Finding Balance: Accessible IT Framework

Introduction

Rapid advances in information and technology capabilities are profoundly changing society. Now that the constraints of time and distance have been removed by the growth of global technology networks, the structure of business, community, and government services continue to evolve in response.

The increase in technology has also spread to the field of education. Research indicates that the number of computers in public schools across the United States increased by nearly 200 percent between 1991-1992 and 1995-1996. Nationwide, 99 percent of public schools are now connected to the Internet. Each day brings additional reported cases of technology's increased use in schools across the United States.

While technology holds much promise, especially in terms of improving educational outcomes, many students with disabilities will not experience the benefits of technological advances. This problem is due, in part, to a lack of access to information technology (IT) and to a lack of exposure to the curriculum and instruction their non-disabled peers receive. The combined effect of these factors results in lower academic achievement for students with disabilities; this leads to fewer high school and college graduates and even fewer adults with disabilities in the workforce. The infusion of technology into the marketplace has influenced expectations about what it means to be an educated person. Those joining the workforce are expected to have the ability to think critically, solve problems, work independently as well as collaboratively, and have strong technology skills.

IT and Students With Disabilities Framework

Figure 1: Framework for IT and students with disabilities.

Together, seven factors — accessibility, individual student needs, district resources, individualized fit, universal design, individualized education plan (IEP), and universal curriculum — form the IT and students with disabilities framework that is displayed in Figure 1. Accessibility, the most fundamental of all factors for students with disabilities, is represented by the beam and fulcrum of the scale. Grouped together on the right side of the scale are individual student needs, individualized fit, and IEP. Though different in meaning, these concepts reflect the importance of considering the needs of the individual student.

In contrast, the terms on the left side of the scale—district resources, universal design, and universal curriculum—imply the importance of meeting the needs of many students. When providing IT to students with disabilities, the factors on both sides of the scale must be considered. Weighing the needs of a group of students and the individual needs of each student with a disability drives the IT decision-making process.

Accessibility

As stated earlier, accessibility is the most fundamental factor for students with disabilities. Without accessibility, a student with a disability is deprived of opportunities to develop the skills and cognitive abilities needed to benefit from the vast abundance of knowledge and educational services that are available to students without disabilities.

When considering accessibility, school staff need to consider whether IT in the district is usable by all students. Computers, software, Internet resources, e-mail, school/teacher Web pages, distance-learning courses, and other technology (including services) offered to students without disabilities must be made accessible to those with disabilities.

Barriers to computer use can be grouped into three categories: barriers to input, barriers to output, and barriers to use of accompanying print material. When students with disabilities, such as those with limited fine motor skills, encounter input barriers, they may be unable to operate a standard keyboard. Students with low vision may not be able to read the screen because of output barriers like small print. And barriers to use print material, such as reading a class worksheet, may prevent a student who has a learning disability from accessing information.

When IT is usable by all students, especially those with disabilities, it promotes access to information; communication; participation in distance learning options; exposure to instruction, curriculum, and resources; independent work; participation in general education classrooms; and learning with peers.

Individual Student Needs versus District Needs/Resources

As part of a districtwide IT needs assessment, every student with a disability must be evaluated to determine individual accessibility needs with respect to physical, cognitive, and/or sensory modifications. Once all districtwide needs have been compiled, resources must be identified and matched to meet students' needs. The primary issue here is meeting the individual needs of each and every student with a disability while providing accessible technology to all students and staff within the district.

Making accessibility a priority and identifying all available resources, both internal and external to the district (such as equipment banks, adopt-a-school partners foundations, or grants), is critical to providing accessible IT to each and every student. Furthermore, decisions related to procuring accessible IT will help ensure that each student's needs are met. Meeting or exceeding accessibility requirements does not necessarily equate to buying expensive high-tech equipment. In some cases, inexpensive low-tech options may be better solutions for students. Before purchasing IT, it is imperative to have students try technology to avoid costly mistakes. Student preferences and ease of use should be an integral part of the assessment process. Otherwise, expensive technology may end up sitting in storage because it is too cumbersome for students to use.

Individualized Fit versus Universal Design

After student needs have been identified and technology has been procured, another set of concerns often arises. When the IT arrives, teachers may discover some students cannot use it straight out of the box even though these items were specifically ordered for them. Teachers may be confused because these products claim to be universally designed. Even if technology is universally designed, it may not fit the individual needs of every student with a disability. To better understand this issue, the concept of universal design should be thought of as a continuum. On one end of the continuum is no access to technology for individuals with disabilities. On the other end is universality, an ideal state where each and every person with or without a disability—regardless of the type of disability—can use the technology.

