-12 and higher education
is that, in general, the producers of textbooks and to some extent the
purchasers of those books are stuck in the old paradigm of
accessibility. Accessibility is often not built into e-book readers
and, when it is built in, it does not provide the same level of
functionality and navigation that is provided to the reader without a
disability. Two examples at either end of the spectrum of accessibility
are products provided by Apple and Barnes & Noble. Apple recently
launched iBooks 2.0 with an aim at revolutionizing the educational book
space. Apple is the industry leader for built-in accessibility due to
its commitment to out-of-the-box accessibility in their iOS (iPad,
iPhone, iPod) and Mac products. This means that a blind student can
purchase the iPad, for example, at the same price as everyone else and
begin using it with the built-in VoiceOver screen reader from the
moment it comes out of the box. While the blind student can purchase
one of the new iBook 2.0 titles and read it straight through, she will
not be able to navigate the book or have access to the same
functionality as her nondisabled peers--not perfect but far more
accessible than the old paradigm. In contrast, many universities have
begun creating relationships with Barnes & Noble for provision of e-
textbooks with focus on the relatively inexpensive Nook device for
delivery of those books. The Nook includes no accessibility features
and leaves a print-disabled student to find a separate solution. Most
certainly the separate solution will also be unequal as the print-
disabled student will not have any of the functionality that the Nook
provides to all other users. There are a number of other book reading
systems and devices delivering various e-book formats with varying
degrees of inaccessible content and features and most fall down when
accessibility is considered. The promise of ``same book, same time'' is
near but not yet fully delivered.
Why would any educational institution choose the Nook considering
its inaccessibility? I believe it is largely because they are stuck in
the old paradigm of having to accommodate students with disabilities.
Therefore, it is natural to the schools to purchase something that is
inaccessible and figure out an alternative for students with
disabilities. Furthermore, the educational institutions have complete
responsibility under the law for ensuring equal access to their
educational programs. The old paradigm has created the practice of
buying the product you feel best meets what your need is and working
out accessibility if you have to do so. However, the new paradigm
should suggest that schools start demanding complete accessibility in
their technology products, including e-books, and hold the producers of
those technologies responsible. The educational textbook market is a
significant piece of the publishing industry and, with the growing
adoption of e-books, we need to ensure that the books being used in
education are accessible to students with print disabilities.
A final problem related to the adoption of accessible e-books in K-
12 is the existing NIMAS standard. Before the e-book market began
taking off in education, NIMAS was the most effective policy solution
to helping K-12 schools deliver more timely textbooks to their students
with print disabilities. While NIMAS helped to create some
standardization in the electronic files, it has not made a noticeable
difference in the delivery of better and more timely instructional
materials to students with disabilities. Furthermore, NIMAS is now a
barrier to mainstream access to books at the K-12 level. There is
little incentive for publishers of e-books for the K-12 market to
produce fully accessible e-books as long as they can meet their legal
obligation to provide a NIMAS file. As the e-books become more
sophisticated and include greater functionality--ability to annotate,
link to online content, etc.--the student using the NIMAS version of
the book will receive increasingly unequal access.
cloud-based education and dedicated portable devices
Many schools are utilizing the tremendous resources available
through applications and databases available ``in the cloud.''
Frequently schools make educational resources available through Web
sites that are actually portals to sophisticated software applications
that run over the Internet rather than being locally installed on a
hardware device. This provides great flexibility to schools and allows
them to take advantage of a tremendous amount of technology that can be
freely implemented. Because cloud-based applications are not installed
locally, the school can leverage whatever Internet-enabled devices they
have available or they can have individual students bring their own
device.
Take for example Google's effort to gain wide support for adoption
of Google Apps for Education in schools across the country as a means
of providing e-mail and collaboration tools to students and faculty.
Google Apps for Education is a free suite of hosted communication and
collaboration applications that includes Gmail, Google Calendar, Google
Talk, Google Docs, and Google Sites. We have found that each of these
applications contains significant accessibility barriers for blind
people utilizing screen access technology. These applications are
attractive to schools because they are powerful and their price tag
does not stretch the education budget.
However, you cannot accommodate students in an equally integrated
manner when they are shut out of a technology as powerful as Google
Apps for Education. Schools face the choice of segregating students
with disabilities or enhancing integration by only adopting
technologies that are accessible. While we hope all schools make the
right decision, if they do not, the individual student has very few
options available, and every day that a student with a disability waits
for the technology to be made accessible is another day of learning
lost.
In other cases, schools are adopting broad programs to purchase
technology and put a device in the hands of each student. Consider a
story from last summer's Powell Tribune (Powell, WY) entitled ``School
district adopts the iPad.'' The story details the plan to spend
$722,000 for the purchase of 1,180 second-generation iPads in order to
put one in the hands of each middle and high school student in the
district. The story does not talk at all about accessibility, although
it does talk about the ways that implementing this technology will cut
down on other costs such as textbooks and computer-based testing. This
raises the question of whether or not the applications used on the
iPads will be designed to be accessible to students with disabilities.
If not, how will the district accommodate those students, and will it
create segregation or integration?
Even more alarming is a report from CNET News entitled ``27,000
Google Chromebooks headed to U.S. schools.'' The article announces the
plan to distribute new Chromebooks to school districts in Iowa,
Illinois, and South Carolina. The article credits a Google official as
saying, ``We now have hundreds of schools across 41 States that have
outfitted at least one classroom with Chromebooks.'' The Chromebook is
a tablet device that provides computing power while operating
applications from the cloud. This device presents significant access
barriers to students who are blind, yet these school districts are
proceeding with a plan to issue Chromebooks to students for use in
school and at home. This means nondisabled students have around-the-
clock access to information and those who are blind have unequal access
and are potentially shut out of certain applications.
These are just a few examples of technologies that are being
rapidly and broadly implemented with limited to no accessibility. There
are dozens of other inaccessible technologies by dozens of other
technology companies big and small being purchased by educational
institutions largely using public money. Examples of other educational
technologies where we have found limited accessibility even after the
system was implemented in K-12 schools or universities include:
Interactive White Boards (IWBs);
Online course management systems;
Software for performing virtual science experiments;
Web sites for courses, programs, schools, and entire
districts which provide important information and essential notices;
Online journals;
Educational resources produced and distributed by Federal
grant projects;
Computer-based assessments;
Online applications for admission to programs; and
Classroom devices such as clickers.
Furthermore, this does not take into account the technologies that
teachers and faculty members with disabilities need to interact with to
create and post educational content, perform research, log grades, or
do any of the other staff functions required by their employer and
utilizing a computerized system owned by the educational institution.
recommendations for federal policy
Based on my personal experience as a blind person in the education
system (K-12 through master's degree), an administrator of educational
programs for blind children and adults, a father with young children
about to enter America's public education system, and an advocate who
works with blind students and faculty across the country, I offer the
following recommendations to facilitate the use of technology to
enhance accessibility and academic outcomes for students at all levels.
Stronger Oversight and Accountability in Government
In order to meet the promise of technology in education we need
strong leadership. That leadership begins with the Government cleaning
up its own practices. Federal agencies dealing with educational
institutions and providing grants to institutions to do cutting edge
research and education are among the offenders. For example, while the
U.S. Department of Education has been more responsive to dialog lately,
they still do not have clear checks and balances to prevent the
distribution of grants that will fund projects resulting in the
development of inaccessible digital instructional materials. The agency
needs to have an official who reports directly to the Secretary who can
ensure that the entire infrastructure of educational technology efforts
includes real accessibility. Furthermore, the Department of Education
needs to closely monitor and enforce accessibility requirements in its
distribution of grants.
Another significant agency of concern is the National Science
Foundation, which funds a tremendous amount of research and educational
innovation. In recent correspondence from the Foundation to Kareem
Dale, Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy, as a
followup to concerns raised about the accessibility of NSF-funded
projects, the Foundation said in part:
When a grant proposal is submitted to the NSF, the Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) from the proposing
organization electronically signs the proposal. By
electronically signing the proposal, the AOR certifies the
organization agrees to comply with NSF's Nondiscrimination
Certification. That certification states that the organization
agrees to comply with a multitude of civil rights statutes,
including the Rehabilitation Act, as well as all regulations
and policies issued by NSF pursuant to these statutes.
The practical experience of researchers with disabilities and those
attempting to use educational products from NSF-funded programs is that
the technologies and materials are frequently not accessible. I would
recommend that ``checking a box'' is not enough. We need a proactive
approach. What tools is NSF giving potential grantees to understand
accessibility and help them build it in? What guidelines and examples
does the agency provide for grantees to know what works and what
doesn't? How often does accessibility get discussed at project director
conferences? And how clear is the complaint process to those who find
violations? When America is interested in boosting its science,
technology, and engineering workforce, we should not be leaving people
with disabilities behind.
Finally, some agencies are working on being more proactive,
strengthening their enforcement of accessibility requirements, and
bringing more attention to the issues. A recent request for proposal
from the U.S. Department of Labor included the statement,
All online and technology-enabled courses developed under
this SGA must incorporate the principles of universal design in
order to ensure that they are readily accessible to qualified
individuals with disabilities in full compliance with the
Americans with Disability Act and Sections 504 and 508 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
A good step forward if the agency sticks to it, asks for clear
documentation of how the project is meeting this requirement (not just
a checkbox), and takes swift action when this provision is violated.
However, what happens when you go to the Department of Labor Web site
and click on one of the links that takes you to a third-party site like
Facebook? You are met with a new page that states:
You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server. The
Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility
for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or
its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or
accessibility of the information contained on the destination
server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use
of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users
must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked
Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click on the
link below to continue.
The Department is presumably posting information to Facebook for
the purpose of communicating vital government information and news to
the public. Facebook presents many accessibility challenges to people
with disabilities. We might reasonably assume that the individual
posting information to Facebook on behalf of the Department is an
employee or contractor of the Government--unless there is a volunteer
that has been authorized to perform this service. Yet the Department
claims no responsibility for the accessibility of the content presented
on the Facebook page. Advocates have found getting Facebook to improve
its accessibility frustratingly slow. Who is taking responsibility for
accessibility? How many other third-party sites containing vital
government information are not accessible and have nobody taking
responsibility for their accessibility? Where is the leadership, and
who is working to ensure that all citizens of this great Nation have
access to information?
We need to do more to move government from the old accommodations
model into the new mainstream access model of technology. Greater
leadership, proactive training, and rigorous reinforcement is required.
There should be more centralized responsibility for ensuring
accessibility within Federal agencies and within the policies of those
agencies. In particular, the Government needs to take more aggressive
steps to ensure that Federal grant funds are not going to projects
where accessibility is ignored. Furthermore, the Government needs to
provide leadership in these areas by ensuring that government sites
meet the highest standards of accessibility.
Strong, Enforceable, and Functional Standards
Those who resist the requirement that technologies be accessible
from the design phase argue that it is too hard to know what accessible
means and what truly is universal design, and that having a standard
limits innovation. Despite these claims, many strong sets of standards
have been developed that have gone a long way toward improving
accessibility, and new innovative solutions are coming to market when
the talent is focused in that direction (e.g., Apple's use of unique
interface gestures that make the iPhone accessible to blind people).
But there are not good comprehensive standards to guide the
accessibility of technology in educational institutions.
I recommend that the Congress take swift action to authorize the
U.S. Access Board to compile functional guidelines in the area of
instructional materials. The recent report of the Federal Advisory
Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Post Secondary
Institutions for Students with Disabilities provided as their first
recommendation that,
``Congress should authorize the U.S. Access Board to
establish guidelines for accessible instructional materials
that will be used by government, in the private sector, and in
post-secondary academic settings.''
This Commission of experts defined ``instructional materials''
broadly by stating,
Instructional materials are the curricular content (printed
and digital books, journals, course packs, articles, music,
tests, videos, instructor-created PDFs and PowerPoint
documents, web pages, etc.), as well as the technologies
required (hardware, firmware, software and applications) for
the manipulation, annotation and dissemination of content. This
definition also includes any other required instructional
software and applications used to facilitate the teaching and
learning process, including learning software, courseware/
learning management systems, digital ``learning objects,''
library databases, and others.
This Commission also emphasized the importance of functional
requirements by noting that specifying file types or specific
technologies was not the answer. The Commission went on to firmly State
that:
Technology developed or deployed to facilitate access to
instructional materials must permit a user with a print
disability the opportunity to acquire the same information,
engage in the same transactions and enjoy the same services at
the same time as the user without a disability, and with a
substantially equivalent ease of use.
It is worth noting that a functional set of technology guidelines
meant to specifically address education will apply in K-12 as well as
post-secondary programs as the functional requirements for
accessibility should be the same at all levels. This clarifies
accessibility for all parties and reduces the uncertainty about whether
a particular technology will be viewed as being accessible. This work
will also create the framework for creating proactive tools and
technical examples to help technology developers understand
accessibility. These standards will become more critical as people with
disabilities rely more on mainstream rather than specialized
technology, to ensure that the accessibility of these technologies does
not erode. Ultimately, these guidelines should be enforceable by
linking them to existing civil rights and public accommodations
protections.
Projects to Collect, Develop, and Disseminate Best Practice Tools
Congress and Federal agencies could help advance accessibility
significantly by putting together more efforts to support the
development and dissemination of resources in the areas of implementing
accessible online content, tools to test accessibility of publications,
best practices for purchasing and implementing accessible technologies,
and other related topics. There is a great need to collect together
best practices related to the design and implementation of accessible
technologies and content so it can be better understood in the
educational system.
Federal agencies should make accessibility a priority track at
conferences sponsored by the Government and consideration should be
given to a national conference on accessible technology in education.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Education should collect case
studies of innovative approaches to ensuring accessibility across the
technology infrastructure of school districts and universities and make
those examples available via the Internet.
The Government could also help to raise understanding of
accessibility within the information technology industry by first
ensuring that government IT professionals receive more resources and
training on what accessibility means, how to require it in the
purchasing process, and how to test that accessibility has been met.
The stronger the accessibility requirements in technology purchasing,
the higher the demand will be in the industry for IT professionals,
programmers, and computer engineers who truly understand accessibility
and universal design. This will ultimately trickle down to the
university programs and other professional training programs creating a
systemic approach to raising the importance of accessibility.
Improved Protections Against Inaccessible Technology in Education
I believe that leadership, strong functional standards, proactive
best practices, and greater government accountability for accessibility
of technology in this Nation's educational facilities will make a
tremendous difference. I am not convinced that it will be enough to
really hit the tipping point where all technologies are universally
designed and available to all students on the first day they are
implemented in the classroom. This is a real threat to access,
education for students with disabilities, and I believe Congress should
strengthen the shared responsibility for accessibility and the remedies
available to students and faculty with disabilities who are segregated
to second-class access.
