Presentation on theme: "What’s Cooking in the Commission ? Update on the Advisory Commission on A ccessible I nstructional M aterials for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities."— Presentation transcript:
What’s Cooking in the Commission ? Update on the Advisory Commission on A ccessible I nstructional M aterials for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities
K-12 & Higher Ed Comparison K – 12 Statute(s): IDEA 2004 Affirmative action Section 504 secondary Number of Publishers App. 96 Market: Aggregate LEAs purchase materials Market: Volume App. 3500 new textbooks per year Market: Cost per student App. $65/year Higher Ed Statute(s): Section 504 & ADA Equal Access Number of Publishers App. 4600 Market: Individual Students purchase materials Market: Volume App. 250,000 active titles Market: Cost per Title App. $65/title
Commission Charge (i) assess the barriers and systemic issues that may affect, and technical solutions available that may improve, the timely delivery and quality of accessible instructional materials for postsecondary students with print disabilities, as well as the effective use of such materials by faculty and staff; and (ii) make recommendations related to the development of a comprehensive approach to improve the opportunities for postsecondary students with print disabilities to access instructional materials in specialized formats in a timeframe comparable to the availability of instructional materials for postsecondary nondisabled students.
Make Recommendations (I) to inform Federal regulations and legislation; (II) to support the model demonstration programs authorized under section 773; (III) to identify best practices in systems for collecting, maintaining, processing, and disseminating materials in specialized formats to students with print disabilities at costs comparable to instructional materials for postsecondary nondisabled students; (IV) to improve the effective use of such materials by faculty and staff, while complying with applicable copyright law; and (V) to modify the definitions of instructional materials, authorized entities, and eligible students, as such terms are used in applicable Federal law, for the purpose of improving services to students with disabilities.
Commission Members Gaeir Dietrich, CA ATPC Jim Wendorf, NCLD George Kerscher, IDPF/DAISY Tuck Tinsley, APH Jim Fruchterman, Bookshare Andrew Friedman, LearningAlly Mark Riccobono, NFB Bruce Hildebrand, AAP Glinda Hill, OSERS Maria Pallante,LOC Betsy Weigman, OCR Peter Givler, AAUP Lizanne DeStefano, U of IL Chester Finn, NCD Kurt Herzer, Student Ashlee Kephart, Student Stephan Hamlin-Smith, AHEAD Linda Tessler, Psychologist Dave Berthiaume, OSERS Liz Shook, OSERS Skip Stahl, CAST Mary O’Malley, CAST Scott Lapinski, CAST Janet Gronneberg, CAST
Commission Timeline September 2010 OSEP Kickoff Meeting February 2011 Meeting at LDA Jacksonville 2011 Ohio State Meeting May 2011 CAST Background DRAFT due 2011 Editing Team Reviews May 2011 Task Force DRAFTS due June 201 Full Report DRAFT Due September 2011 Final Editing Meeting August 2017 Meeting at AHEAD Seattle Report to Congress Meeting @ OSU Meeting @ OSEP Meeting @ LDA Meeting @ AHEAD
Commission Task Forces: Key Points Legal – Maria Pallante, Lead Acknowledge that copyright exemptions are meant to be limited to a small, clearly identified class of beneficiaries where market options are not viable (or where market failure can be demonstrated) Consideration for modifying existing regulations: Chafee Support for the creation of licensing schemes between rights holders and 3 rd party Accessible Media Producers for the creation of accessible versions for the commercial marketplace Primary emphasis on legacy print materials & small publishers Sidestep existing collision between Copyright law & civil rights law
Commission Task Forces: Key Points Market – George Kerscher, Lead Proposal to statutorily require all content producers to produce accessible versions Difficult to achieve consensus on this since “materials used in postsecondary “ casts a wide net Proposal to statutorily mandate all IHEs receiving Federal $ to use only accessible instructional materials & delivery systems Similar emphasis as in NIMAS initiative – requirements on educational entities, not content producers Recommendation to establish “Instructional Materials Access Board” to craft functional characteristics of accessible instructional materials & media
Commission Task Forces: Key Points Market/Legal Overlap “Instructional Materials Access Board” might be Federal or voluntary Voluntary stakeholder Board could achieve quicker results, but in the absence of provisions for enforcement “Instructional Materials Access Board” could promulgate function accessibility requirements to clarify expectations for content producers Content producers favor using Section 508/WCAG guidelines as the standard or foundation IHEs could be offered safe harbor by requiring materials that met the functional guidelines established by the “Instructional Materials Access Board”
Commission Task Forces: Key Points Technology Task Force – Jim Fruchterman, Lead The establishment of a standard file format solution (a la NIMAS) not viable in Higher Education Broad consensus on this Feasibility of establishing a clearinghouse, repository or file sharing network Consensus on no single repository – solutions for legacy print materials (Bookshare, ATN, LearningAlly, etc.) already exist Establishment of functional accessibility standards/guidelines (including metadata) Instructional Materials Access Board Focus on both content & delivery mechanisms
Commission Task Forces: Key Points Best Practices Task Force – Tuck Tinsley, Lead Definitions Instructional Materials – Communication Print Disability - a print disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits the individual in seeing or reading.” Timely Manner – At the same time… (Section 133 HEOA) High Cost/Low Incidence - ? 10x cost of “standard” version?.01% of population? Focus on challenges associated with braille, tactile graphics Consensus on support for emerging technologies (.brf output from iPad via Bluetooth, for example Persisting challenges with math braille (Nemeth)
The Challenges & Promises of Digital Content & Delivery
Born Digital Nearly all DSS Offices in higher education are equipped to acquire or retrofit legacy print materials into accessible alternate formats Few, if any, can retrofit digital material for accessibility
Born Digital CourseSmart Publisher files lack structural tagging and image tagging and may have reading order issues CourseSmart has engaged PDF engineers to devise methods to improve the accessibility of the source files through addition of tagging for reading order, structure and images The tagging process is both automated and manual and designed to maximize the number of titles we can prepare While not “artisan tagging,” this process can scale to thousands of titles
Born Digital CourseSmart CourseSmart has funded the tagging of hundreds of its best selling titles CourseSmart partnered with the Alternative Media Access Center (AMAC) to obtain a DOE grant to fund 1,000 more, as well as research and development and faculty and student outreach CourseSmart selects titles for tagging based on sales trends, and history of requests from campus disability services CourseSmart tags additional titles upon request from students and instructors Currently it takes approximately 4 weeks to tag a book for a student request; we are working to reduce this to 2 weeks.
Born Digital CourseSmart Currently CourseSmart is not currently tagging STEM titles Ultimately, CourseSmart feels that ePub 3.0 with MathML will provide the best STEM solution
Born Digital VitalSource All “ Major ” higher ed publishers use our platform Direct agreements with 80+ publishers As part of Ingram, access to 52,000 imprints