If you read my teaser post yesterday, then you’d you know that I am in Montreal, Quebec! Today is the first day of the disability-focused symposium, hosted by Ed-ICT. I am super excited to be here! So far, I have some free Starbucks coffee and a 10-count of chocolate Timbits. I don’t have access to a Tim Horton’s in NC, so I have to go there while I can!
This Montreal symposium is set up in a similar way to the one in Seattle so you may recognize some of the events. I recommend grabbing some coffee and a snack because you are in for a long post!
Welcome to the Symposium
The symposium began with a short presentation from Jane Seale, the head of the network. She gave background on the Ed-ICT International Network, such as the purpose and the funding. Jane put a great emphasis on the role of the stakeholders, specifically which stakeholders are voiced (softly or loudly) and which are silent (those who try to speak and those who don’t). In order to create real change, she believes that input is needed from multiple stakeholders.
To this end, the unheard stakeholders need to be focused on: those external to the institution, disabled staff within an institution, and disabled students who do not disclose. Contributions towards the silence of these stakeholders may include a lack of awareness or knowledge and negative attitudes. Furthermore, Jane identified her two main approaches to how to help all of the stakeholders be heard, which were to promote self-advocacy for disabled students and staff and to promote participatory and inclusive research.
Jane’s Kick-Off Statement
“We need to question things that are taken for granted as truth or fact in the field to give voice to new possibilities and future directions in research and practice.”
With that, the symposium got underway.
Keynote Address: Engaging Stakeholders
The first main event of this symposium was a presentation about creating “a culture of sustainable accessibility.” An emphasis was placed on providing information from the perspective of the University of Colorado Boulder because of a federal investigation launched about their accessibility, or lack thereof. In addition, there was a focus on identifying models and methods for change.
The University of Colorado Boulder
The University of Colorado Boulder (CUB) underwent a Department of Justice (DoJ) Investigation under Title II Regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The investigation was initiated on behalf of students with vision loss in February 2014. The university began their initiative towards accessibility in April, with an official statement coming from the Chancellor in May as a result.
There were six main problems identified by the DoJ:
1. Google Apps for education
2. Digital textbooks “not made accessible in a timely way”
3. Digital signs only in visual, touch screen format
4. University portal (for course registration, personal student details, etc.)
5. Websites for homework and course-related content
6. Online placement and diagnostic exams
Working Towards Accessibility
The CUB decided to engage partners in a project management plan for their “ICT Services and Applications Accessibility Project.” This plan included internal partners within the university. Additionally, external partners were approached as being content experts and praxis experts. The praxis experts included the University of Montana, North Carolina State University (go Wolfpack!), and the University of California at Berkeley (although with their recent appearance in the news…) because these institutions had previously undergone a DoJ investigation. Temple University and the University of Washington were approached because of how well they were already doing.
The efforts were made to create a long-term approach for accessibility needs, while collective partnerships made it possible for the CUB to design a plan for sustainable change. Consequently, an accessibility policy was passed in September 2015 as a part of this plan, which focused on making ICT accessibility a priority and increase responsibility for the university. The plan also included ongoing remediation, communication, and stakeholder relationships for implementation.
Lessons Learned
While a legal nightmare, the DoJ investigation allowed the CUB to take away several important lessons. For example, the university now knows how crucial it is to have transparency with the community to foster honest engagement. Another lesson would be that creating permanent structure and leadership contributes to the commitment of leadership in the long-haul. While the process is ongoing, a report about the project needs to be written to show the efforts being made.