When product engineers begin to conceptualize universally designed technology, they obtain input from a variety of disability groups in terms of potential barriers to usability. Focus groups convene and members of each disability group provide information that is incorporated into the design of the technology. These focus groups represent a cross section of members and not the needs of each and every member of every disability group. Uncommon needs may not be reflected among these focus group members and, as a result, some accessibility needs may be overlooked in the design of a product.

Universal Curriculum versus Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

Once students have been appropriately matched with accessible IT, other accessibility issues surface. In today's classrooms, many students with disabilities face inherent barriers to learning. For example, students with certain cognitive disabilities may be unable to utilize general curriculum textbooks and accompanying materials if they are unable to comprehend complex sentence patterns and technical vocabulary. Students with motor disabilities are unable to fully participate in science laboratory experiments because of limited mobility. These students often end up participating in a parallel system of instruction with a less challenging curriculum because teachers (general and special education) may lack familiarity with instructional strategies needed to minimize such barriers.

Presently, most general curriculum materials and methods of instruction are not flexible enough to meet all students' needs and learning styles; however, universally designed learning materials, with their inherent flexibility, offer promise for creating a general curriculum truly accessible to all learners. A universal curriculum would provide teachers of all subject areas and academic levels with strategies for meeting the different learning needs of students with a wide range of abilities and disabilities. A universal curriculum provides teachers with a set of strategies for teaching each of the students with disabilities—in addition to children without disabilities and second language learners—to make the general curriculum accessible to all. However, as with universal design, it is highly unlikely that a universal curriculum will encompass the individual needs of each and every student with a disability.

While a universal curriculum encompasses the learning needs of all students, an IEP1 delineates the individual needs of a child with a disability. Specifically, IEPs address a student's current abilities and how his or her disability affects involvement and progress in the general curriculum, delineate special services that are required, and list the program modifications and supports the school and teachers will provide to facilitate the child's success in the general curriculum. Like a piece of adaptive/assistive technology, the IEP allows for full accessibility to the curriculum by delineating the modifications that are necessary to make the strategies from a universal curriculum work for a student's specific needs.

Conclusion

Providing IT to students with and without disabilities is an act of balancing two sets of factors. Decisions about IT for students with disabilities cannot be made in isolation from those made for all students within the district and vice versa. Educators must consider all of these factors when designing and delivering services to provide IT for all students.

1 Students with disabilities requiring only reasonable accommodation must have a written plan under Section 504; this is often referred to as an Individualized Accommodation Plan (IAP) or a 504 plan. Each public school should have someone on staff who serves as the school's 504 coordinator; this person would coordinate the development, maintenance, and implementation of 504 plans.

References

AccessIT (2001). What are examples of accessible electronic and information technology in education? Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Adams, S., & Burns, M. (1999). Connecting student learning and technology. Austin, TX: Technology Assistance Program, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
American Youth Policy Forum and the Center on Education Policy (2001). Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities: The good news and the work ahead. Retrieved January 3, 2005.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Callender, S., & Bolt, S. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (Technical Report 32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Minnema, J., & Scott, J. (2002). Scale score comparability across two levels of a norm-referenced math computation test for students with learning disabilities (Out-of-level Testing Report 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Branigan, C. (2002). "Poor teacher preparation hinders school tech use." eSchool News Online. Retrieved November 19, 2004. (Article requires registration)
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Creating video and multimedia products that are accessible to people with sensory impairments. Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). Working together: People with disabilities and computer technology. Retrieved Retrieved November 19, 2004.
CAST (2002). National center to address making the general curriculum accessible to all learners. Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges (1999). Distance education: Access guidelines for students with disabilities. California: The High Tech Center Training Unit in Collaboration with the Distance Education Accessibility Workgroup.
Education Development Center, Inc. (1999). Technology in education 1998 report from the Market Data Retrieval. Leadership and the new technologies perspectives, Issue 7. Retrieved November 7, 2002.
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Hurst, D., & McArthur, E. (2000). What are the barriers to the use of advanced telecommunications for students with disabilities in public schools? National Center for Education Statistics Issue Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mace, R. (1997). What is universal design? The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University. Retrieved Retrieved November 19, 2004.
Stellin, S. (2001). "Most schools are wired." New York Times. Retrieved October 30, 2001. (Article requires registration)

NIDDR logo

This factsheet was produced by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) through a subcontract with the Southwest ADA Center. The Southwest ADA Center is a program of ILRU at TIRR in Houston, Texas. DLRP is one of 10 Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) funded by grant # H133D60012 provided by the Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Neither NIDRR nor DLRP are enforcement entities.

Available in alternate formats upon request.

contact us: Southwest ADA Center
800-949-4232 or 713-520-0232 v/tty