Raymond M. Rose
Public Policy Chair, Texas
Digital Learning Association
Digital Accessibility
Certificate Program Design and Delivery Team
Just a little background so you know who I am. I have been
involved in virtual education in K-12 since its start. I was part of the team
that created the country’s first virtual high school, VHS. But I had been
directing one of the first teacher professional development projects funded by
the National Science Foundation (NSF) before that. Before getting involved with
virtual education, I had been a junior high science teacher, and a high school
guidance counselor before becoming a Civil Rights Specialist for the
Massachusetts Department of Education, and then trainer and manager for the
regional desegregation assistance center covering New England.
In 2007, as a member of the North American Council for
Online Learning (NACOL) Research Committee, I co-authored Access
and Equity in Online Classes and Virtual Schools. We knew there was no
guidance for the field. Ours was the first publication in the country
addressing accessibility issues in online education. In doing the research for
that publication, we discovered a school district that had established a policy
that students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) were not allowed to take
an online course. The Office for Civil Rights cited the school district for
violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Unfortunately,
we continue to find reports of public schools that have an enrollment policy, yet
deny students with IEPs the ability to enroll in online learning opportunities.
It’s also relevant to note that the three earliest virtual education programs
in the country, Florida Virtual, Kentucky Virtual, and the Virtual High School,
have all enrolled students with disabilities from their inception.
Unfortunately, there was little interest in accessibility or
that 2007 publication. I presented at NACOL conferences and at other
educational conferences on accessibility whenever I could. Interest in digital
accessibility was slow to happen in K-12, but moved a bit faster in higher
education.
In 2012, the Texas Department of Information Resources,
required Texas state agencies and the institutions of higher education to
designate an Electronic Information Resources Accessibility Coordinator, though
it has taken some institutions until recently to comply.
By 2014, NACOL, now the International Association for K-12
Online Learning (iNACOL), asked me to write an update so I researched and
authored Access
and Equity for All Learners in Blended and Online Education became a
reality. By that time, there was more interest
in the importance and understanding of the need for accessibility. In
2010, the US Department of Education sent a Dear
Colleague letter to the presidents of colleges and universities to address
accessibility issues with electronic book readers. That letter stated:
…universities
agreed not to purchase, require, or recommend use of the Kindle DX, or any
other dedicated electronic book reader, unless or until the device is fully
accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, or the universities
provide reasonable accommodation or modification so that a student can acquire
the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same
services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use.
Then in 2011, in another letter to K-12
superintendents, they said the 2010 letter also applied to school districts and
they issued another letter to provide more information. It also said, among
other things:
Schools should begin by
considering accessibility issues up front, when they are deciding whether to
create or acquire emerging technology and when they are planning how the
technology will be used. To that end, schools should include
accessibility requirements and analyses as part of their acquisition procedures.
In my experience, this is largely ignored in K-12 education.
When OCR investigations find schools using digital resources that are not fully
accessible, the school district will be cited for non-compliance with Section
504.
2014 saw an increase in enforcement
of Section 504, especially as related to online accessibility issues. In the
compliance reviews, OCR stated their operational definition of accessibility,
which is a clarification of the 2010 letter. It states:
Those
with a disability are able to acquire the same information and engage in the
same interaction -- and within the same time frame – as those without
disabilities.
While it’s easy to say schools need
to review all digital materials for accessibility before purchase or use, the
scramble for digital resources at the start of the pandemic showed how little
accessibility was a consideration in the selection of digital resources.
One question is: when do schools
(teachers and school leaders) learn about the OCR definition of accessibility
or how to review materials for accessibility? The short answer is they
don’t. TEA’s certification requirements for teachers and school leaders drive
the Educational Preparation Program and Education Leadership curriculums and
yet do not include specific mention of digital accessibility.
School districts are required by
Section 504 to identify a Section 504 Coordinator. That role is normally just
added to the existing Special Education Director’s job description. But, in the
place where educators might be exposed to Section 504 regulations, special
education preparation, it is generally treated as just like special education. Professional
development programs must focus on all aspects of Section 504 to ensure school
leaders and those assigned to the role of Section 504 Coordinator have a
comprehensive understanding of the regulations and implications of Section 504,
especially as it concerns digital accessibility.
New teachers don’t have the
knowledge nor the time to add another task to their lives. One solution is the
building of high-quality professional development programs for practicing
teachers and school leaders. One that will introduce accessibility legislation
and provide them with the skills to conduct accessibility reviews of digital
resources. And, to make clear that it is morally, ethically, and most
importantly, legally inappropriate to deny any student with a disability access
to virtual education or digital resources.