First, a disabled college student, faced with inaccessible
technology and a school that is not interested in taking the steps
necessary to make it accessible, has ways to address the problem for
herself and systemically--with a complaint to either the Department of
Education or Department of Justice or a suit under title II (if a
public college) or title III (if a private one). The parents of a K-12
student, however, have a more complex set of hoops to jump through with
relatively little possibility of making systemic change. Generally,
parents of children with disabilities are restricted to provisions
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
challenges to the IEP. Take for example a school district that adopts
an inaccessible technology that is used in every classroom for every
student. Due to the priority of the IEP process for accommodating
students, a claim of discrimination because of inaccessibility would
first have to exhaust the complaint procedures under IDEA. This further
emphasizes the old accommodations model rather than taking advantage of
the promise for universal access that technology can deliver. We need
clearer protection under the law in cases where inaccessible technology
is widely adopted and systemically bars the participation of students
with disabilities to clarify the unintended consequences of the IDEA
and the IEP process.
Second, educational institutions at all levels have the entire
responsibility under Federal law for providing equal access to
instructional technologies. If a student encounters pervasive
discrimination because of the proliferation of an inaccessible digital
book, platform, or device, her remedies are entirely against the
educational institution, including, in the case of section 504, cutting
off Federal funding. Meanwhile, the companies that sell hundreds of
thousands of dollars of inaccessible technology into the education
market share none of the responsibility for the discrimination against
students with disabilities. Furthermore, companies that do not include
accessibility in their products may enjoy a price advantage because
their products include less robust features than the technologies that
come with accessibility built in. Schools can, of course, seek
contractual representations and warranties and indemnity clauses to
extend liability to educational vendors, but many lack the market power
to insist on such provisions. The civil rights laws should be
strengthened so that companies systemically placing inaccessible
technologies into K-12 or post-secondary education programs can be held
accountable for their role in shutting out students with disabilities.
Specifically, I recommend that Congress consider extending the private
right of action to companies whose products create systemic barriers to
the full participation of students with disabilities in the educational
system. Along with a strong functional standard of accessibility, this
will encourage accessibility, reward those implementing universal
design, and punish those misrepresenting the accessibility of their
technologies.
Third, it is critical that we recognize the tremendous sacrifice
that a student with a disability makes when bringing a complaint
regarding accessibility against her school. Consider the Ph.D.
candidate pursuing a career in academia. If in the middle of her study
she decides she can no longer take the technology barriers she faces in
the university's systems, she has a terrible choice to make. Option 1:
File a complaint against her university and potentially upset some of
the very mentors she came to the university to work under. Furthermore,
her complaint will put her in the position of applying for jobs at
other universities and listing references from her current university
where many will think of her as a troublemaker. Option 2: Bite her
tongue, accept whatever extra cost there is to her to work through the
inaccessible technology, and hope to get out successfully as fast as
she can. Option 3: Drop out. In the same way any other group has faced
real and perceived retaliation for attempting to achieve equality in
society, students with disabilities face a real barrier when fighting
for accessible technology. Congress needs to carefully consider the
pressure on students with disabilities and create stronger protections
that give stronger supports to students and help to share the
responsibility of accessibility.
Technology accessibility is a central civil rights issue for the
21st century, and if Congress does not take stronger actions, we will
make people with disabilities second-class citizens in a digital era.
conclusion
Technology is transforming the way we create, share, and gain
knowledge. If built universally and implemented effectively, technology
will make the passion and skill of our greatest teachers even more
powerful as we nurture the next generation of leaders for our Nation.
If we fail to include accessibility in that technology, we will set
this generation of students with disabilities back decades. The cost to
those individuals and to our country is too great and the opportunity
is too promising to stand by and let that happen.
As a blind father working to build a future for my own children as
well as the blind children that are now entering the education system,
it concerns me that we might miss the tremendous opportunity that is
within our reach. It worries me that our failure to make universal
access to technology a reality may potentially shut one of my children
out of educational opportunities and may prevent me, as a blind parent,
from having the same access to information and resources regarding my
children's education as my sighted peers. By welcoming the new paradigm
of mainstream access, providing government leadership in programs and
grant-funded projects, collecting and disseminating best practices in
implementing accessible technology, building tools to check for
accessibility barriers, deepening awareness and expertise among IT
professionals, and strengthening nondiscrimination protections under
the law, we can make a huge difference.
Distinguished members of this committee, I deeply appreciate the
opportunity to present my perspective and recommendations regarding the
intersection of technology and education for students with
disabilities. Your leadership in putting this hearing together is
extremely meaningful and will contribute significantly to the shift to
a new paradigm of accessibility in education. We know the type of
future we want, we understand the promise of technology, and we must
act quickly to make it a reality.
References
``27,000 Google Chromebooks headed to U.S. schools,'' Deep Tech--CNET
News, http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57365703-264/27000-google-
chromebooks-headed-to-u.s-schools/.
``Mainstream Access to E-Books--What Works, What Doesn't, and What Is
Still Unclear,'' Braille Monitor, January 2012, http://www.nfb.org/
images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm12/bm1201/bm120105.htm.
``Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant
Applications for Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and
Career Training Grants Program,'' Employment and Training
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Notice of Solicitation
for Grant Applications (SGA), http://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/SGA-
DFA-PY-10-03.pdf.
Recent NFB Blog posts: Google Apps, http://www.nfb.org/NewsBot.asp?MODE
=VIEW&ID=850&SnID=178214263. The Google Blog, http://www.nfb.org/
News
Bot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=848&SnID=178214263. Google, http://
www.nfb.org/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=782&SnID=178214263.
``Report on the Accessibility of Google Documents,'' Access Technology
Higher Education Network (ATHEN), http://athenpro.org/google-docs-
accessibility.
``School district adopts the iPad,'' written by Don Amend, Powell
Tribune, Powell, WY, http://www.powelltribune.com/news/item/8470-
school-district-adopts-the-ipad.
Table 1.--Comparison of iPhone and BrailleNote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iPhone 4S BrailleNote Apex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor....................... 1GHz dual-core A5 Freescale iMX32
\1\. \2\ (approx.
532MHz \3\)
RAM............................. 512MB............. 256MB
Internal Storage................ 16/32/64GB........ 8GB
GPS............................. Internal.......... External
Camera.......................... 8-megapixel....... None
External Synchronization........ Wi-Fi/Cloud, USB.. USB/SD Card
Web Browsing Capabilities....... Full browser Mobile browser
capable of best for text or
rendering HTML 5. simple pages.
Price........................... 16GB iPhone 4S BrailleNote Apex
($199) + Alva 32 cell Braille
BC640 40-cell display: $6,379
refreshable
Braille display
($4,199): $4,398.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.pcworld.com/article/241158/
iphone_4s_vs_the_competition_spec_showdown_chart .html.
\2\ http://www.humanware.com/en-usa/products/blindness/braillenotes/
_details/id_161/braillenote_ apex_qt_32.html.
\3\ http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/
taxonomy.jsp?code=IMX31_FAMILY. Information of iMX32 is not available,
but datasheets show iMX31/32 listed together; specifications appear to
be similar.
______
Requested Information About NSF Enforcement and Monitoring of
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Kareem Dale,
Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy,
Office of Public Engagement,
The White House.
Dear Kareem: Thank you for inviting me to attend the October 28,
2011 ``Briefing on the Accessibility of Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education and Careers for People
with Disabilities.'' During the meeting Dr. Gardner and you asked for
information about how NSF enforces and monitors awardee compliance with
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). The following response
is offered for your consideration.
When a grant proposal is submitted to the NSF, the Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) from the proposing organization
electronically signs the proposal. By electronically signing the
proposal, the AOR certifies the organization agrees to comply with
NSF's Nondiscrimination Certification. That certification states that
the organization agrees to comply with a multitude of civil rights
statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act, as well as all regulations
and policies issued by NSF pursuant to these statutes.
NSF has the responsibility to monitor awardee compliance with the
Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, in accordance with its regulations,
NSF is required to conduct a prompt investigation whenever it receives
information suggesting a possible failure to comply with the
requirements of the Rehabilitation Act. At the conclusion of its
investigation, NSF informs the awardee in writing of its findings of
fact and conclusions of law. If NSF determines that the awardee failed
to comply with the Rehabilitation Act, NSF sets forth the measures that
the awardee must take to bring itself into compliance. If the awardee
is unable or unwilling to take the measures set forth by NSF, NSF may
take appropriate action against the awardee including, but not limited
to, the termination of any NSF funding to the awardee.
In addition, pursuant to its regulations, NSF is authorized to
periodically review the practices and policies of awardees to determine
whether they are complying with the requirements of the Rehabilitation
Act. The regulations do not specify a particular number of compliance
reviews that NSF is required to undertake in a given year.
Thank you for this inquiry. Please advise if there is any
additional information we can provide.
Best,
Mark H. Leddy, Ph.D.,
Program Director, Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, National Science Foundation.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Riccobono--a very, very
eloquent statement.
Now we will turn to Dr. Quick.
Dr. Quick, I read your testimony last evening--pretty
phenomenal what you've done in Columbus, IN. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. QUICK, SUPERINTENDENT,
BARTHOLOMEW CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL CORPORATION, COLUMBUS, IN
Mr. Quick. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me to speak about Bartholomew Consolidated School
Corporation and how we work to achieve the best possible
outcomes for every student. I would like to share how we use
Universal Design for Learning as our framework for curriculum
instruction and how that helps our teachers effectively use
accessible technology.
We are a district of 12,500 students. We are rural, about
50 miles south of Indianapolis and 90 miles west of Cincinnati.
We have 18 schools serving our students. Of those students, 45
percent are eligible for free and reduced lunch, 16 percent are
students of color, 14 percent receive special education
services, and 11 percent are English language learners.
Therefore, in 2008, we made a purposeful decision to use
Universal Design for Learning across all our programs as a
framework to design all instruction and curriculum in our
district. We find this framework has helped us uphold our
expectation that all learners will achieve to their highest
level.
Using Universal Design for Learning has advanced the
educational outcomes that include: From 2009 through 2011, we
had a 10.5 percent increase in the number of students with
disabilities passing Indiana's statewide assessment; 68 percent
of our English language learners increased their skill scores
on a statewide assessment which was a greater increase than the
State average; and we had a 7 percent increase of K-8 students
receiving Pass-Plus. This is the State's highest recognition on
the State testing in English language arts and math.
In 2011, we met annual yearly progress targets for both
English language arts and math with our special education
population and our English language learner population. Our
district was honored by the College Board and placed on the 2d
Annual Advanced Placement Honor Roll for increasing the number
of students participating in AP and improving the percentage of
underserved students earning advanced placement exam scores of
three or higher.
At this point, let me take a minute or two to tell you
about what Universal Design for Learning means to our schools.
Just as the Americans with Disabilities Act requires buildings
to be accessible to all who might enter, Universal Design for
Learning serves as a framework to make learning environments
accessible to all students. There are three overarching
principles: engagement, representation, and action expression.
When used, these create an accessible learning environment.
BCSC recognizes the need to create flexible learning
environments which are standards-based and utilize accessible
technologies when appropriate to the lesson. We are fortunate
to have access to technologies such as computers, the Internet,
smart phones, tablets, and other devices. However, those
technologies only come into use when they have been identified
as connected to the instruction.
Teachers utilize the framework of Universal Design for
Learning as a decisionmaking tool to help them determine what
strategies, accessible technology, and methods they will use to
help the students achieve the goals of the lesson.
For example, a seventh grade student was recently
experiencing significant behavior problems. This student with
autism, who is also identified as high ability, continued to
struggle in many of his high ability core courses. After
investigation, it was determined that the current instructional
strategies were not a match for the student. Because we
provided the student access to a computer-based program, this
student no longer exhibits the previous behaviors. In fact,
this student is successfully completing high school courses as
a seventh grader. The availability of accessible technology has
allowed this student to remain in school.
BCSC's adoption of Universal Design for Learning and the
use of accessible technologies had taken time, commitment, and
persistence in an age of constant educational change. We
believe that Universal Design for Learning and the use of
accessible technology has placed us on a pathway to improve
services for all our students. With its well-defined and
flexible framework, Universal Design for Learning has provided
the necessary structure within which BCSC's teachers can plan
and feel confident in their profession.
Thank you for inviting me to share information about how
BCSC uses Universal Design for Learning to choose accessible
technology. My staff and I are at your service.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quick follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Quick
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, thank you for
inviting me to testify before the committee. I am Dr. John B. Quick,
superintendent of Bartholomew Consolidated Schools, Corporation (BCSC)
in Columbus, IN. I want to share with you information about how our
school district uses the framework of Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) to expand and guide our use of accessible technologies to enhance
our instruction and gain better outcomes for our students.
demographics
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (BCSC) is located in
Columbus, IN, 45 miles south of Indianapolis. Of our 12,500 students,
0.3 percent are American Indian, 1.8 percent are Black, 3 percent are
Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.9 percent are Multicultural, 6.7 percent
are Hispanic, and 83.4 percent are White. Within our population, 45
percent receive free/reduced meals. 11 percent are English Language
Learners and 13.9 percent receive special education services. These
students are served through our early childhood center, 11 elementary
schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and our adult/
alternative education center (Bartholomew Consolidated School
Corporation, 2012). Two of our elementary schools utilize the New Tech
Model, while a team within one middle school and one of our high
schools are part of the New Tech network. (The New Tech Network, 2012).
Similar to other communities, the demographics in Columbus have
shifted in recent years. Between 2002-3 and 2011-12, BCSC saw
significant growth in the number of students qualifying for free and
reduced lunches (31 percent to 45 percent) and the overall number of
minority students served (9.7 percent to 15.7 percent). The most
significant growth, however, has been in the number of students who are
English Language Learners (ELL). In 2002-3, BCSC served 1.7 percent
students identified as ELL. In 2011-12, that percentage increased to 11
percent. These individuals represent 50 different languages.
In 2002-3, 16.4 percent of BCSC students were eligible for special
education services. It continues to be the goal of the administration
that these students receive an overwhelming majority of their services
alongside their general education peers. Currently, 13.9 percent of
BCSC students are eligible for special education services with
approximately 90 percent of these students included within the general
education setting for at least 80 percent of their instructional day.
The high percentage of students with disabilities served in general
education is reflective of BCSC's belief that full access to the
curriculum should drive all instruction.
universal design for learning and accessible technology: bcsc's
philosophy
BCSC's expectation that all learners will achieve to their highest
levels drove the need to identify an instructional framework. Thus, in
2004 the BCSC leadership identified Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
as the framework to support the inclusive practices for students with
disabilities and enhance the access of curriculum for all students (see
Appendix A). One of the ways BCSC makes curriculum accessible to all
students is through the use of accessible technology.
UDL is a curriculum designing tool that helps teachers design
lessons that will be accessible to all students. There are three
overarching principles (engagement, representation, and action and
expression). Each is broken down into nine guidelines (three under each
principle). The guidelines help teachers select teaching strategies,
methods and accessible technologies, which will, when combined, create
an accessible learning environment. Brain research (Rose & Dalton,
2006) tells us that learners' abilities are multi-faceted and no one
method of presentation, instruction, or evaluation can address every
learner in a meaningful way (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose & Jackson, 2002).
Fortunately, UDL provides a framework within which schools can
investigate or build any curriculum. The curriculum is not altered;
rather, it is enhanced through the teacher's application of the UDL
principles and use of accessible technologies.
