Accessible IT Policy in K-12 Education Pat Brown AccessIT University of Washington

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Filters State DOE Tech Plans District Tech Plans State PolicyNational Policy Classroom?

States with “508-like” Legislation Arizona 2004 Arkansas 1999 California 2002 Colorado 2000 Indiana 2001 Kentucky 2000 Louisiana 2001 Maryland 1998 Minnesota 1998/2002 Missouri 1999 Montana 2001 Nebraska 2000 N. Carolina 2001 Oklahoma 2004 Texas 2005 Virginia 2004 W. Virginia 2001

States with IT Accessibility… Executive Orders CIO Office Policy Massachusetts 1993 Maine 2003 Wisconsin 1997 Oregon 2001 Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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