Models
Project Management Model
⇾ Structure is important
⇾ Invite stakeholders and host to project kick-off
⇾ Use project management tools and communication practices
⇾ Clear objectives and measurable outcomes
⇾ Post-completion project meeting
⇾ Implementation of a road-map approach
Peer experts model
⇾ Honors collective wisdom and outside perspectives
⇾ Avoids internal politics
⇾ Provides opportunities for ongoing collaboration
⇾ Later: step up and lead for others
Methods
Clear communication
⇾ Key for building and sustaining stakeholder relationships
⇾ Formal communication plan
⇾ Look at other models that foster strong communication
Defined Roles and Responsibilities
⇾ Stakeholders know why they are involved
⇾ The kick-off weaves story and creates buy-in
⇾ Schedules and timelines help create accountability
⇾ Clear expectations of each member’s commitment)
Strategic Silo-Crossing
⇾ Intentional co-leads from different units
⇾ Forming new relationships: awareness, empathy, and understanding
⇾ Diffuses “blame game” due to distributed ownership
⇾ Collaboration ensures completion of tasks
Ongoing Structure
⇾ Create an accessibility road map
⇾ Set reasonable goals (immediate accommodation and progress)
⇾ Sustainable leadership and organization
⇾ See accessibility as a growth opportunity
Additional Suggestions
⇾ “Never waste a good crisis:” learn from other universities’ experiences
⇾ Share what you’re doing and what you learned
⇾ Provide concrete examples, such as videos or photos
⇾ Network with your stakeholders: on and off campus
Panel 1: International Perspectives on Engaging Stakeholders
The first panel of the day involved stakeholders speaking about their own individual countries, resulting in a variety of viewpoints for each topic. I didn’t want to have the synopsis for this to be a giant block of text, so I created the table below!
[table id=1 /]
Panel 2: Stakeholder Perspectives
The Stakeholder Perspectives panel was provided with specific questions to cover. The panelists gave their own personal ideas, beliefs, and experiences to provide insight to other stakeholders.
1. “What do you see as the barriers for students with disabilities accessing technology?”
2. “What do you see as the facilitators for students with disabilities accessing technology?”
3. “In your position, what could you / your colleagues do to make technology more accessible for students with disabilities?”
4. “As a stakeholder, do you feel that your input has been acknowledged by the “relevant decision makers”? From your perspective, who are these “relevant decision makers”?”
5. “Is there anything that your institution / organization can do to help you stay involved, or become more involved, as a stakeholder?”
Most of the stakeholders shared similar sentiments for these questions and the majority of the comments that I heard were not new information. If you want to read over the gist of this, please look over my Seattle posts! It is nice to know that the same issues are faced by the individuals here as the individuals in Seattle, but it is also frustrating. I almost wish the panelists here faced different issues because then it wouldn’t seem just like there are hordes of people working on the same issues.
Part of my mind goes to the whole statement of: “If we all focus the same issues, we can work together towards a solution and make faster progress.” However, another part wanders to: “If we all focus the same issues, the other issues are being ignored.” Further still, a third part looks at: “If we all focus on the same issues, shouldn’t we be able to use that collective brain power to actually get somewhere in a reasonable time-frame?”
Workshop 1: Key Issues from Day One
There were several key issues that were brought up at the end of the first day, and so I’ve included a few of the ones that really stuck out to me. I would probably have more to contribute, but there were language barriers that prohibited me from getting the full takeaway. The symposium hosts provided headsets for French-to-English and English-to-French translation, therefore allowing listeners to hear the symposium in the language they are more suited to. I tried to follow along with the headset as best that I could for the comments that were in French. In the end, I had a really hard time because I couldn’t focus very well.
Commonly Noted Issues
⇾ Need more training on accessibility: While universities offer training for faculty and staff on diversity issues, a greater emphasis needs to be on making courses and materials accessible.
⇾ Getting higher-ups to listen and understand: Although individuals can identify issues and possible solutions, it seems like those in higher power positions are not receptive or lacking in empathy.
⇾ Inefficiency: For example, the textbook provider won’t provide accessible copy, but disabilities services providers can scan pages from library’s copy.
⇾ Lack of communication: For example, a textbook may be copied for accessibility multiple times because copy textbook more than once for lack of communication.
You will notice that this post is a little list-heavy, but I felt that it was the best option for conveying the information. Additionally, I will be creating another post about my reflections because this ended up being so long! The symposium was just so great today that I couldn’t stop writing, which is why this was so very long! If you’ve made it to this point, thank you so much for your time and for being open to this topic! I hope this was informative or stimulated your critical thinking about accessibility and disabilities because that is the first step towards instituting wide-spread change!