For example, a second grade teacher creates an introductory lesson
about electricity. First and foremost, a goal linked to the State
standards is determined: Students will demonstrate their current
knowledge of the flow of electricity. Next, the teacher uses the nine
guidelines to determine what strategies and technology to use. The
following example focuses on the principle of engagement and the first
guideline of ``options for recruiting interest.''
When the teacher considers options for recruiting interest, he
designs the lesson so the topic is relevant and authentic to his
students. He might use pictures, multimedia (e.g., showing a brief
child-centered video about electricity or an app demonstrating how
electricity is made), a group discussion to list what items utilize
electricity, and/or allow students to safely hold or touch items that
utilize electricity. The teacher knows, because of the defined
guideline, that these activities must be personalized and
contextualized to his students' lives while being relevant for
different racial, ethnic, cultural, and gender groups. By addressing
each of the nine guidelines, the teacher can be confident that he is
creating a learning environment and using technologies, which are
accessible to his learners.
UDL aligns with BCSC's beliefs in providing a structure for clear
instructional practices while addressing a specific instructional goal
(Center for Teaching and Learning, 2005). Because instructional goals
might involve the use of technology, it is BCSC's expectation that
teachers choose whether or not to utilize accessible technology to
align with the standards-based goals they have determined for their
lessons. Specifically, accessible technology must be chosen based on
the framework of UDL. The use of technology must engage students;
explain an idea, action or outcome; or provide an avenue for students
to demonstrate knowledge (Doyle & Giangreco, 2009). If we do not use
technology that makes curriculum accessible, within the framework of
UDL, we will not be addressing the needs of all students and nothing in
our classrooms will change.
our journey
BCSC's journey to the adoption of UDL began in 2002 when the
director of special education worked with a consultant from The Center
on Education and Lifelong Learning at Indiana University to answer the
following question: How are decisions made concerning special education
services? This inquiry led to conversations with general and special
educators throughout BCSC and culminated in the creation of an
instructional service delivery plan. This plan focused on how to best
help students eligible for special education have access to the general
education curriculum and become proficient in BCSC's learning
objectives. All teachers involved in the education of children with
special needs were trained on this new plan. This shift prompted BCSC
to apply for participation in a statewide project titled PATINS. The
goal of this project was to ``impact both the organizational capacities
of local public schools and the professional capabilities of school
staff in the delivery of assistive technology services and the
implementation of Universal Design for Learning principles'' (PATINS
Project, 2009). BCSC's participation, though encouraged by BCSC's
Director of Special Education, was supported by the directors of
elementary and secondary education. This was a deliberate choice by
BCSC's leaders to ensure UDL would not be viewed as a special education
initiative but as a system-wide initiative. An instructional rubric was
designed to help teachers recognize their own level of implementation
and to help building leaders identify strong leaders in the
implementation (see Appendix B).
In addition to UDL, BCSC adopted two other structures to ensure
that: (a) teachers are supported in their ability to teach in diverse
classrooms and, (b) all students are provided with behavioral supports
so they can be successful within the learning environment. Examples of
how these strategies link to UDL are given below under ``Our Impact on
Learning.'' Instructional videos linking UDL to these strategies can be
found at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/page/346.
The Instructional Consultation Teams (IC-Teams) process was
identified as a method teachers could use to problem-solve issues
related to curriculum and instruction (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006). As
implemented in BCSC, the IC-Team model is grounded in the principles of
UDL to assist teachers in creating an instructional match for the
student. This process dictates that when there is no match, no one is
at fault; rather, a series of data collection steps needs to take place
so the teacher, child, classroom environment and accessible technology
needs can come together to create an appropriate match. A seventh grade
student recently was experiencing significant behavior problems. This
student with autism, who also is identified as high ability, continued
to struggle in many of his high ability core courses. Following an
examination of the data and possible function of his behavior, it was
determined the current instructional strategies were not a match for
this student. After utilizing a computer-based program, this student no
longer exhibits the previous behaviors, and in fact, is successfully
completing high school courses as a seventh grade student. Without the
availability of this accessible technology, this student would have
most likely ended up as a dropout.
To ensure BCSC was supporting the behavioral needs of all students,
we also adopted Positive Behavior Instruction and Supports (PBIS) in
2004-5 as a core process. PBIS, as recognized in IDEA (2004), is a
systematic way to develop and implement school-wide behavioral
expectations and ``achieve socially important behavior change'' (Sugai
ET al., 2000, p. 133). These expectations are taught to students using
age appropriate and culturally appropriate lessons. When students
understand how they are expected to behave within a specific
environment (e.g., the classroom, the hallways, the lunchroom, or the
stair wells), students are more likely to demonstrate those behaviors
(Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). PBIS teams were established at each
school and continue to meet monthly to investigate behavioral and
academic data to pinpoint trends and issues. Using this information,
the teams design and implement plans to support positive changes in
student and staff behavior.
In 2008, BCSC received a grant to support a project director to
lead the implementation of UDL. During the grant year, the principals
and staff in each building worked with the project director to decide
what workshops or presentations would best suit the needs of their
teachers. While some schools were experienced in applying the
principles of UDL, other schools were relatively new to applying the
principles school-wide. The principals reported that this was an
effective way for their staff to become more knowledgeable and
comfortable with the application of UDL in their classrooms. The role
of project director has become UDL Coordinator as BCSC demonstrates its
specific focus on UDL and the necessity to continue training and
support for its teachers.
technology at bcsc
To support our implementation of UDL, BCSC's technology
infrastructure includes the ratio of one computer for every 2.7
students. Our Technology Division supports 750 classrooms of which 360
have wireless access. In addition, we have a variety of hardware spread
across the corporation including but not limited to: interactive white
boards, document cameras, flip cameras, digital microscopes, clickers
(i.e., hand-held voting devices) and iPads.
Currently, students at the secondary level are participating in a 1
to 1 pilot that encourages students to bring their own device or
utilize BCSC-owned devices. The majority of student-owned devices
include smart phones, tablets, and iTouches with the only requirement
being that the device can reach the Internet and that students log on
to the Internet through the district servers. Of those participating
students, 748 bring their own devices while 380 BCSC-owned devices
support the other students involved in the pilot. The creation of this
pilot was fully guided by UDL. Appendix C includes the rubrics used by
the 1 to 1 design teams. Appendix D includes the application teachers
completed to participate in this pilot.
While BCSC is dedicated to accessible technology, we are committed
to the use of UDL to help define how technology should be used. For
example, our corporation is beginning to use an interactive information
system called My Big Campus. Designed to look and operate like
Facebook, this filtered, safe, on-line environment allows teachers to
share information with other professionals and post assignments, exams
(that open and close for specific students at specific times), and post
items for discussion. One social studies teacher held a discussion
during the South Carolina Republican debate where students responded to
questions and posted their own thoughts and questions about the debate.
How does this fit with UDL? The teacher was aware that some students
were not participating during in-class discussions and were not earning
participation points. This option provided those students a way to earn
those points, demonstrating the principle of expression. Next, the
teacher knew that some students were unfamiliar with the primary
process. Students who were previously uncomfortable asking questions
about that process felt safe using this monitored, on-line environment.
In addition, the teacher linked them to other on-line resources about
the primary process. This demonstrated the principle of representation.
So, instead of using technology to show a video during and after which
students complete a worksheet, this teacher utilized technology to
engage the students, represent supporting information, and gain
information on his students' understanding of the primary process.
our impact on learning
BCSC takes great care to ensure UDL is not viewed as ``one more
thing'' or a ``special education thing.'' UDL is our guiding
instructional framework; thus, we work diligently to clearly connect
various BCSC instructional, curricula and assessment efforts
initiatives to UDL. If we cannot make those connections, we question
the value of the initiative. Examples of how UDL and its use of
accessible technology have had an impact on student outcomes include:
Schools implement UDL to ensure students experience a
variety of learning opportunities when learning Positive Behavior
Instructional Support strategies. A video from one of our middle
schools shows how the students learned appropriate dress for school
(Northside Middle School, 2012).
Instructional Consultation Team facilitators are provided
instruction on how to help teachers recognize and embed UDL strategies
in their lessons (BCSC, 2011).
English, math, social studies and science textbook and
resource adoption committees were guided by the principles, guidelines
and checkpoints of UDL (see Appendix E for the science example). In our
recent social studies adoption, BCSC chose to adopt a portfolio of
digital resources versus a hardback textbook (Lord Nelson, Arthur,
Jensen, & Van Horn, 2011).
Senior projects, a requirement for graduation, are
designed to provide students the opportunity to demonstrate their
accumulation of knowledge and experiences through a variety of options
(Columbus East High School, 2012). Students' use of technology have
included self-made videos, digitized musical productions, presentations
utilizing on-line resources, and Power Point presentations. This level
of choice (principle of engagement) and breadth of presentation style
(principle of expression) helps ensure an exceptional rate of 95
percent completion.
Between 2009 and 2011, the number of students with special
needs in grades 3-8 who have passed the math portion of ISTEP increased
12.8 percent.
Between 2009 and 2011, the number of students with special
needs in grades 3-8 who passed the English portion of ISTEP has
increased 8.7 percent.
Sixty-eight percent of BCSC's English Language Learner
(ELL) students in Grades K-12 increased 12 or more scale points from
their most recent prior test to spring 2011 on the LAS Links (an
Indiana statewide assessment). Across the State, only 64 percent of
this same group improved.
BCSC met the Annual Yearly Performance (AYP) in both
English and math for students with disabilities.
BCSC met the Annual Yearly Performance (AYP) in both
English and math for students with ELL.
BCSC is 1 of 367 public school districts in the Nation
honored by the College Board and was placed on the 2d Annual AP Honor
Roll. Since 2009, BCSC has increased the number of students
participating in AP from 256 to 467, while improving the percentage of
students earning AP Exam scores of three or higher from 48 percent in
2009 to 52 percent in 2011. The framework of UDL and the effective use
of accessible technology have created a learning environment where more
and more students are academically successful. This success is
translating into higher rates of participation in AP courses and on the
AP exams.
BCSC 2011 ACT scores show that the percent of students
demonstrating college readiness was higher than the national percentage
of students demonstrating college readiness. This was true in all four
sub scores of the ACT with 40 percent of BCSC seniors participating in
the ACT.
Finally, BCSC's focus on UDL to benefit all students has been
recognized by the Center for Applied Special Technology (Center for
Applied Special Technology, 2009), The Council for Exceptional Children
(Council for Exceptional Children, 2010), and published articles in
juried educational journals (Lord Nelson, Arthur, Van Horn & Jensen,
2009; Lord Nelson, Van Horn, Jensen, Vogel & Garrity, 2012).
next steps
Perhaps most importantly, UDL will be a key driver in the new
teacher evaluation process that is currently under development in BCSC.
In the new district classroom success rubric, UDL will be the framework
for instruction. The Indiana Department of Education offered school
districts the option of utilizing an existing teacher evaluation model
or creating a model based on researched practices. A team of BCSC
teachers, principals, and administrators are working together to create
an effective framework for professional practice and evaluation which
is grounded in the principles of UDL.
conclusion
The application of UDL and the use of accessible technology to
implement aspects of UDL take initial focus and time and will always
involve creativity, but the rewards for the student and teacher are
tremendous. Three aspects to bring this effort to scale in BCSC were
essential:
1. The collaboration of the director of special education, the
director of elementary education and the director of secondary
education who have conveyed the importance of UDL as the framework of
instruction throughout the district;
2. The hiring of a dynamic instructional expert with knowledge of
accessible technology to coordinate the implementation of UDL
throughout the district.
3. The identification of practicing experts, also knowledgeable
about accessible technology, who have been willing to share their
classroom practices of UDL with other teachers throughout the district.
BCSC's adoption of UDL has taken time, commitment, and persistence
in an age of constant educational change. We believe that UDL and the
use of accessible technology has placed us on a pathway to improved
services to all of our students. With its well-defined and flexible
framework, UDL has provided the necessary structure within which BCSC's
teachers can plan and feel confident in their profession.
______
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Overview
Good afternoon Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi and members of
the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak about Bartholomew
Consolidated School Corporation and how we work to achieve the best
possible outcomes for every student. I would like to share how we use
Universal Design for Learning as our framework for curriculum and
instruction and how that helps our teachers effectively use accessible
technology.
BCSC, as we refer to Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation,
is a district of 12,500 students. We are a rural school district about
50 miles south of Indianapolis and 90 miles west of Cincinnati. We have
18 schools serving our students. Of those students, 45 percent are
eligible for free or reduced lunch, 16 percent are students of color,
14 percent receive special education services, and 11 percent are
English language learners.
We have a diverse student population and work to address their
learning needs. Therefore, in 2008 we made a purposeful decision to use
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) across all our programs as the
framework to design all instruction and curriculum in our district. We
find this framework has helped us uphold our expectation that all
learners will achieve to their highest level. Using UDL has advanced
the educational outcomes that include:
From 2009 and 2011,
we had a 10.5 percent increase in the number of students with
disabilities passing Indiana's statewide assessment;
sixty-eight percent of our English Language Learners
increased their scale scores on the statewide assessment which
was a greater increase than the State average; And, we had a 7
percent increase of K-8 students receiving pass+, which is the
State's highest recognition on the State testing in English
Language Arts and math.
In 2011,
we met Annual Yearly Progress targets for both
English Language Arts and math with our special education
population and English Language Learner population;
and BCSC was honored by the College Board and placed
on the 2d Annual Advanced Placement Honor Roll for increasing
the number of students participating in AP and improving the
percentage of underserved students earning AP Exam scores of
three or higher; and
At this point, let me take a minute and tell you what universal
design for learning means to our schools. Just as the American with
Disabilities Act requires buildings be accessible to all who might
enter, UDL serves as a framework to make learning environments
accessible to all students. There are three overarching principles:
engagement, representation, and action/expression. When used, these
create an accessible learning environment.
Because our population is diverse, BCSC recognizes the need to
create flexible learning environments which are standards-based and
utilize accessible technology when appropriate to the lesson. We are
fortunate to have access to technologies such as computers, Internet
access, smart phones, tablets, and other devices; however, those
technologies only come into use when they have been identified as
connected to the instruction. Teachers utilize the framework of UDL as
a decisionmaking tool to help them determine what strategies,
accessible technologies, and methods they will use to help students
achieve the goals of the lesson.
For example, a seventh grade student was recently experiencing
significant behavior problems. This student with autism, who also is
identified as high ability, continued to struggle in many of his high
ability core courses. After investigation, it was determined the
current instructional strategies were not a match for this student.
Because we provided the student access to a computer-based program,
this student no longer exhibits the previous behaviors. In fact, this
student is successfully completing high school courses as a seventh
grader. The availability of accessible technology has allowed this
student to remain in school.
In another example, a social studies teacher held an on-line
discussion during the recent South Carolina Republican debate. Our
corporation uses an interactive information system called My Big Campus
which looks like Facebook, but is a filtered, safe, on-line
environment. In this class, students responded to questions and posted
their own thoughts and questions about the debate. How does this fit
with UDL and accessible technology? The teacher was aware that some
students were not participating during in-class discussions and were
not earning participation points. This option provided those students a
way to earn those points, demonstrating the principle of expression.
