Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents
Presenter(s)
Jeffrey C. Senge
California State University, Fullerton
800 North State College Blvd.
Fullerton, California 92831-3599
Phone: (714) 278-7253
Fax: (714) 278-2408
Email: jsenge@fullerton.edu
For more than a decade, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been actively involved with complaint resolutions related to information access for students with disabilities in postsecondary education. This paper presents a first-hand account of how California State University, Fullerton worked with OCR to develop and implement a complaint resolution plan to improve timely access to instructional materials in alternate formats over the last year. The initial complaint, investigation, resolution agreement, and resolution plan implementation are described.
To understand the issues central to this complaint, it is important to first be familiar with the provision of "Equally Effective Communications." Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), require colleges and universities to ensure oral and written communications for individuals with disabilities are, "as effective as" communications for non-disabled individuals. OCR has further specified accuracy of translation, timeliness of delivery, and presentation in an appropriate manner and medium are the three components by which effectiveness of communication will be measured. In this complaint, the second component, timeliness of delivery came into question and was the focus of the investigation and complaint resolution process.
On July 8, 2003, a student with a visual impairment enrolled at California State University, Fullerton filed a complaint with OCR alleging the University failed to provide timely access to printed instructional materials resulting in the student having to withdraw from some courses. OCR regarded these allegations to have limited the student's ability to achieve and determined there was sufficient evidence to indicate the complainant may have been discriminated against based on disability. OCR then notified the University President initiating the formal investigation process.
In early 2004 OCR conducted an in-depth investigation primarily involving the University's Office of Diversity and Equity and Office of Disabled Student Services. All individuals involved with providing instructional materials in alternate formats as well as those responsible for supervising and administering alternate format accommodations were interviewed. In addition, OCR requested written documentation including related student policies and procedures as well as past production records. Following their investigation and program review, OCR concluded the University met appropriate administrative legal standards but failed to provide materials in the same timeframe as for non-disabled students negatively impacting the student's ability to achieve.
OCR's findings identified the following nine areas of concern related to the University's inability to provide timely access to the complainant's instructional materials in this situation.
1. Inability to obtain course material information sufficiently in advance
2. Insufficient production staff and specialists to meet demand
3. Lack of coordination between production staff
4. No back-up production staff
5. Use of outdated and inefficient production equipment
6. Conflicting use of production facility and equipment
7. No confirmation for on-line request process
8. Inability of students to track request production status
9. Request process not sufficiently interactive
Based on these nine OCR findings, the University in conjunction with OCR drafted a Resolution Agreement which specified the University would develop a plan to address each of these priorities during the 2004-2005 academic year. Currently, the plan has been developed, accepted by OCR, and is in the process of being implemented.
The University's resolution plan includes the following seven components which are listed and described in detail below.
1. Comprehensive Alternate Format Production Plan
2. Monitor and track the production process
3. Production status reports for students
4. Faculty deadline for course materials identification
5. Effort to share alternate format materials
6. Options for submitting alternate format requests
7. Reimbursement of complainant
1. Alternate Format Production Plan:
Analysis of historic University production data indicated projected alternate format requests would total approximately 1,000 for the 2004-2005 academic year. It was estimated to require about 12,000 employee and contractor hours to fulfill these requests. A new full-time position was created and an Alternate Format Production Specialist hired. In addition, a dedicated Alternate Format Production Facility was built to correct the production space and equipment conflicts identified by OCR. Under the supervision of the University Information and Computer Access Program Coordinator, the new Alternate Format Production Specialist oversees and coordinates the day-to-day operations of the Alternate Format Production Facility.
This facility has been designed to address OCR's concerns related to a lack of coordination between production staff, not having back-up production staff, and insufficient or outdated production equipment. The facility is equipped with redundant production equipment. Production equipment is all new with at least one back-up device for each critical production tool, in-place and ready to go. Technology and equipment are on an eighteen month to three year refresh schedule. This design also provides additional production resources during peak demand periods. Having the entire alternate format production program in a single facility provides improved coordination and supervision of staff as well as the ability to cross-train back-up personnel.
