accessibility-compliance-cloud

What’s wrong with the TEACH Act?


TEACH aims to ensure that ed tech is accessible for all students, but some say the approach is misguided

teach-accessibility-technologyLegislation currently under consideration by Congress has opened up a fissure between institutions of higher education and advocacy groups for students with disabilities.

Known as the TEACH (Technology, Equality and Accessibility in College and Higher Education) Act, H.R. 3505 and S. 2060 are backed by the National Federation of the Blind and the Association of American Publishers, with endorsements coming from more than a dozen other organizations. The goal of the proposed legislation is to establish accessibility guidelines and standards for technology in higher education that, if followed, would ensure a school’s compliance under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

However well-intended the TEACH standards may be, some higher ed leaders fear that many institutions lack the ability to meet their rigor, potentially grinding the adoption of these vital resources to a halt.

eCampus News talked with Jarret Cummings, director of policy and external relations for EDUCAUSE, about his organization’s concerns with the proposed legislation—and a possible compromise.

1) How will the proposed TEACH Act benefit or potentially harm students with disabilities?

The stated aim of the TEACH Act is to develop voluntary guidelines to help advance the accessibility of electronic instructional materials and related technologies. EDUCAUSE, along with other leading higher education associations [see the jointly developed TEACH Act analysis], supports this goal. We are concerned that the bill as currently written, however, would impose a new accessibility standard for digital materials and technologies that colleges and universities could not meet in many cases.

We believe this would greatly constrain the adoption, development, and use of technology to support teaching and learning for all students, including those with disabilities. The proposed standard would deny institutions the flexibility to meet a student’s individual needs and severely limit the ability of instructors to use all types of content and technologies—from multimedia interactive software to dynamic 3D simulations—that enhance the learning experience for their students.

2) Is the proposed TEACH Act at odds with the Americans With Disabilities Act or does it build on it?

The present version of the TEACH Act would create a new, more rigid standard for accessibility without clearly incorporating the provisions of current law that allow institutions to flexibly address the needs of individual students.

For example, it would require institutions to use only digital content and technologies that are completely accessible to any student with any disability under any and all conditions, regardless of commercial availability or options for reasonable accommodation.

(Next page: Potential standoff; steps to ensure equal access)

3) So are you at a standoff with the TEACH Act supporters on accessibility standards?  

Recent discussions between the TEACH Act’s proponents and higher education associations, including EDUCAUSE, have been productive, and we have agreed to work together to pursue the goals of the TEACH Act based on established legal standards and provisions. History has shown us that accessibility improvements can and do lead to technology innovations, which is why we are pleased now to be working with the bill’s primary proponents, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the Association of American Publishers (AAP), to advance the goals of the TEACH Act in a way that will encourage, not inhibit, innovation.

A number of higher education associations, including EDUCAUSE, met with NFB and AAP representatives in early October to discuss the TEACH Act. We collectively agreed to work together over the next few months on a compromise approach to establishing voluntary guidelines for postsecondary electronic instructional materials. Those talks are still at a preliminary stage, but proceeding with goodwill on all sides.

4) With respect to technology accessibility, some educators have described the threat of legal action as a Sword of Damocles hanging over higher ed. How much of a concern is this?

Institutions have varied in the effectiveness with which they address IT accessibility issues, and some have at times not achieved the level of effectiveness that I am sure they would like.

But higher education institutions take their compliance obligations seriously, which is why we are so concerned about the potential impact of the TEACH Act, as currently written, on teaching, learning, and technology. We are working with proponents of the bill to create a dynamic and flexible process for drafting voluntary guidelines that is driven by—and responsive to—stakeholders. We hope this will support the efforts of colleges and universities to fulfill their responsibilities in terms of accessibility without inhibiting the use of technology to advance teaching and learning, which benefits all students.

5) Aside from legislation such as the TEACH Act, what is the best way to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to educational technologies?

The higher education community has, and must continue to, collaborate, share best practices, and work alongside accessibility advocacy groups to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to learning opportunities and educational materials. Guidelines are only part of the puzzle. Colleges and universities also rely on faculty and staff that work every day to develop, adapt, and leverage innovative technologies and materials to meet student needs. These efforts include accessibility-research centers that design and develop new technologies and content formats; faculty and staff who work together to convert instructional resources into accessible formats when appropriate; and IT accessibility professionals who work with their academic and administrative colleagues to identify and incorporate accessible software, systems, applications, and devices into the instructional environment.

Our dialogue with the Act’s proponents has brought further attention to the important issue of improving accessibility for students with disabilities. In doing so, it reflects the value of consistent engagement among major stakeholders in sustaining progress on the use of technology to improve learning outcomes for all students.

Andrew Barbour is a freelance writer based in Cape Charles, VA.

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.