Next, the teacher knew that some students were unfamiliar with the
primary process. Students who were previously uncomfortable asking
questions about that process felt safe using this monitored, on-line
environment. In addition, the teacher linked them to other on-line
resources about the primary process. This teacher utilized technology
to engage the students, represent supporting information, and gain
information on his students' understanding of the primary process.
BCSC's adoption of UDL and the use of accessible technologies has
taken time, commitment, and persistence in an age of constant
educational change. We believe that UDL and the use of accessible
technology has placed us on a pathway to improved services to all of
our students. With its well defined and flexible framework, UDL has
provided the necessary structure within which BCSC's teachers can plan
and feel confident in their profession.
Thank you for inviting me to share information about how BCSC uses
UDL to choose how to best use our accessible technology and my staff
and I are at your service if there is any way we may be of help.
References
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation. (2012). Select a school.
Available from the Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Web
site: http://www.
bcsc.k12.in.us.
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (2012). UDL videos from
BCSC: UDL and instructional consultation teams (ICT) at BCSC.
Retrieved from the Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Web
site: http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/page/346.
Bouck, E.C., Courtad, C.A., Heutsche, A., Okolo, C.M., & Englert, C.S.
(2009). The virtual history museum: A universally designed approach
to social studies instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 2
PP. 14-20.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (Producer). (2010). UDL
unplugged: The role of technology in UDL. Available from the Center
for Applied Special Technology Web site: http://www.udlcenter.org/
resource_library/videos/udlcenter/meet
authors#video1.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (Producer). (2009). A district
implements UDL. Available from the Center for Applied Special
Technology Web site: http://udlspotlight.wordpress.com/category/
bcsc-district-udl-initiative/.
Center on Teaching and Learning (2005). A world class community
learning system. Retrieved from Bartholomew Consolidated School
Corporation Web site: http://c2.bcsc.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/
IN01000842/Centricity/Domain/1/A%20World%
20Class%20Community%20Learning%20System.pdf.
Columbus East High School. (2012). What is senior project? Retrieved
from Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Web site: http://
www.bcsc.k12.in.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=1240.
Council for Exceptional Children. (April, 2011). AARA in action:
Universal Design for Learning expanded in Indiana school district
with stimulus funding. Federal Outlook for Exceptional Children.
Retrieved from the Council for Exceptional Children Web site:
http://issuu.com/ellipse1/docs/230249_cec_foec_fy2012?
mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout
.xml&showFlipBtn=true.
Doyle, M.B. & Giangreco, M.F. (2009) Making presentation software
accessible to high school students with intellectual disabilities.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 3, PP. 24-31.
Gravois, T.A., and Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of instructional
consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement
of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special
Education, 27, 1 January/February (PP. 42-52).
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new
access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 5(2), 8-17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1414
(2004).
Nelson, L.L., Arthur, E., Jensen, W., & Van Horn, G. (April, 2011).
Trading Textbooks for Technology: New Opportunities for Learning.
Kappan, 92 (7), 46-50.
Northside Middle School. (2012). What does PBIS look like at Northside?
Retrieved from the Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Web
site: http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=9732.
Lord Nelson, L., Van Horn, G., Jensen, W., Vogel, J., & Garrity, K.
(2012). Building School Capacity around the Implementation of
Universal Design for Learning: Using a Rubric to Guide and
Investigate Practice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying
universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading
comprehension program. Preventing School Failure, 52, 2 (PP. 21-
30).
Indiana Department of Education. (2012). Demographic data. Retrieved
from the Compass site of the Indiana Department of Education:
http://compass.doe.in.gov/
Dashboard.aspx?view=CORP&val=0365&desc=Bartholomew+Con+School+Corp.
The New Tech Network. (2010). Our model: What fuels our success.
Retrieved from New Tech Network Web site: http://
www.newtechnetwork.org/newtech_model.
PATINS Project (2009). Promoting achievement through technology and
instruction for all students. Retrieved from the PATINS Web site:
http://www.patinsproject
.com/.
Rose, D.H., & Dalton, B. (2006). Engaging the text: Brain research and
the universal design of reading strategy supports. In D.H. Rose &
A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for
learning (PP. 133-148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective
school environments. In M.R. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H.M. Walker
(Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems:
Preventative and remedial approaches (PP. 315-50). Silver Springs,
MD: National Association for School Psychologists.
Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson,
C.M., ET al. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and
functional assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions, 2, 131-43. ET al., 2000, p. 133.
______
Appendix A
A Description of UDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principles Representation Action and Expression Engagement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidelines........................... 1: Provide options for 4: Provide options for 7: Provide options for
perception. physical action. recruiting interest.
Guidelines........................... 2: Provide options for 5: Provide options for 8: Provide options for
language, mathematical expression and sustaining effort and
expression, and communication. persistence.
symbols.
Guidelines........................... 3: Provide options for 6: Provide options for 9: Provide options for
comprehension. executive functions. self-regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAST graphic: http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/updateguidelines2_0.pdf.
UDL calls for:
Defining goals that provide appropriate challenges for all
students, ensuring that the means is not a part of the goal.
Using methods that are flexible and diverse enough to support
and challenge all learners.
Using materials that are flexible and varied and take
advantage of the digital media, such as digitized text,
multimedia software, video recorders, tape recorders, and the
Internet.
Using assessment techniques that are sufficiently flexible to
provide ongoing, accurate information to inform instruction and
determine student understanding and knowledge (Meo, 2008, p.
22).
Appendix B
UDL Rubric: A Portion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Yet Evident Emerging Intermediate Advanced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Goals................... Clarity of goals and No students are clear Few students are Some students are Every student is
evidence of different on the overall goal clear on the overall clear on the overall clear on the overall
objectives for and all students are goal for the lesson goal for the lesson goal for the lesson
various learners. expected to have the and their learning and their learning and their learning
same objectives. objectives. objectives. objectives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDL Principle UDL Teaching Method Not Yet Evident Emerging Intermediate Advanced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple means of representation... Provide multiple Students are only In preparation for a In preparation for a In preparation for a
examples. given one example of lesson, the teacher lesson, the teacher lesson, the teacher
skills needed to has few examples creates some and students create
complete the that identify skills examples to find and multiple examples of
assignment. and concepts needed identify skills and finding and
to complete the concepts needed to identifying skills
assignment. complete the and concepts needed
assignment. to complete the
assignment.
Multiple means of representation... Highlight critical Teacher provides Teacher provides The teacher provides The teacher provides
features. critical information critical information critical information critical information
for the lesson for the lesson for the lesson for the lesson
through only one through only two through oral and through oral and
modality. modalities. visual presentation visual presentation
and highlights and highlights
critical features in critical features in
written and visual written and visual
form, then monitors form, then monitors
students to check students to check
their focus on their focus on
important features important features
of the lesson. of the lesson.
Additionally, by
having texts
available in digital
format, the teacher
or students could
literally highlight
critical features of
the text while
preparing the lesson
assignments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C
1:1 Pilot Rubric
SECTION I--One-to-One Observations: Classroom use of the technology (used by teachers and administrators)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not evident Emerging Proficient Advanced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. UDL in action: seeing/hearing There is no One or two of the The principles of The principles of
or hearing about examples of evidence of UDL principles are UDL can be UDL drive the
UDL. being applied. touched upon identified within presentation of
during the lesson. the lesson. the lesson.
2. Cramming: bringing computers Computer use in Computer use in Computer use in Computer use in
into the classrooms but sustain class is limited class includes class is a the classroom is
current practices and to note taking notetaking, companion to clearly connected
pedagogies. and/or doing reading articles discussion groups. to 21st century
worksheets. and/or surfing skills (e.g.,
the net. critical
thinking,
analysis and
communication).
3. Access to on-line resources Teachers are Teachers can Teachers can Teachers can
and system safety/integrity: denied access to request access to request access to access any on-
access to on-line resources. on-line resources on-line resources on-line resources line resource.
due to the school but can still be and receive
system's firewall. denied. permission.
4. Teaching non-consumers*: No strategies are Few strategies are Occasional There are clear
engaging students who used to engage used to engage strategies are and evident
historically disconnected the nonconsumers. the nonconsumers. used to engage strategies to
themselves from learning. the nonconsumers. engage the non-
consumers.
5. Going around and underneath: Pure instructional Majority of Evidence of Application of
allowing for and encouraging focus on a instructional innovation and innovation and
innovation creates change. standardized focus on creativity while creativity while
measurement. standardized addressing addressing
measurement. standards. standards.
6. Nuts and Bolts: learning when When technology When technology When technology When technology
technology fails. fails the lesson fails, part of fails, the fails, the entire
is cancelled. the lesson is majority of the lesson is taught
taught. lesson is taught. in a different
way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-consumers: For this observation sheet, non-consumers are students who are present in the classroom but who
are not engaged.
Appendix D
1:1 Pilot Application
personal information
1. Name
2. School
instructional focus
Project abstract:
Please include the # of students, type(s) of device(s), # of
devices, web-based applications, additional hardware, and/or other
information that would support student learning.
What are the essential questions you will address through this
pilot? (FAQ)
What are your professional driving questions (what will drive how
you implement the devices)? (FAQ)
learner focus
Using the principles and guidelines of UDL to frame your
description (see www.cast.org):
Demonstrate how the use of the devices will enhance student
learning.
Demonstrate how the students will engage with and express higher
order thinking.
Demonstrate how the students will engage and express the habits of
mind.
Demonstrate the acquisition of 21st century skills by the
students.
How will you foster student ownership of learning?
deployment
4. How will you use Web applications to support the learning you
expect to take place?
5. How will you foster a culture of responsibility? (FAQ)
6. Are you familiar with the devices you are proposing to use?
7. Does your device usage require the use of a separate server?
8. Are there any policy, rules, or regulations that will need to be
addressed if your pilot is chosen? (FAQ) What will they be?
9. How will you measure your pilot? (consider student outcomes,
rate of device use, how teacher friendly is the use of the devices, is
it easy for your pilot to replicate within your discipline and across
disciplines?)
professional development
1. Pilot participants are expected to share lessons created using
the technology to be shared with other BCSC teachers. Please check if
you acknowledge this.
2. Pilot participants are expected to be interviewed and possibly
recorded (tape or video) for in-house trainings of other staff members.
Please check if you acknowledge this.
3. Pilot participants are expected to participate in a professional
learning community. Please check if you acknowledge this.
Appendix E
2012 BCSC Secondary Science Adoption Rubric--Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weak Emerging Advanced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the In addition to the
``Weak'' ``Emerging''
criteria:. criteria:
Technology options do not align Technology Technology
with performance standards and options do align resource is fast,
applications. with current stable, reliable,
performance and provides
standards and individual and
applications. shared storage
space for staff
and students.
School network is not able to IT support is Company support
support computer and technology sufficient to provides robust
options. support computer support and is
and network very responsive
infrastructure. to issues as they
arise.
Staff and/or students cannot Staff and Resources would
use collaboration through students can be heavily used
technology as part of regular regularly by staff and
classroom practice. collaborate students as a
through communication and
technology. collaboration
tool (within and
between schools).
And can be widely
used to support
the teaching
methodology and
inter-school
sharing.
Technology is not aligned with Technology is Technology is
UDL. somewhat aligned completely
with UDL. aligned with UDL.
Technology does not allow for Technology allows Technology
agility within the curriculum for some agility supports an agile
to take advantage of change & within the curriculum to
updates in research/discovery. curriculum to take advantage of
take advantage of current research
changes or and discovery.
updates in
research and
discovery.
Training is not provided for Initial training Extended training
the technology. is provided for is provided for
the use of the use of
technology. technology.
Materials cannot be accessed at Material can be Resources allow
home or by parents. accessed at home other digital and
and by parents. online tools to
support student
engagement and
instruction.
Technology resources have Technology Technology
unreasonable cost to both the resources are resources have a
school and student. somewhat reasonable cost
reasonable cost to both the
to both the school and the
school and the student.
student.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Quick.
Mr. Turner, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK TURNER, M.A., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE
MEDIA, ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE, CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH, CA
Mr. Turner. Chairman Harkin, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss issues of accessibility in the post-secondary
environment. My testimony will focus on some of the issues
faced by post-secondary institutions as we work to ensure that
technology used to deliver educational programs and services
are usable by all students, staff, faculty, and members of the
public, irrespective of disability status.
As the largest and most diverse 4-year public university
system in the country, the CSU serves 427,000 students across
23 campuses. The CSU has a long-standing commitment to ensuring
that our programs and services are usable by everyone, and we
currently serve more than 10,000 students with a variety of
disabilities.
Over the past 20 years, technology usage in post-secondary
has grown exponentially. Technology is now used to deliver
online, hybrid, and face-to-face courses, using learning
management systems, offer interactive digital textbooks, rich
multimedia, and many other technologies.
While these technologies have the potential to enhance
teaching and learning, they must be usable by everyone.
Unfortunately, we have found that many technology vendors do
not adequately support accessibility at this time. Many
products manifest serious accessibility barriers for
individuals with disabilities. Accessibility documentation is
often unavailable or insufficient. Vendors are frequently
unfamiliar with accessibility standards, and some vendors
simply do not prioritize accessibility, citing financial,
technical, or logistical hurdles.
Postsecondary institutions are experiencing significant
challenges with these inaccessible technology products. For
example, when instructional videos do not include closed
captions, schools must bear the costs of providing captioning.
If the vendor had incorporated closed captions at time of
design, it would have likely cost them one time less than $100.
However, if 1,000 institutions across the country must all
individually accommodate that video, the cost to the Nation
could exceed $100,000. This is not sustainable.
Under the leadership of Chancellor Reed, the CSU
established the Accessible Technology Initiative, or ATI, as a
comprehensive, systemwide effort to identify and remove
existing accessibility barriers, and to avoid introducing new
barriers when adopting technology products.
The ATI is founded on a strong technology accessibility
policy, which requires an annual assessment that emphasizes
continuous quality improvement. This progressive policy is
vital to driving institutional change. The policy
implementation involves administrators, staff, and faculty from
the Chancellor's office and all 23 of our campuses.
Many ATI projects deliver shared services designed to
reduce costs and leverage expertise across our system. So, for
example, by collectively licensing a Web accessibility
evaluation tool and deploying testing criteria and methods
developed by CSU Web accessibility experts, we have saved
$300,000 and supported a consistent, high quality
implementation across CSU.
ATI projects also leverage our size to promote vendor
improvements to project accessibility. For example, during a
systemwide request for proposal for learning management
systems, we established accessibility requirements, validated
vendor accessibility claims, and selected only products that
met our accessibility requirements.
When one of the most widely deployed learning management
systems was not selected because they did not meet our
requirements, the vendor subsequently undertook a major
accessibility remediation process that now benefits all
students and post-secondary institutions across the country.
This culminated in an award by the National Federation of the
Blind for the now robust non-visual support for individuals
with disabilities.
The ATI also provides high quality services to work around
existing accessibility gaps. For example, the CSU Center for
Accessibility Media allows CSU and University of California
campuses to efficiently share specialized curriculum materials
that have been produced for students with a variety of print
disabilities. This project reduces redundant efforts and costs,
and speeds delivery of these materials to students.
Postsecondary institutions are strongly committed to equal
access for persons with disabilities, and removing technology
accessibility barriers. There are, however, several areas for
which we seek your assistance.
First, we suggest, echoing earlier testimony, that Federal
entities strengthen their section 508 procedures by requiring
that vendors validate their project accessibility
documentation, that Federal agencies conduct testing for high
impact implementation, and that share test results with one
another. These changes we feel would reduce redundant efforts
and costs, and drive vendor improvement to project
accessibility support.
We also asked that the Department of Justice send a dear
colleague letter to the 100 largest technology vendors
emphasizing the importance of producing products that are
accessible to everyone.
Finally, the CSU supports the recommendations of the
recently released AIM Commission Report. In particular, we
support a review of the Chaffee Amendment to the Copyright Act
that would extend the definition of individuals eligible for
specialized formats. This would reduce costs by providing
campuses greater access to these materials for students with
print disabilities.
The CSU applauds the committee's devotion to ensuring equal
access to a quality education for all Americans, and appreciate
your interest in technology as a promising tool in meeting that
goal. We welcome the opportunity to be a resource to you as you
continue to explore ways to ensure access and success in higher
education.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Turner, M.A.
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss issues of technology
accessibility in the post-secondary environment. I began working in the
post-secondary disability services environment nearly 2 decades ago and
have proudly served in a variety of clinical and technical roles in
both 2-year and 4-year public education institutions. My testimony
today will focus on the issues faced by post-secondary institutions as
they work to ensure that technology used to deliver educational
programs and services are usable by all students, staff, faculty, and
members of the public--irrespective of disability status.
the california state university
Commitment to Excellence
The CSU is the largest and most diverse 4-year public university
system in the country, with 23 campuses, approximately 427,000 students
and 44,000 faculty and staff. The CSU's mission is to provide high-
quality, accessible public education to meet the ever changing needs of
the people of California. The CSU provides more than one-half of all
undergraduate degrees granted to Latino, African-American, and Native
American students in California. Since the system's creation in 1961,
it has awarded in excess of 2.5 million degrees. We currently award
approximately 90,000 degrees each year.
Commitment to Equal Opportunity
The CSU has a strong, longstanding commitment to ensuring that all
members of the CSU community and the public at large are provided an
equal opportunity to participate in and receive the benefits of
university programs and services. This commitment is demonstrated
through the following actions:
1977: CSU campuses prepared self-evaluations that
identified steps needed to ensure students with disabilities had equal
access to educational opportunities.
1980: CSU developed a policy statement entitled Policy for
the Provision of Services to Students with Disabilities which
formalized the objectives of the disabled students program (increasing
enrollment of students with disabilities and facilitating their access
to educational programs), established common definitions of
disabilities, listed support services to be offered, and served as the
basis from which campus Disability Services programs were developed.
The policy statement also clearly codified the CSU commitment to equal
access:
``. . . this policy is intended to ensure that no qualified
individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability,
be excluded from participation in the services, programs, or
activities of the CSU and its campuses.''
1980: CSU established the Systemwide Advisory Committee on
Services to Students with Disabilities. This cross-disciplinary
committee, comprised of administrators, faculty, staff, and students
was charged with reviewing, evaluating, and recommending systemwide
educational and administrative policies that address the needs of
students with disabilities.
1990: Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), CSU campuses appointed ADA coordinators and developed self-
evaluation and transition plans to identify and remediate accessibility
issues associated with additional areas including employment,
construction, transportation, and telecommunication.
1990s-Present: In the ensuing years, the CSU has affirmed
and strengthened its commitment to accessibility. The policy statement
has been reviewed and revised several times to reflect changes in the
composition of students served by Disability Services offices, newly
identified accessibility barriers, changes to available support
services, and changes to the legislative or regulatory environment. In
addition, the recently renamed Services for Students with Disabilities
Advisory Committee remains an active and vital component of CSU's
accessibility strategy.
The CSU Disability Community
The CSU community of students, staff, and faculty reflects the rich
diversity of California's population including persons with
disabilities. During the Fall 2010 term, 10,775 students were
registered to receive services from a campus Disability Services
office.\1\ In other words, the number of students with disabilities
served by the CSU is equivalent to a mid-sized campus by itself. These
students manifest disabilities across a variety of domains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.calstate.edu/sas/documents/Fall2010Profile.xls.
Visual
Hearing
Communication
Mobility
Psychological/Psychiatric
Learning Disabilities
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Acquired Brain Injury
Autism Spectrum
Other Functional Limitations
Temporary
The accessibility issues encountered by students with disabilities
in a post-secondary environment are the result of a combination of
factors including (1) the student's specific functional impairments,
(2) the specific instructional and administrative programs/services
with which they interact, and (3) the level and nature of accessibility
support provided by those programs/services. For this reason, the
campus Disability Services program meets with each CSU student to
establish an individualized plan of services that constitute
``reasonable accommodations.'' These services may include auxiliary
aids and services which involve adjustments to the manner in which
students participate in standard academic activities (e.g.,
interpreters, note-takers, alternate formats of print materials,
adaptive technology) or, as appropriate, academic adjustments which
involve modifications to the activities themselves (e.g., changes in
the length of time permitted to complete a course requirement).
These services are essential for the success of students with
disabilities. By addressing accessibility gaps in university programs/
services, post-secondary institutions ensure students have the
opportunity to fully utilize curricular materials, demonstrate a
mastery of their curriculum, and develop the skills necessary for
future employment. This is vital at a time when persons with
disabilities have a far higher unemployment rate (13.5 percent vs. 8.9
percent) and far lower labor participation rate (20.7 percent vs. 69.6
percent) than those without disabilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Challenges
Technology is rapidly and fundamentally changing the educational
landscape.
Over the past 20 years, technology has become a tightly integrated
and ubiquitous component in the lives of Americans. The widespread
adoption of mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, ebook readers, portable
media players), the enormous growth in web-based services and
information, and the widespread use of IT hardware (e.g., kiosks, voice
response phone systems) are fundamentally transforming the ways in
which individuals connect with one-another, companies, government, and
educational institutions.
Post-Secondary institutions have actively participated in this
trend by incorporating technology products and services into
instructional and administrative services. Campuses now commonly
utilize web-based Learning Management Systems to deliver curricular
content and activities, Lecture Capture systems to record and
distribute audio/video recordings of class activities, audience
response systems (aka ``Clickers'') to provide real-time, interactive
evaluations and feedback, and digital textbooks which provide features
(e.g., full-text searching, note taking) and supplemental materials
(audio/video content, individualized assessment exercises) that are
unavailable with conventional print-based books.
Educational technology adoptions may improve or exacerbate
accessibility issues for both students and institutions.
Whether educational technology products help or hinder
accessibility efforts depends largely on the extent to which the vendor
incorporated accessibility into the product design and implementation.
To exemplify this, consider the use of digital textbooks. Given that
print-based textbooks are intrinsically inaccessible to those with
print disabilities (e.g., blindness, partial sight, learning
disabilities), university disability services programs often
accommodate these students by producing accessible electronic versions
of textbooks. While this process often delays the delivery of the book
to students with disabilities and causes significant institutional
expense, it does allow users with disabilities to then use assistive
technology to convey the book content in an accessible format (e.g.,
Braille, large-print). Now let's compare the outcomes of three
different scenarios:
Vendor A produces both print books and accessible digital
books. Thus students with disabilities simply purchase the accessible
digital book--eliminating time-
consuming and expensive accommodations. This vendor's practices help
both students and universities by eliminating an accessibility barrier.
Vendor B produces both print books and inaccessible
digital books. Students with disabilities must request accommodations
and wait for the institution to produce an accessible electronic
version. This vendor's practices harm both students and universities by
requiring time-consuming, expensive accommodations.
Vendor C produces only digital books that are
inaccessible. Students cannot use the digital book and universities
cannot create an accessible digital book because there is no print
version that may be converted into an accessible book. This vendor's
practices harm both students and institutions by denying students with
disabilities the ability to access the book content.
Accessibility Support for Many Educational Technology Products Remains
Inadequate
Despite the development of accessibility standards for IT products
\3\ and an array of Federal and State legislation \4\ requiring that
accessibility status be a major factor in the adoption of IT products,
accessibility support by most educational technology vendors remains
weak. Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Section 508 Standards (http://www.section508.gov) and W3C
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/).
\4\ See California's Senate Bill 105 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/
01-02/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb-105_bill_20020929_chaptered.pdf).
Awareness of accessibility requirements or technical
standards among educational technology vendors is uneven. While larger
vendors often demonstrate some familiarity with the needs of users with
disabilities, many small to mid-sized vendors have little or no
knowledge in this area. Vendors cannot design accessible products if
they are unfamiliar with technical standards and will not do so if they
do not understand the accessibility requirements of educational
institutions.
The quality of accessibility documentation available from
educational technology vendors, while improving, remains poor--making
it difficult for universities to accurately gauge the nature of the
product's accessibility support (e.g., features, gaps, workarounds,
remediation plans/timelines). Many vendors do not offer any form of
accessibility documentation including Voluntary Product Accessibility
Templates (VPATs). Even among vendors that provide accessibility
documentation, the information provided is often incomplete, out-of-
date, or inaccurate.
The overall level of commitment to technology
accessibility by educational technology vendors is also uneven. Many
vendors cite limited financial resources as an impediment to developing
accessible products. Others suggest that there is limited customer
demand for accessibility features. Even among vendors who have
initiated earnest efforts to incorporate (or expand) accessibility
support for their products, there is a strong tendency toward ``low-
hanging fruit'' or ``baseline compliance'' that often leaves
significant accessibility barriers.
Accommodations associated with educational technology are a growing
strain for post-secondary institutions. Historically, disability
services programs focused much of their efforts on providing
accommodations associated with physical barriers while they worked to
remediate those physical barriers. As educational technology adoptions
have expanded, more instructional resources are being focused on
accommodations associated with technology barriers. This is problematic
for several reasons:
It is not always feasible to provide accommodations for
inaccessible educational technology products. Some technology products
deliver information that cannot be conveyed via accommodations in a
manner that is practicable or which provides equally effective access.
For example, a post-secondary institution adopts a Web application
which allows library patrons to request and download electronic
reserves materials. However, the kiosk is not accessible to screen
reader users. While onsite users may request the assistance of sighted
library staff to download the materials, offsite users with
disabilities are unable to use this service since library staff cannot
travel offsite.
Accommodations associated with inaccessible technology
often involve significant complexity and costs--particularly if the
product is inaccessible to a wide range of users with disabilities. For
example, software applications that are unusable by those who are
blind, those with limited vision, and those with limited dexterity will
necessitate significant planning and coordination by the university
since each group will likely require different accommodations. In
addition, a larger number of disability groups impacted by inaccessible
technology will likely increase the frequency with which accommodations
are required--driving up the costs associated with providing
accommodations.
Whereas most post-secondary institutions control their
physical infrastructure and thus have the authority to remediate
physical barriers, postsecondary institutions have few remedies to
compel technology vendors to remediate inaccessible technology
products. While campuses may elect to discontinue the use of
inaccessible products, this is infrequently used as the process of
switching to alternative products can be disruptive or expensive.
the csu accessible technology initiative (ati)
Inception and Early Activities
Following passage of California Senate bill 105 in 2002 \5\ and in
recognition of the challenges regarding technology accessibility
outlined above, the CSU began developing a comprehensive strategy to
effectively tackle this issue. In 2004, CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed
released Executive Order 926 which strongly affirmed CSU's commitment
to ensuring equal access for persons with disabilities. EO 926 also
recognized that accessibility was an institution-wide responsibility
that must be managed by all campus units--not just disability services
programs. Finally, EO 926 clearly outlined responsibilities of critical
units and stakeholder groups and tasked campus executives (Presidents,
Provosts) with designating a campus leader to coordinate ATI activities
and build a cross-disciplinary team of administrators, staff, and
faculty to implement the ATI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/
sb_105_bill_20020929_
chaptered.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
key accomplishments
Building Robust Capacity
While the release of a policy statement such as EO 926 was critical
to catalyzing substantive actions on campuses, it was also clear that
the CSU would need to build sufficient capacity (staff, funds,
technical guidance, logistical support) to operate an effective
systemwide initiative on such a large scale. Several key
accomplishments that helped to build capacity during this phase
included:
Hiring dedicated ATI staffing to provide central
leadership;
Releasing guidance (Coded Memorandum AA-2007-04 \6\) which
outlined specific goals and success indicators to be addressed across
three ``Priority Areas'' (Instructional Materials, Web, and Procurement
and which required campuses to establish implementation plans and
prepare annual reports to track progress;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedmemos/AA-2007-04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Releasing templates to assist campuses with developing
their implementation plans and annual reports;
Establishing ``Communities of Practices'' comprised of
campus ATI leaders (``Executive Sponsors Steering Committee'') and
implementers across each of the three ``priority areas'' to coordinate
activities, share promising strategies, and identify areas requiring
additional support;
Launching a central Professional Development Web site \7\
to repose training/awareness resources;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/access/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Launching a central Web repository to aggregate all ATI
documentation and activities;
Reviewing campus implementation plans and annual reports
and providing responsive feedback;
Conducting comprehensive section 508 training \8\ for
campus procurement staff; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/access/tech/
508ProcurementTraining.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing a systemwide Web repository to store and
share product accessibility documentation across the 23 CSU
campuses.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://diva.sfsu.edu/help/vpat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
influencing product accessibility
In 2007, the ATI had the opportunity to strongly influence the
accessibility of several widely deployed educational technology
products in a manner that benefited students and post-secondary
institutions across the country.
ATI staff evaluated Apple's iTunes U product, which was
being offered to post-secondary institutions across the Nation, and
determined that the product manifested serious accessibility barriers
that would prevent most persons with disabilities from being able to
use this product. In coordination with executive leadership at the
Office of the Chancellor, ATI released a policy statement indicating
that CSU campuses should not adopt iTunes U in a production (student-
facing) environment. The ATI then began coordinating with Apple to
review the identified accessibility barriers, establish appropriate
milestones and a timeline for remediating the product, evaluate updated
product versions to gauge progress, and share updates with campuses. By
the end of the agreed upon timeline, Apple had addressed all identified
``High Priority'' accessibility barriers. As a result, the ATI issued
guidance allowing CSU campuses to begin using iTunes U.
ATI staff participated in a systemwide Request for
Proposal from vendors to provide Learning Management Systems (LMS) for
CSU campuses. Learning Management Systems are used pervasively to
deliver instruction where both faculty and student interact, faculty
provide course assignments, and students turn in assignments.