2. Monitor and Track the Production Process:
An alternate format request tracking process was developed and implemented during the 2004 fall semester. This custom database enables constant monitoring of production resources as well as the reporting of alternate format request production status for staff and students. Having an accurate up-to-date picture of the entire operation in this dynamic production environment enables the Alternate Format Production Specialist to deploy resources as effectively as possible to accommodate a fluctuating workflow. Procedures for fast-track production of late requests, highly specialized materials, and in-full quick turnaround requests have been developed and implemented. The alternate format production database facilitates improved efficiencies throughout the production process. Monitoring of the operation can be done in real-time or through analysis of periodic reports generated (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) from the database. With more than a hundred requests being processed simultaneously at any given time, the database provides a comprehensive structure to the entire production operation.
3. Production Status Reports for Students:
With the Alternate Format Production Database on the back-end and the Student's University Web Portal on the front-end, students can now independently access the production status of alternate format requests they have submitted. Harvesting data from the production tracking database every night, the web portal presents each student with an individual status report of their requests in production on a daily basis, 24x7. Students are provided completion dates for five steps along the way as well as an estimated date of completion. This information is also available to students via telephone during regular business hours. Student calls for this information outside normal business hours are returned the next business day. Students can also send email to designated staff requesting production status reports for alternate format requests they have submitted.
4. Faculty Deadline for Course Materials Identification:
Recognizing the inherent challenges associated with fulfilling this priority, the University President provided strong leadership. In a letter to all faculty, the President and Vice President of Academic Affairs explained how providing equal access to instructional materials in alternate formats required early identification of course materials by faculty. The letter made it clear that this was an institutional responsibility and there would be a University wide system change regarding identification and adoption of course materials made over the next few months. The new textbook adoption process specifies all required and recommended course materials be identified and submitted to the Vice President of Academic Affairs office prior to the date the class schedule is posted on-line for the following semester. This means textbook and instructional material adoptions must be submitted by mid April for Fall and mid October for Spring. This information is being managed through a new database established by the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Required and recommended materials for each section of each course are linked to the on-line class schedule through this database. This provides students sufficient time to submit their requests for materials in alternate formats so the institutional responsibility of providing timely access can be met.
OCR determined that satisfying the timely access component of effective communications requires sufficient lead time to produce alternate format materials. They also recognized those producing the alternate format materials may not be at fault when timely access is delayed due to the lack of identified course materials. OCR identified timely access as an institutional responsibility the University was accountable for fulfilling. Consequently, a system-wide institutional change had to be made.
5. Effort to Share Alternate Format Materials:
Since the University was already using existing alternate format resources like RFB&D, Bookshare, APH, etc., OCR focused their attention on the potential of the California State University (CSU) to develop a method of sharing alternate format materials between its 23 campuses state-wide. During the time this complaint was being filed and investigated, The CSU had already begun developing such a resource. This OCR priority was addressed by the University's commitment to assist with the development and support of the CSU Center for Alternate Media (CAM). The CSU CAM went live in July of 2004 and enables the 23 CSU campuses to share alternate format materials created locally or obtained from publishers with one another through a secured web-based database.
6. Options for Submitting Alternate Format Requests:
Following their investigation, OCR felt the University's exclusive on-line procedure for requesting materials in alternate formats was too restrictive. In response to this finding, they requested the University develop and implement additional request submission options to the on-line method alone. Since the existing on-line process had proven to work much better for the majority of students, the University proposed continuing this alternate format request procedure but adding the option of having assistance available by appointment for students who might need help with completing the on-line request form. The University also agreed to provide an increased level of training for students who may want to learn how to complete the on-line form independently. In defense of the on-line alternate format request process, the University was able to explain how this method had dramatically improved the accuracy and efficiency of alternate format delivery over the past two semesters. OCR agreed adding additional assistance to the on-line request process would satisfy this priority.
7. Reimbursement of Complainant:
Finally, the University agreed to reimburse the complainant for fees and expenses associated with needing to withdraw and reenroll in the courses affected by the lack of timely access to course materials alleged in the complaint. The University satisfied this commitment by reimbursing the complainant for expenses incurred as a result of this situation.
In conclusion, this OCR complaint and its subsequent resolution agreement have substantially changed the breadth and scope of what postsecondary educational institutions may be held accountable for implementing with regard to timely access to instructional materials in alternate formats. OCR has further articulated their expectations of timely access through this complaint and resolution agreement. Implementation of these clearly identified standards is likely to impact colleges and universities throughout the nation. Over the past year, California State University, Fullerton has worked hard to create a best practices model for others to follow.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents