Many of us have been dealing with the new accessibility requirements that take effect in late-April. I have been a member of a special Accessibility Taskforce on my campus since this fall. Our webmaster headed up the effort, the taskforce members helped flesh out a strategy for compliance, needed policy changes, the cataloging of all web-hosted software so as to find out where we were with new accessibility requirements, and a strategic plan for implementation of the new standards. We met today and took something of a victory lap as the materials were presented to the President’s Council this week for the 1st policy reading – and was well-received. There is still more to do but we are on track to be ready in time for the April deadline.
I’ve been the academic representative on our campus taskforce. Our WebCollege is also represented as is our Disability Resource Center and the Leadership team. At today’s taskforce meeting, I embraced my role as something of a contrarian. I had avoided the wordsmithing of the various documents – we had plenty of cooks in that kitchen. I focused on our potential vulnerability as an institution once the new requirements take effect. I assume many institutions expect there will be a grace period to allow for software exceptions that will not be compliant. However, the Federal government has normally seen the deadline date as THE compliance date. In other words, there are institution-related risks for not being fully compliant on day 1. Those of us that have been involved in online learning long-term, will remember the American Society for the Blind lawsuits leveled at a surprising number of higher ed institutions for failing to have every classroom ADA compliant. That type of advocacy likely will quickly re-emerge. After all, the tactic is effective and more rapidly advanced full compliance of institutions which in turn greatly benefits statements needing accessibility solutions.
I am expecting the “good faith” standard to re-emerge – it was a factor during the earlier ADA-compliance cycle. The essence of this is simple – the Federal Government will expect every institution to engage in a sincere “good-faith” effort to implement the new ADA accessibility standards. I argued at today’s meeting that creating a policy and a roadmap for compliance may not be enough to meet the ‘good faith” standard. And, institutions could find out the hard way if a complaint or lawsuit is filed. Fines and settlements can be steep. The better strategy, in my view, is to also conduct a SWAT analysis regarding where your campus is regarding compliance with the new standards. Identify the weak spots AND then find a way to direct some staffing/ resources to address those. That is more representative of a “good faith” effort to comply.
The cost of compliance this time around is also looking pricey. Signing on for limited licensing (certain number of students but not an enterprise license) or if you are in a system, organizing with other campuses to seek consortium licensing (to save money) as well as to share strategies for compliance, may make the effort far more cost-effective.
Once our materials are past the final draft stage, I will do a follow-up of this topic to include links to what my institution has developed. Stay tuned!
Recommended Reading
Four steps for creating trusted and sustainable AI, EdTech Magazine
Implementing artificial intelligence requires thoughtful planning to ensure long-term viability.
Fear of being flagged by AI detectors drives stress amongst students, Inside Higher Ed
Universities have been urged to reconsider their use of tools that claim to be able to detect artificial intelligence after a survey found three-quarters of U.K. students using AI feel stressed that their work will be wrongly flagged as cheating.
Report: No foolproof method exists for detecting AI-generated media, Campus Technology
A new research report from Microsoft warns that no single technology can reliably distinguish AI-generated content from authentic media, and that deepening reliance on any one method risks misleading the public.
AI will break assessment before it fixes it, Inside Higher Ed
We are treating generative AI as an academic integrity problem, when it’s actually something more destabilizing. It is a measurement problem.
Changing how community colleges prepare students for the world of work, eCampus News
Employers want employees who have been educated in a way that enables them to solve a multitude of complex problems across a variety of applications
How do we get Gen Zers talking – we engineer it, University Business Magazine
Reports are rising lately noting the anxiety many Gen Zers are feeling just as many of them are completing their educations and preparing to enter the workforce. In particular, studies are showing that far too many Gen Zers struggle with the communications skills they need to engage in meaningful, face-to-face conversations with other human beings.
Video Of The Week
9 AI skills you must have to get ahead of 99% of people, YouTube
Most people are using AI at the surface level, and it’s holding them back.