Accessibility problems with the technology would thus be a ``high-
impact, high-priority'' issue for the CSU. The ATI was involved
throughout the RFP process to ensure that accessibility was a core
performance requirement and that this performance was verified. At the
time of the RFP, Blackboard was already the most widely deployed LMS
in the CSU system. However, during accessibility testing, the
Blackboard system manifested significant accessibility barriers for
students with disabilities and thus failed to meet minimum
accessibility standards. As a result, Blackboard was not an awardee
for this RFP--a result which the company later acknowledged served as a
``wakeup call''. Subsequent to that RFP process, Blackboard undertook
a major accessibility review and remediation process for their product,
culminating in an award by the National Federation of the Blind for its
robust support for persons who are blind.
reviewing lessons learned, optimizing our leadership strategy
It became apparent that there was a gap between the ideal vision of
full accessibility and the capacity of campuses to deliver that vision.
The ATI therefore conducted an analysis to determine areas where a
shift in approach would improve or accelerate progress. This resulted
in a number of important changes.
The most fundamental shift has been to ensure that
campuses play a larger and more active role in shaping ATI priorities
and driving systemwide projects. Underlying this shift is the belief
that the ATI office most constructively serves as a facilitator rather
than as a policeman/auditor of progress. This shift has been achieved
by leveraging our existing governance structures:
The newly formed ATI Leadership Council provides
guidance on the selection and prioritization of ATI projects;
The Executive Sponsors Steering Committee provides
feedback regarding the scoping and implementation of projects
and discusses critical, institutional accessibility topics; and
The three Communities of Practice (Instructional
Materials, Web, and Procurement) discuss institutional
strategies (policies, business processes) promising tools, and
emerging accessibility issues.
The ATI shifted its approach from the use of systemwide
deadlines to a focus on continuous process improvement. This new
approach, which is based on Capability Maturity Model Integration,\10\
emphasizes that campuses continuously improve their capabilities to
reliably, promptly, and effectively meet the accessibility needs of
their students, staff, and faculty. This approach encourages campuses
to assess their current capabilities and priorities to best determine
where institutional efforts should be directed and then tailor their
accessibility implementation to the specific needs of their campus
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CMMI Overview (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI accessibility requirements for procurement were
revised to focus on technology products with the highest impact, rather
than those within specific product categories or whose purchase met
specific, prescriptive thresholds (e.g., dollar limits). This shift
encourages campuses to focus resources on those products for which
accessibility limitations would pose the greatest barrier to persons
with disabilities. In addition, it emphasizes that the accessibility
status of high-impact products which are not subject to traditional
procurement procedures (e.g., free applications or services such as
Google Apps for Education) should still be considered.
The ATI significantly expanded and improved gathering and
sharing of data derived from campus annual reports. Improvements
include use of a web-based reporting application to streamline
submissions, greater standardization of goals, success indicators, and
status levels, and greater consistency in reporting structure across
the three priority areas. These changes make it easier to gauge campus
progress relative to the system as a whole, more easily discern areas
of weakness/strength, and more easily select projects which targets
areas of weakness. The CSU now has a reliable, replicable evaluation
process that allows campuses to (1) review evidence-based management
processes to evaluate campus ATI process and (2) use the new progress
status level measurement system to assess ATI implementation progress.
delivering solutions
The CSU is committed to leveraging our size to target critical
institutional goals including achieving cost efficiencies--whether
through coordinated procurement activities or the operation of shared
services--and working with vendors to improve the accessibility level
of products used by the CSU system and other post-secondary
institutions throughout the country. Several examples of how we are
delivering effective solutions are provided below.
center for accessible media (cam)
Each of the 23 CSU campuses provides alternate formats of print
materials for students with print disabilities (e.g., blindness,
partial sight, learning disabilities) registered at that campus.
Beginning in the early 2000s, utilization of alternate media services
began to grow such that significant resources were being expended to
produce these materials. Thus in 2004, the CSU Center for Accessible
Media (CAM) \11\ was launched to provide a central web-based
clearinghouse for all campuses to list, locate, and share curricular
materials that have already been converted for use by students with
print impairments. CAM currently lists 21,000 titles and facilitated
1,500 file exchanges during the 2011 calendar year. By reducing or
eliminating redundant efforts to produce these specialized materials,
CAM produces hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings annually and
improves time-to-delivery for students. Many of the University of
California campuses currently contract with the CSU for access to CAM,
allowing institutions and students from both systems to benefit from
the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Center for Accessible Media (http://cam.calstate.edu).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
automatic sync captioning services contract
All 23 CSU campuses work to ensure that audio/video content is
provided in a manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities
including providing transcripts for audio files and captions for video
files. Campuses historically contracted for captioning/transcription
services independently. As a result, there was little consistency
regarding which vendors were used or the rates they charged. In 2008,
the ATI coordinated a systemwide RFP for captioning/transcription
services. The primary goal of the project was to leverage the volume of
transcription/captioning occurring across the system to secure volume
discounts for all participating campuses. Automatic Sync Technologies,
the winning vendor, provided CSU users a customized Web portal to their
CaptionSync service. In order to achieve the desired cost savings, the
ATI pre-purchases 6 month blocks of anticipated service usage for the
entire system and then bills campuses back for actual usage at the end
of each block. During the first 2\1/2\ years of this contract, the CSU
has yielded savings of nearly $90,000. Service usage has increased each
year since contract inception and satisfaction rates have been
consistently high.
professional development web site
A critical component of campus ATI implementations is the effective
use of training and awareness materials that build campus capacity to
effectively address technology accessibility issues. Given that all CSU
campuses share this goal, the ATI launched the ATI Professional
Development Web site \12\ to serve as a central web-based repository
for materials developed by ATI staff, CSU campuses, and external
entities with expertise in technology accessibility issues. Materials
from this site are extensively used by CSU campuses and have been
adopted by numerous post-secondary and government agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ATI Professional Development site (http://
teachingcommons.cdl.edu/access/docs_multi/pdf_vid_tut/
videos_only.shtml).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
etextbook accessibility project
eTextbooks are a rapidly growing segment of the post-secondary
textbook market with a majority of the most commonly adopted post-
secondary textbooks now available in electronic format. eTextbooks are
being heavily marketed to post-secondary institutions and students both
for the expanded range of features they offer and potentially
significant cost savings vs. print-based books. The ATI eTextbook
Accessibility project \13\ is committed to supporting campuses in
making informed adoption decisions regarding eTextbooks. To that end,
the ATI recently released several checklist documents that campuses may
use to gather consistent, standardize eTextbook product information.
These documents were developed in close collaboration with CSU campuses
and higher education publishers/distributors. The ATI will centrally
aggregate these documents along with other relevant product
accessibility information in order to reduce redundant efforts to
gather this information. Moving forward, the eTextbook Accessibility
project is currently developing a standardized template for conducting
eTextbook accessibility evaluations that will facilitate comparing
accessibility support across various eTextbook platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CSU ATI eTextbook Accessibility Project Briefing (http://
ati.calstate.edu/mod/book/view.php?id=315).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
google apps for education project
The CSU continues to leverage its size to advocate for improved
accessibility support in widely deployed educational technology
products. In 2010, the Google Apps for Education application suite was
being considered for adoption by some CSU campuses; however the
accessibility of the suite was questionable and needed further review
before campus adoption. The CSU assembled a group of campus experts
from several of our campuses (CSU Channel Islands, CSU Fresno, CSU San
Diego, CSU East Bay) as well as the Center for Usability and
Accessibility in Design at CSU Long Beach. These experts then performed
an accessibility evaluation of the product and released the CSU Google
Apps Evaluation report \14\ in 2011. This report described the
accessibility gaps in the Google Apps for Education product and
provided campuses information regarding potential workarounds for those
gaps. The evaluation team then met with Google to share the report. By
leveraging the accessibility expertise in the system to conduct a
single coordinated evaluation, the CSU avoided the costs associated
with conducting individual campus-based evaluations and ensured that
all campuses received consistent information. In addition, the report
led Google to make substantial changes to their Google Apps for
Education applications which removed accessibility barriers for all
users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CSU Google Apps Evaluation report (http://ati.calstate.edu/
mod/book/view.php?id=280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
web accessibility evaluation and implementation project
The CSU systemwide Web presence encompasses millions of Web pages
and numerous Web applications and is the basis for delivering many of
our instructional and administrative programs and services. It is
therefore crucial that the CSU establish a comprehensive Web
accessibility evaluation process that allows campuses to gauge the
accessibility of our Web presence in an efficient and effective manner.
In support of this goal, the ATI established two key objectives:
Institute a standardized set of automated and manual
testing accessibility criteria for all CSU campuses that will result in
more accessible content across the system and a more efficient workflow
for users; and
Provide a broad audience of CSU personnel access to a Web
accessibility evaluation tool that will help them publish accessible
content.
the csu ati accessibility requirements
A systemwide work group composed of representatives from the Office
of the Chancellor and several campuses (CSU San Bernardino, CSU San
Diego, CSU Channel Islands, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo) worked together
to create a standardized set of accessibility requirements that
integrate both automated and manual evaluation of Web page
accessibility and associated procedures for completing the evaluation.
The Universal Design Center at Cal State University Northridge is
providing support to the entire system by managing the requirements as
they are fine-tuned and providing training and support services to all
campuses so that the CSU ATI Accessibility Requirements are
successfully and effectively implemented at all CSU campuses. This
project is delivering the following benefits:
Increasing the accessibility of Web content and Web
applications by identifying barriers so that they may be removed;
Increasing Web accessibility at the time Web content is
published by providing easy to use accessibility checkpoints and
remediation resources;
Increasing the accessibility of web-based products
purchased by the CSU by providing standardized Web accessibility
evaluation criteria that 23 campuses may use when evaluating Web
products; and
Providing cost savings to the system in personnel time and
effort by offering these shared services.
The CSU Web accessibility evaluation process has also been shared
with a nationwide post-secondary audience via an online webinar. Other
post-secondary institutions have expressed great interest in learning
more about this process.
the csu ati web accessibility evaluation tool implementation
The CSU ATI recognized that a reliable evaluation methodology that
is adopted systemwide would produce great benefits for students as well
as improve the cost-effectiveness of the evaluation process. The CSU
wanted to avoid having 23 different evaluation methodologies and tools
that would result in confusion, conflicts, and inefficient use of our
limited resources. The CSU ATI, in cooperation with our campuses,
selected the HiSoftware Compliance Sheriff Web evaluation tool which
resulted in a cost savings of $300,000 over 3 years. We also recognized
that the tool needed improvements in order to extend its use to the
wide variety of Web content personnel on CSU campuses and to help
fulfill our goal to publish and purchase accessible content rather than
remediate content after publication. The working relationship between
the vendor and the CSU system brought together the necessary
stakeholder groups to solve this problem. A group of students at Cal
Poly Pomona conducted a needs analysis involving input from several
campuses which resulted in a scope of work that the vendor (HiSoftware)
agreed to use to make product improvements. Upon completion of the
improvements to the tool, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo will be testing the
product and documenting the process to ensure that the campuses will be
able to utilize the tool to its full potential. This project has
provided a more effective implementation of this Web accessibility
evaluation tool across the CSU system and has led to meaningful
improvements to a Web accessibility evaluation tool that is used by
post-secondary institutions across the country.
surveygizmo product accessibility project
SurveyGizmo \15\ is a popular survey tool used by many post-
secondary institutions and corporations. The CSU ATI has been working
with this company to improve the accessibility of the surveys created
by the product. As a result of this work, the company has dramatically
improved accessibility support over the past year--particularly for
persons with visual impairments. The removal of these accessibility
barriers benefits persons with disabilities across the country. In
addition, SurveyGizmo has significantly improved the quality of its
accessibility documentation including the development of a Voluntary
Product Accessibility Template. This will allow institutions across the
country that are considering this product to clearly understand the
extent and nature of accessibility support provided by the product.
Moving forward, the CSU will be working with SurveyGizmo to produce
training materials that guide survey authors through the steps
necessary to create accessible surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ SurveyGizmo (http://www.surveygizmo.com/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
accessibility and open education resources
The CSU has been a leader in open education resources (OER)--free
online teaching and learning materials--to improve the affordability
and quality of learning though its project, called MERLOT (Multimedia
Educational Resources for Learning and Online Teaching.\16\ CSU-MERLOT
has made accessibility of OER a high priority and is implementing
programs to raise the visibility and implementation of accessibility
requirement in OER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://www.merlot.org.
MERLOT has added easy to use tools for accessibility
experts and users of OER to contribute structured information about the
accessibility of the OER;
MERLOT has cataloged almost 100 open textbooks that have
links to accessibility evaluation reports, providing users an
assessment of the accessibility features of the resource;
MERLOT, in cooperation with the OpenCourseWare Consortium,
will be building an online community and hosting an online webinar
during International Open Education week (March 5-10, 2012);
MERLOT's Content Builder authoring tool to create OER is
designed to product accessible OER; and
MERLOT will be facilitating higher education institutions
and the OER community to grow the awareness of accessibility
requirements and build accessibility into OER tools and services.
standardizing the accessibility components of the procurement process
By embedding accessibility into the procurement process, the CSU
has the opportunity to minimize or avoid introducing accessibility
barriers when purchasing technology products. The goal of this ATI
project is to more tightly integrate accessibility into the procurement
process by focusing on several key areas including process improvement,
market research timing/techniques, and business procedures. A workgroup
comprised of staff from the Office of the Chancellor and CSU campuses
(CSU Sacramento, Cal Poly Pomona, San Francisco State, CSU Long Beach,
CSU Channel Islands, CSU Fresno, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo) are
developing a number of important resources (e.g., standardized
accessibility language for product solicitations and purchase
contracts, Equally Effective Access Plan templates) and recommendations
(e.g., adoption timelines, testing practices, and creating equally
effectively access plans). Several of these resources are currently
being piloted by campuses. This project is expected to significantly
improve the ability of CSU campuses to ensure they are purchasing the
most accessible, barrier-free EI&T products.
csu accessible technology network (csu atn)
The CSU is developing the Accessible Technology Network (CSU ATN),
a shared services network, that will serve the CSU and other higher
education institutions. This network will leverage the campus
accessibility experts across the system to provide shared services in
several areas of accessibility including: (1) Accessible product review
and testing; (2) Working with vendors to increase the accessibilities
of products; (3) Exploring new and innovative solutions for accessible
instructional materials; (4) Promoting accessibility awareness; and (5)
Providing training.
The CSU ATN is currently in the planning and development phases.
