Speaker 1: Disability Access and Online Learning, from Precedence to Practice, presented by Jane E. Jarrow, PhD, Disability Compliance in Career and Online Learning. Welcome. Over the next 10 days, we will be exploring how the legal obligations regarding equal access and opportunities for students with disabilities play out in the virtual world of online learning, and what your role is in helping your institution meet those legal obligations. We begin by discussing existing laws and emerging legal guidance and precedence. Then we will discuss the tools available to help assess institutional compliance. Finally, each participant will have an opportunity to develop a personal plan of action. What can and should you do to move your institution forward? The reading that accompanies this presentation, titled In the Beginning, will provide both a timeline and some detail about the federal laws that require institutions of higher education to be mindful of access for students with disabilities. As you will read, the primary statutes that mandate institutional compliance are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. But how can laws that were created before the Internet came into public use be applied to technology and online learning activities that didn't exist then, and some of which don't exist now? They're still emerging. Let's step back a little and take an objective look at that technology and those opportunities from a philosophical perspective. When college faculty step into a traditional classroom on the first day of a new term, what's their purpose there? What do they hope to do? Inform, teach, prepare, make students think, teach a skill. I'm sure you can think of more answers to that question. When college faculty in a traditional class choose an accompanying textbook, designate readings for closed reserve in the library, or assign a research paper to explore a related topic in depth, what is their purpose? To extend learning? To promote exploration and growth? To provide supplementary materials and methods to enhance understanding? Again, you probably have your own answers to that, to add to that list. The fact remains, though, that for more than 30 years, we have understood that our purpose in teaching students with disabilities is no different than our goals for other students, and that our obligation was to provide an equal chance for students with disabilities to learn the same material, master the same understanding. Think about it this way. The upgrade in technology and the move to the online environment is nothing more than a change in geography. The classroom is in a different place, but the faculty's purpose on entering the classroom that first day is the same. Instead of textbooks, there may be e-text. Instead of closed reserve readings, there may be required readings posted to the class website or a list of links provided. And the research for that term paper may be done online instead of in the stacks. But the reason for presenting those options and enhanced learning opportunities remains the same, and so does our obligation to assure accessibility. Let's take the analogy one step further. In the early days of the implementation of Section 504, colleges and universities scrambled to bring their buildings and grounds into compliance with newly instituted standards for architectural accessibility. We measured doorways and the height of water fountains, insisted on Braille signage, installed ramps and elevators, and insisted that everything built anew was to be built to be accessible from the beginning. We recognized the need to retrofit existing structures, but it was logical, cost-effective, and legally required that we not ignore the need for physical access in renovations and in new constructions. You see where I'm going here, right? Think of the learning management system, the software applications, and the fancy new technology from e-readers to clickers as the ramps and elevators that provide access to the online learning experience. They get you into the classroom. They're the infrastructure of the online learning experience. And the federal law says they must be equally accessible to students with disabilities. Section 504 was implemented in 1977. The ADA was passed and then implemented in the early 90s. There is nothing in your online learning offerings or your current technology use that preexisted those federal mandates. So why is it that we see so many problems in accessing online learning and technology? And why does it come as such a surprise to the higher education community that we have a problem here? I would venture to guess that if someone proposed building a new four-story classroom building on campus without benefit of an accessible entrance or an elevator, everyone would be fine with saying, that's not only a violation of 504 and ADA, it's just silly. Why not build the thing to be accessible from the start? And why is it such a surprise to find that adopting an inaccessible LMS or using e-reader technology that isn't accessible is not only a violation of the law, it's just silly? Section 504 and the ADA have always been more about the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. The statutes do not require certain actions in discrete situations. Rather, they demand a new mindset. They require that people with disabilities not be excluded from opportunities solely on the basis of disability. And they require that institutions of higher education take whatever steps are necessary to assure access to those opportunities, whether they be on the ground or in the cloud. I grew up reading Mad Magazine, the image of Alfred E. Newman intoning, what, me worry? Still makes me smile. But in the context of providing accessibility to online learning and technology, the phrase is less amusing. It is entirely too easy to accept the need for something to be done without accepting any responsibility for making it happen. Throughout this presentation, there are repeated references to the obligation of the institution to provide equal access for students with disabilities. You aren't the institution, and you have responsibility and authority over only a small part of the institution's operations and activities. So this isn't your problem, right? Wrong. The legal obligation for compliance may rest with the institution, but the institution is incapable of doing anything good or bad by itself. The institution functions through its people, and that's you. 35 years of compliance history under Section 504 in the ADA have taught us that the actions or inactions of any member of the institutional community can be seen as failure on the part of the institution as a whole, and yet no individual and no single office within the institution can assure the success of efforts to promote access. It's going to take a virtual village to assure online accessibility for students with disabilities. Understanding that, we are all in this together, we are ready to begin our exploration of legal precedents and how they influence our online practice. We will begin by reviewing the flurry of legal activity that has surrounded issues of online and technology access in the last 18 to 24 months. A firm understanding of what went wrong and the legal strategies employed to highlight those failures will be a big help in suggesting a course of immediate action for your own institution. No one wants to be accused of kicking a guy in a wheelchair, and no one wants to be the next test case. I hope you find the information and insights presented in this class to be useful in shaping your understanding and approach to the issues of access and inclusion for students with disabilities. I look forward to your participation in our group experience, but welcome private questions and comments as well. You can reach me at JaneJarrow at AOL.com. See you online.