When completed, the project is expected to provide numerous benefits
including:
Reducing redundancy and lowering accessibility costs by
reviewing and testing commonly used CSU products once;
Improving the accessibility of technology products and
accessibility documentation (e.g., Voluntary Product Accessibility
Templates) for all educational institutions through vendor
collaborations; and
Providing CSU campuses and other post-secondary
institutions with high quality training by leveraging campus experts in
various disciplines.
california department of rehabilitation (dor)/csu interagency agreement
In 2011, the California Department of Rehabilitation contracted
with the CSU to deliver a comprehensive Web accessibility training
curriculum for a group of Community Based Organizations (CBO's) that
serve persons with disabilities across the State. Staff from the CSU
Office of the Chancellor, CSU campuses (CSU Northridge, CSU Channel
Islands, Cal Poly Pomona, and CSU Long Beach), and the Center for
Usability in Design and Accessibility at CSU Long Beach conducted 14
sessions covering a variety of topics and produced a collection of
training materials to accompany these sessions. The CSU intends to
share these training materials publicly later this year.
aleks product accessibility project
In an effort to develop and distribute web-based course products
that are fully accessible to blind and low-vision students, ALEKS
Corporation \17\ will be engaging the consulting, testing and research
capabilities of the CSU. This project will result in significant
improvements to accessibility support for their widely deployed
mathematics application--particularly for those with visual
impairments. The improvements made to ALEKS will benefit post-secondary
institutions and students across the Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ALEKS (http://www.aleks.com/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national federation of the blind
The CSU recognizes that post-secondary institutions share common
goals with disability advocacy groups regarding the removal of
technology accessibility barriers. To that end, the CSU has established
relationships with executives at the National Federation of the Blind.
This partnership, while young, has led to several collaborations
including a CSU presentation on eTextbook Accessibility at the NFB
eBook Symposium in 2011 and a shared presentation to be delivered at
the CSU Northridge Annual International Technology and Persons with
Disabilities Conference in March 2012, as well as extended discussions
regarding future joint projects.
suggestions for federal policy
As the testimony above has outlined, the level of accessibility
support provided by educational technology products is inadequate. The
CSU certainly recognizes that section 508 accessibility requirements
apply to those who adopt technology (rather than those who produce it);
however, our experience operating the ATI for the past 7 years suggests
that this model of driving vendor accessibility improvements via
procurement activities has not resulted in sufficient progress. We
therefore offer the following suggestions.
First, CSU campuses commonly hear from technology vendors that
other customers including Federal and State Government entities across
the country are adopting products despite the presence of serious
accessibility barriers. This suggests that their section 508
implementation is insufficient to drive market changes. We therefore
suggest that Federal entities be charged with ensuring that section 508
procedures are revised to more adequately address accessibility
including:
Validating product accessibility documentation;
Conducting conformance testing prior to adopting high-
impact products; and
Sharing test results with other government and education
entities to reduce redundant efforts.
Next, the CSU would also ask that Congress require recipients of
Federal grant funds to ensure that technology products developed as
components of these grants conform to section 508 standards and would
urge the Department of Justice to send a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to
the 100 largest IT vendors, reminding them of the importance of
ensuring that their products are accessible to persons with
disabilities.
Finally, the CSU also strongly supports the recommendations from
the AIM Commission report \18\ including revising the scope,
effectiveness, and function of the Copyright Act as amended (Section
121, the Chafee Amendment) to broaden the definition of individuals
eligible for specialized formats, and authorizing the U.S. Access Board
to establish guidelines for accessible instructional materials that
will be used by government, the private sector, and post-secondary
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Report of the Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional
Materials in Post-Secondary Education for Students with Disabilities
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/aim/publications.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSU applauds the committee's devotion to ensuring equal access
to a quality education for all Americans, and appreciates your interest
in technology as a promising tool in meeting that goal. We welcome the
opportunity to be a resource to you as you continue to explore ways to
ensure access and success in higher education.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. I noticed
Attorney Hill was taking a note on that issue about what they
should be doing. Mr. Riccobono, we will start with you. In your
written testimony, you did not mention it verbally, but I
understand you have a child about to enter kindergarten or
somewhere in that neighborhood?
Mr. Riccobono. I do, yes.
The Chairman. OK. And I understand that child has a visual
disability.
Mr. Riccobono. That one does not.
The Chairman. Pardon?
Mr. Riccobono. It is my younger child that has the same
form of eye condition that I do.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Riccobono. She is a ways from school yet.
The Chairman. OK. I guess I wanted to talk about that to
say, OK, so what are you focusing on to make sure that all
children like yours, when they enter preschool and they get
into kindergarten, that they have that technology and the
curricula readily available, as we always say, from the very
beginning?
Mr. Riccobono. Absolutely. There is a huge awareness piece
that we are working on through the National Federation of the
Blind to help these companies design this technology from the
beginning. And the educational technology is some of the most
important technology.
But we do not think we have met the tipping point yet. I
mean, recently the Baltimore City Schools, which is where I
live, announced a project to put the Barnes & Noble Nook
product into their middle school libraries. This is public/
private partnership. And we said to the Baltimore City Schools,
the Nook is not a product that is accessible, that has any
accessibility for people with disabilities. And, the school
district's response was, well, we will get our folks to look
into it.
Now, we have the headquarters of the National Federation of
the Blind right there in Baltimore. It is probably the best
collection of experts on technology anywhere in the world, and
we are available to them. So, it is quite frustrating to try to
get people's attention and awareness to know that, they are
making a huge mistake when we could solve this from the
beginning if we worked on it together.
The Chairman. What is that saying about nothing about us
without us, you know?
Mr. Riccobono. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Nothing about dealing with the disability
community without having them involved from the very beginning.
Mr. Riccobono. And, something you said earlier really
resonates, that it is not just about education. I am a blind
father. I am examining schools to see where is the best place
for my son to go to school. And many of the Web sites for the
schools are not very accessible, or the data about how the
school is performing is not accessible.
If the students are not getting it, and the parents are not
getting it, that just radiates also to the employees of the
school district.
If this was accessible for one category of students, the
same technology is going to be filtering information to the
public, to the parents, to the employees. So, the economies of
scale and accessibility are just tremendous.
The Chairman. Yes, exactly. Thank you.
Dr. Quick, you have a marvelous outcome that many school
districts have been striving for over the past 6 years. Your
special education population has decreased by 2 percentage
points, a 14 percent drop. Pretty significant.
What role has your UDL, as you call it, played in this
decrease? Has it contributed to that?
Mr. Quick. Absolutely, it has helped. We look at students a
couple of different ways. I mean, all of our students should be
included. All of our students are general ed students. Some
happen to have a disability. And all of our general ed students
need special services because we know that it needs to be a
school of one.
What we try to do is look at options. So, a student that
comes to us, what are the barriers, what are those options?
Does the student need recorded textbooks, Braille, and voice to
text? Whatever they need, those are the things that we look at.
It has helped us because you look at it on the front end. I
work with architects a lot in Columbus, and we build a lot of
buildings. We should be at least as thoughtful in our
curriculum instruction because no architect I sit down with
ever thinks about designing anything that we build without the
accessibility. But yet, sometimes we do not look at things on
the front end and say, how are we going to make these things
accessible? So, we should be at least that thoughtful.
The only way I think that we are going to sustain that is
for folks to write great policies because we know that the
policies of that--and you were a part of a lot of those
policies, they drove change. And they drove a different reality
for our students. So, we appreciate that.
The Chairman. Yes, because I think a lot of times students
that are in special education is simply because they do not
have the right accessibility to either the material or the
technology. Once they get that, they are not a special ed
student any longer.
Mr. Quick. Absolutely, it is the case.
The Chairman. So, this is another factor for schools to
think about, the expense and everything. Again, if we do not
have that expense of what they call special education and you
decrease it by 2 percentage points, not only are you helping
the budget problems, you are also helping the other students
who are not disabled.
Mr. Quick. Absolutely.
The Chairman. They call that a win-win situation.
Mr. Quick. I think so. And, I think sometimes folks want to
look at, well, I have to have enough money to do everything
that I want to do, rather than start, because this is a
journey.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Quick. We have to take a bite of this elephant one bite
at a time here kind of thing. And sometimes folks want to wait,
but we cannot wait for the iPad 3, you know.
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Quick. We have to start and we have to work with all of
the stakeholders to find out what is that environment that
serves the student the best.
We certainly have had a lot of success with Universal
Design for Learning using project-based learning in a
technology-rich environment, and trying to get to the point
where we have one device for every three students. But in some
of our schools, we are one-to-one with devices.
Folks are talking about how do you have scale up, and if I
would have some advice for you there, Senator Harkin, is after
working on this for a number of years that we have had and
trying to have ambition is, we are going to have to have
centralized support for a decentralized philosophy, which says
students can bring their own device. Students can bring their
own technology, and we are going to have to support it.
Now, some students cannot afford to bring their own device,
so then we need to use our textbook rental differently to rent
devices instead of renting textbooks, or to budget our capital
dollars differently, or bond some money differently so that we
can get the devices to students that cannot bring their own
device. But we are going to have to be able to support it.
It needs to get to the point where, a few years ago you
were in trouble if you brought your cell phone to school. You
need to be in trouble now if you do not bring your smart phone
to school, or some device. That is what we have to do, get that
centralized support and get the infrastructure so that the
students--because students have these things, a lot of our
students now.
Even though half of my students are on lunch assistance,
three-quarters of them have some sort of device now. And we are
going to have to say bring that device and we will support it,
and then expand on that, but not be tied to a specific device,
because I did not have an iPad. I did not carry an iPad, a year
ago or 2 years ago, so we cannot be tied to a specific device.
The Chairman. It is an interesting concept. I do not know
that I have really thought about that. We always tend to think
about a specific device.
Mr. Quick. I think the only way we can afford to scale up
is if students can bring their own device, and those that do
not have the device, we need to find the funding to get the
device for those students.
The Chairman. I guess the more I think about it, most of
the devices we have had, what would I call it, interoperability
or something like that? Programs are being designed and
software is being designed to be applicable to different
devices. We know that.
Mr. Quick. Right.
The Chairman. So, you could obviously design curricula that
would be adaptable for different devices.
Mr. Quick. Right.
The Chairman. I will have to think about that. That is very
perceptive. I have never thought about that before.
If you have some more on that, Dr. Quick, that you have
developed, just your thinking on that, and how that would
proceed in an elementary and secondary education school system,
I would like to have that.
Mr. Quick. We are doing it now with about 1,400 in a pilot.
We have two magnet elementaries where it is one-to-one, second
grade through six. And we are doing a project based on a
technology pre-K to 12 now. So, we have a place where you can
visit and see this kind of thing, and you would be welcomed.
But we can send you more information on that.
The Chairman. Are you covering blind students that come in?
Mr. Quick. We do. We work with the families. There is also
a residential setting in Annapolis. We bus some students up
Sunday night and pick them up Friday. But we also have a
vision-impaired specialist that works with the district,
depending on, again, whatever environment when we work with the
families and the students that they think they can best serve.
The Chairman. One last thing before I turn to Mr. Turner. I
had an instance of this some time ago when we were doing some
grants to schools for technology. This has been almost not
quite 20 years ago, maybe 15 years ago. And what we found the
biggest stumbling block was, was getting the teachers who knew
how to use the technology. They were not trained to do that.
And so, it set us back a couple of years while teachers learned
how to use the technology.
So, what I just want to know about is, are the new teachers
you are hiring, are they coming in with the knowledge about
your Universal Design for Learning, or UDL, and accessible
technology? If not, what training do you need to do to get them
to understand the framework? Should teacher preparation
programs be teaching UDL?
Mr. Quick. They should be, and there is not enough scale up
in that. But I do see a shift. Think about this. Pretty soon
there will be someone that--you are born in 1980 and you got 12
years of teaching experience now. And you are probably a
digital native because you have lived with it. So, do not be
afraid to get technology into the classrooms, because the
natives will use it, including all of those folks there. So, we
need more training and particularly in a framework.
But the Universal Design for Learning is not taught to the
degree we would like, and so we do take the teachers through a
3-day orientation on their dime before they teach any of our
students.
The Chairman. How about your State education association?
Are they involved--you have schools in Indiana where you have
teacher preparation courses.
Mr. Quick. Right, absolutely.
The Chairman. Are they involved at all in making sure that
the respective teachers know how to use this technology?
Mr. Quick. Yes. I think that part is pretty good.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Quick. But, again, it is about designing it from the
framework. Make sure that folks understand the framework that
you need to tie this technology to so that it has its best use.
That we need some more work, teacher training, and IU in charge
of that is on my school board. So, we are texting today.
I think that has come a long way, but there is--certainly
teacher preparation is key. I am concerned about that. I am
also concerned about the number of young people not going into
teaching because of the job market and everything. So, I think
that technology could be and this kind of thing could be a hook
to get some of those young people in if they thought that they
would have the tools that they needed.
The Chairman. Sure. How do you feel about using technology
in the lowest grades, kindergarten, first, second, third?
Mr. Quick. In our corporation, there are about 900 4-year-
olds in my 10 counties; 750 are in pre-K this week using
technology through efforts that we have had. So, our businesses
has been very good partners with that. So, from day one.
My 2-year-old grandson uses my iPad. You need to start from
day one. It is intuitive. You need to start. And iPads
particularly because it is interactive, and that is really
going out there.
Let me give you an example. We had a non-English speaker
come to us, 4 years old. Everywhere he went, they took an
interpreter. When he enrolled, mom and dad came with an
interpreter. By Christmas, they had a doctor's appointment, and
the 4-year-old says, no need, I got this. I can do this. So,
that is how quickly I think that we can do it if we put the
right information there.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Quick.
Now, let us move to higher education. Mr. Turner, again,
you think about higher education and the applicability of this.
You have extended this to all your campuses in California.
Google Apps for Education made substantial changes to their
applications to remove all accessibility barriers from working
with Cal State and your program. What role did your office and
program play in this process? And how has the technology
improved for people with disabilities? And, again, segue from
that into what can you tell other education settings about
working with manufacturers and providers who do not produce or
distribute accessible technology?
Mr. Turner. With forgiveness, Chairman, I should also
clarify--I should start by clarifying that, lest I be stoned by
the crowd. Google Apps for Education continues to manifest some
accessibility gaps. I would not want to characterize that the
result of our work with Google has resulted in an accessibility
barrier free product.
Having said that, the nature of our work with Google
involved bringing together a panel of Web accessibility experts
from across the CSU, identifying critical use cases that
reflected the common functions and activities for which Google
Apps for Education applications would likely be used in a
higher ed implementation, and then conducting testing to
validate the extent to which accessibility support was or was
not present for those functions and those applications.
One of the critical components was that we not only make
that report that listed both barriers and recommendations for
work arounds available to our campuses, but that we turn around
and provide that report to the vendor. And that is a feedback
loop that I often see higher education institutions fail to
exercise.
Vendors, we find, will be responsive when we bring them
specific problems with specific suggestions for how they can be
resolved, and an understanding as to why they are important.
That was something of the nature of our process, and we did
have a meeting where we shared those findings with Google. And
they made a somewhat general forward looking statement with
respect to the manner in which and the timing by which the gaps
that we identified would be resolved.
If I might, you asked a second question, which was, do we
have recommendations for post-secondary institutions? Might I
briefly speak to that?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Turner. I would like to piggyback on earlier testimony
and your interest in operability, and suggest that if
interoperability is building, the foundation for that building
is accessibility standards and coding the standards. And one of
the key messages we convey to vendors, irrespective of the type
of technology product, is to the extent that you build products
that comply with accessibility standards, you will resolve
likely a large percentage, perhaps a large majority, of the
potential accessibility barriers that might otherwise be
present in your product.
So, a very strong message to vendors is you do not have to
be an accessibility expert to make an accessible product. What
you have to do is start with coding the standards, and then
bring in feedback from your user base, from disability advocacy
groups, and from the outside experts if necessary in accessible
technology, and they can help you build that accessible
product.
The Chairman. I am still thinking that what you have done
in California, and you started on this about 6 or 7 years ago,
something like that?
Mr. Turner. That is correct.
The Chairman. Six years ago?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any other State systems doing what
you are doing that you have been working with, mentoring?
Mr. Turner. There are a number of institutions across the
country. I would imagine what distinguishes the CSU is just the
sheer size of our system.
The Chairman. True.
Mr. Turner. Attempts to coordinate a systemwide effort of
this sort when, again, as we said, our community is a half
million people when you add in staff, faculty, and students.
There is an extraordinary amount of coordination involved in
trying to achieve that. But there are innumerable other
institutions across the country that are demonstrating
leadership in various areas, and we regularly will talk with
one another, compare notes, compare strategies, in efforts to,
kind of both harmonize and strengthen one another's messaging.
The Chairman. I guess what I am thinking of is, earlier,
last week--what I would refer to as the private non-profit
colleges were all here in Washington from around the country, a
number from my home State of Iowa. And some of them I know very
well; I have visited their campuses in my State. Some do a much
better job than others. Some are a little bigger. Some have a
better endowment than others, and they can do things.
But I guess I wish I had had this hearing before I met with
them. I am wondering why--they have a national network. They
have a national office for the private non-profit colleges. I
am just wondering, though, they can have a big stick if they
all joined together and did what you did at CSU.
Mr. Turner. I would agree with that, and I would encourage
them to do so.
The Chairman. I will encourage them to do so. Believe me.
As I said, I wish I had had this hearing and read your
testimony before I met with them last week. But I am going to
meet with them and ask them--I guess I am asking, do you know
if you have met with any representatives from the private
colleges about this? And I do not mean to pick on the privates.
I mean, how about the regent schools, all of the State schools,
whether it is Arizona or Iowa or Nebraska or whatever, with the
public universities? Have they been reaching out to you to get
advice, suggestions, how they should do things, what mistakes
you made and they do not need to make now.
Mr. Turner. Indeed, I would not consider it a systematic
campaign to beat down our doors for information. But there is a
tendency for campuses to want to somewhat discretely reach out
and ask for suggestions on lessons learned with respect to
particular technologies, to understand the nature of
discussions we may have already had with vendors so that they
can reinforce, where appropriate, messaging, and things of that
nature.
The Chairman. Let me reemphasize what you said in your
verbal statement. It is part of your written statement.
Suggestions for Federal policy, you said,
``First, CSU campuses calmly hear from technology
vendors, that other customers, including Federal and
State Government entities across the country, are
adopting products, despite the presence of serious
accessibility barriers. This suggests that their
section 508 implementation is insufficient to drive
market changes. We, therefore, suggest that Federal
entities be charged with ensuring that section 508
procedures are revised to more adequately address
accessibility, including validating performance
testing, sharing results.''
Are you saying that perhaps in our education policy for
higher education, I think of anything from our Pell grants to
our guaranteed student loans, our Stafford Loans, Perkins, all
the different things that we are involved in, in higher
education work study programs. Are you saying that Federal
policy ought to weave into that, that 508 has to be implemented
by these schools, I mean, as an extension of the Federal
Government, that we are providing all of this, so, therefore,
we ought to make sure that their vendors are adopting products
that do not have serious accessibility barriers? Did I make
myself clear?
Mr. Turner. Yes, your question is clear. It may be perhaps
that my written testimony was perhaps less so, so let me
clarify, if I might.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Turner. What I am speaking to in that statement is the
observation over a period of many years that 10 years
postpassage of section 508, there is a significant disconnect
between division of a market-based solution to universal
technology and the array of technologies that are actually in
the marketplace, and with rather distressing frequency.
When we raise questions or concerns with vendors regarding
the accessibility of their products, we regularly hear
something to the effect of, well, such and such department in,
the Government uses this product and they did not have any
concerns about accessibility. Or, the State of Massachusetts is
using it, and they do not have concerns about technology.
But it appears that there is product adoption occurring by
entities subject to 508, at both State and Federal levels,
where by all appearances the level of analysis that is
undertaken to credibly review vendor accessibility statements
is insufficient, and where products are being accepted despite
the presence of more accessible alternatives in the market
place.
What I am respectfully suggesting is not that 508
procedures are not in place, but that they are not sufficiently
robust to provide the feedback loop we feel is critical for the
development of a market-based solution where vendors deliver
more accessible products.
The Chairman. I understand. I understand that clearly now.
However, having asked that question in the way I did, let me
restate it then. How would you feel, what do you think about
the Federal Government then using all the grant programs and
everything that we do for higher education, and having some
requirements therein for schools to adopt stronger
accessibility requirements?
Mr. Turner. In principle, I strongly support that.
The Chairman. Reading your testimony, I got an idea for
maybe doing some prodding and some mutual work here with our
institutions of higher learning, because what you have done in
California, from what I know of it, has been really good. And I
just see that it is not happening like that around the country.
And I think we have to have a more determined effort to, again,
do in higher education what Dr. Quick has done in Columbus, IN
in his elementary and secondary schools, and I guess preschool,
too, from what I have just heard.
Michael, my staff, just said to ask you about how you got
Apple, and I read it in your testimony last night about how you
got them to change their iTunes. How did you do that? That was
in your testimony. I read it last night. Oh, yes. Your staff
evaluated Apple's iTunes U product, which was being offered to
post-secondary institutions across the Nation, and determined
that the product manifested serious accessibility barriers, ET
cetera, ET cetera. Tell us about that a little bit.
Mr. Turner. Certainly. I will try and do so as briefly as
possible.
This was one of the earliest activities upon my arrival to
the Accessible Technology Initiative. At that time, Apple had
recently expanded the iTunes application, which had heretofore
been used primarily for, individuals accessing their individual
libraries of media, into an initiative entitled iTunes U or
iTunes University. They were very aggressively marketing iTunes
U as a free--free as no licensing fee--adoption option for
universities across the country to make available audio and
video content, whether it be related to instructional
activities or for administrative functions, such as committee
meetings and things of that nature.
A number of CSU campuses approached the staff at the
Accessible Technology Initiative and requested that we provide
guidance to them on the suitability of iTunes U as a platform
to be made available for deployment across the system.
We undertook an accessibility evaluation of iTunes U and
found it to be profoundly inaccessible, which is to say, for
those familiar with the iTunes U interface, it is extremely
rich. It has a number of controls, a high degree of
functionality. And there was one user interface element on that
entire interface that was accessible, and that was the search
field.
If you were a user of screen reader technology, that was
the one control you could perceive out of that entire program's
interface.
So, we had grave reservations about recommending that
technology at that time to campuses, and indicated so in a
coded memorandum to campuses, prescribing that the technology
not to be used in a production environment until such time as
the vendor had made material improvements to the accessibility
of the product.
We then began coordinating activity with Apple, directly
with their accessibility engineers, their product managers, to
make them aware of the range of accessibility issues we
encountered, to provide guidance on particular priorities we
needed them to address in order to provide the most substantive
improvements to accessibility, and offered to be available to
review intermediate steps, beta builds to the product as they
made those improvements. So, that was all codified in our coded
memo, and became the basis for a relationship with iTunes U
that spanned the year of, I want to say, 2008.
By the end of that year, they had met all, I believe it
was, eight of the essential requirements we set forth. And to
refer to an analogy you had drawn earlier where you talked
about the technology and the curriculum. We used the term
``content and container.'' So, the technology was the
container. That was the application. But one of the gaps that
we asked Apple to address was that video content that flowed
through iTunes did not have the capacity to support closed
captioning at the time that we evaluated the product.
So, by the end of 2008, they had met all of our
requirements, all of our highest priority requirements. And we
provided clearance through another coded memo to our campuses
allowing them to consider usage in a production environment.
The Chairman. So, you got it done in, what, 2 years?
Mr. Turner. In a period of about 12 months.
The Chairman. Oh, 12 months? So, it was less than a year.
My goodness. Do you think that is possible with all these other
applications that we can get it done that fast?
Mr. Turner. Not all applications have the depth of
resources----
The Chairman. That Apple does.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. That Apple does. And, indeed, one
of my messages to Apple was that they were not leveraging the
accessibility expertise that existed in their own institution;
that they had become so large that we felt the accessibility
team had not been deeply involved enough with the product team
because they were in different silos.
The Chairman. Good. You know, we are talking about ATI
today. What is the Center for Accessible Media? Can you explain
that? How has it saved money, I understand, for the university?
Mr. Turner. Absolutely. I would be happy to speak to that.
The Chairman. Just tell me about that.
Mr. Turner. In the early 2000s, we began to notice a
significant up-tick in requests for alternate media. These
would be specialized curricula materials that are adapted for
use by students with a variety of print disabilities. That
could be blindness, low vision, learning disabilities, or any
number of other conditions that create a functional impairment
in the area of reading.
As we began to see utilization increase significantly, we
began to look to opportunities to leverage the work that was
being done across the systems so that we were producing an
accessible version of a book once rather than 23 times across
23 campuses.
We conducted a needs assessment, conducted a feasibility
study, and began development in 2003 on a Web application that
would facilitate campuses listing, requesting, and receiving
copies of specialized materials that have already been adapted
for use by students with print disabilities so that they could
be shared across our system.
That Web service launched in 2004. It now lists 21,000
titles that are available to CSU campuses. In subsequent years,
the University of California, I want to say six of the UC
campus now, also contract, have access to this repository. And
annually it facilitates between 1,400 and 1,500 requests from
campus to campus. That is 1,400 to 1,500 instances in which
campuses avoid redundant efforts to produce these specialized
materials.
The Chairman. That is good.
Mr. Turner. Obviously that significant cost savings for
those of us familiar with producing specialized formats, it can
be a very time and resource intensive process.
The Chairman. Very good. Great explanation. I see my time
is running out.
Again, Mr. Riccobono, Dr. Quick, and Mr. Turner, have
things come up in this hearing that you want to respond to, or
are there some questions I should have asked you that maybe you
wish I had asked and I had not asked that you would want to
expound upon?
Mr. Riccobono.
Mr. Riccobono. I would just add a few things. First of all,
to say I really appreciate your leadership in putting this
hearing together, in fact, a series of hearings on educational
technology because it is a critical issue.
You know what Dr. Quick talked about in terms of
interoperability and students bringing devices is quite
important. And I think it underscores two things: one, that
there needs to be more understanding of accessibility amongst
the general IT professionals where the access to technology is
not a separate product that comes out of a closet, that it is
in all these devices, and they are going to need to know how to
deal with them.
Also, to your point about the curriculum. It is great that
the iPad has built in accessibility, but if the educational
apps that are being used from whatever the book publisher is or
the educational content producer that has produced an app to
deliver the particular content, if that app does not have
controls that are labeled properly or the app does not interact
properly with accessibility, then it does not matter if the
device is accessible. So, that is where the curriculum
accessibility really comes in and those standards comes in.
Another two things I would say is, we need to change the
culture around accessibility to get people talking about it
more. Even Apple, who we all acknowledge is doing some
innovative things in accessibility, they do not talk about it.
It is like taboo to talk about that there is accessibility in a
product.
I am not sure where that comes from, but I think,
leadership on this committee could really help companies that
are trying. I think part of it is that they do not feel like
they have everything figured out. I think we need to get that
out in the open to say, ``Hey, we are working on it, and here
are some innovative ideas we have.'' But no one is talking
about accessibility. And you certainly do not see them waving
the flag when they are trying to sell it. It is sort of very
much very behind the scenes.
The final thing is, I think that market power, if we can
get the schools and the universities to start working together,
again, start talking about accessibility, requiring it in their
contracts, and then sharing information amongst each other
about what is accessible and what is not, and really requiring
it, not buying products. I think Mr. Turner's examples are
great ones of companies that, when they said, ``No, we are not
going to deal with your product because it is not accessible,''
that got the company's attention, and they made substantive
changes that made their product accessible, not just in
California, but across the Nation.
Mr. Turner. Very good. Your point is well-taken that this
should be discussed more, it should be out in the open more. We
need to be asking more questions. And those companies that are
doing a good job of this ought to put that in their
advertising.
I think it has a much broader appeal than just to the
disability community.
Mr. Riccobono. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Much broader.
Dr. Quick.
Mr. Quick. Engagement is also awfully important. I can
remember as an elementary principal going from class to class,
I would too often hear, ``Well, you just missed it, we are
getting ready''--or, there was not the engagement.
Technology, and, it is a tremendous waste not to have
access and not to have engagement. One of those, since I am
also the fellow that gets some of the discipline things that
comes my way, one school that we redesigned, and this project,
technology-rich environment, UDL doing these things that we
did. They had 400 discipline referrals the year before the
design. Now, if they have two or three a month.
Mr. Turner. Really?
Mr. Quick. It makes a difference. Students need to be
challenged, and they need to be engaged. And there is a lot of
wasted time on discipline, and part of it is just clearly that
our students are frustrated. So, I would recommend that there
are some other kinds of results that you may not think of as
traditional.
The Chairman. Put a little bit more meat on that bone. Why
did all the discipline things go down so big after the
adoption?
Mr. Turner. Because the students felt they had ownership,
first of all. Project-based learning that we try to do, and
then we used technology with it. They feel like it is
authentic. They are involved with it. They are engaged. You
have a lot of students that need--maybe their attention span is
10 or 15 minutes or so, and technology is very patient, too.
They do not lose their temper or their patience with a student.
And that can be helpful, too.
It is a give and take. But I think that if we engage
students and do a better job at this accessibility, the
discipline issues that we have in schools will greatly--and any
time that you can spend time working with students rather than
working with the discipline issue, that just snowballs the
amount of learning that happens. It is much more learning
centered, and that is the key.
When you make a decision, is it going to enhance the
likelihood of learning or not? And that is what we should be
looking at. Learning is our product here.
The Chairman. That is very interesting. That is something I
never even thought about, but now that you have jogged my
thinking on it. Of course I have seen a lot of kids who are
discipline problems because maybe they are autistic or
borderline autistic, and they are not being challenged in the
right way. They are not getting the learning material in a way
that they can understand, and they get frustrated, and they act
it out. So, if technology can overcome that, as you indicated
earlier in your testimony, I can see now that that reduces
discipline problems.
Mr. Quick. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Interesting. Any last things, Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. I would just indicate that we stand arm in arm
with the National Federation of the Blind on our core
messaging, which is we want all students to be able to use the
same products at the same time with the same features for the
same cost.
The Chairman. Do you have that written down? I want to use
that in the future. I cannot think of a better way to end the
hearing.
Thank you all very, very much for your input. As I said,
this is the first of a series of hearings that we are going to
be having on this topic. Again, thank you all very, very much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned.
The record will stay open for 10 days for Senators to
submit statements and questions.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]