(Excerpt from DAIS Newsletter, Volume II, No. 2)
Jane E. Jarrow, Ph.D.

A dozen or more years ago, disability service providers hailed the coming of adaptive technology as the bridge to independence for students with disabilities. The Kurzweil machine, the CCTV units, and (later) screen reader technology offered the possibility for students with visual impairments or learning disabilities to function without the help of readers who had been a necessary part of the accommodation process for many years. The proliferation of word processors with spelling checkers and grammar checkers were a boon for learning disabled students who, given access to the technology, could be held responsible for independently producing a paper or an exam that could meet the same standard as that of their peers; instead of asking faculty not to penalize the student for spelling errors, we insisted that the student be given access to appropriate technology and then held accountable for the results. The use of calculators became a common means of accommodating students with disabilities that affect math calculations. Instead of altering curriculum, students were held responsible for mastering the same information; only the means by which mastery was demonstrated need be changed. Assistive listening devices opened up new possibilities for access for the hard of hearing population, while voice input systems offered the possibility of efficient and effective access for those who could not use a keyboard independently.

Many institutions went about setting up an Adaptive Technology Laboratory. Students with disabilities could come to one site and have access to all the options they might need to function more independently. We arranged for students to be allowed to take their tests in the Adaptive Technology Lab so that they could access the technology as a form of accommodation. Those institutions were ahead of their time. They recognized the utility of adaptive technology in leveling the playing field for students with disabilities and prided themselves on being ahead of the game. And they were -- then.

Fast forward to the year 1998. Today, Adaptive Technology Laboratories are not enough. As a means of providing accommodation to traditional classroom activities, they are clearly the logical up-to-date response to an old problem. But such labs cannot meet today's demand for equal access to technology for students with disabilities -- and that demand has become critical. A couple of years ago, when students with disabilities started to complain that they did not have equal access to the technology available to other students on campus, that meant primarily that they didn't have an equal chance to use institutionally owned and maintained word processing equipment for writing papers and producing a polished finished product. Students could be accommodated in such circumstances by providing a typist or extending the hours and adding equipment to the Adaptive Technology Lab. Today, higher education is becoming increasingly Internet/web/computer-dependent and students who do not have equal access to the chance to access the Internet or other computer-based instruction as easily and fully as their peers are facing real barriers to programmatic access. This is no longer an issue of convenience. The threat to educational opportunity and the danger of discrimination are real and imminent.

It is difficult to determine which came first -- the proliferation of computer labs from the residence halls to the departmental units, or the reliance on Internet/computer-based applications for enhancing classroom instruction and disseminating information about and within the institution. The fact remains that such interdependency is now the norm on many campuses. And just as nondisabled students had access to classrooms long before ramps and elevators provided access for their classmates with disabilities, so too are the nondisabled students enjoying the benefits of the information superhighway with nary an onramp in site to provide access for students with disabilities.

This may be the classic example of "discrimination by neglect." Certainly, no one has consciously worked to exclude persons with disabilities through the incorporation of teaching strategies and options that are increasingly Internet/computer-based. But in the past month I have visited three different campuses that are facing an explosion in either the amount of computer technology in use on campus or the reliance on such technology. Two of the schools have recently identified a large pot of money that has been earmarked for purchasing technology for student use. They are in the throes of trying to determine how the money should be divided and setting up rules for how the computer labs will be operated. When asked if they had thought about incorporating accessible work stations and available adaptive technology in all of these labs, I was met with blank stares. The third institution is currently planning a massive transition to computer-based operation. Everything from the recruitment materials and college application to the availability of student records and opportunity to register for classes will eventually rely on the Internet. When asked if the institution's CURRENT web page was accessible to individuals using adaptive technology (such as a screen reader), the folks planning these new applications were stumped. In the frenzy of activity that has surrounded the acquisition and utilization of newly available technology, the decision-makers seem to have lost sight of the fact that it may be as expensive to retrofit for technology as it is to retrofit for architecture. Better to do it right the first time.

Let me return to an earlier statement. "Today, Adaptive Technology Laboratories are not enough." I firmly believe that we must insist (loudly and soon!) that newly acquired technology be equally available to students with disabilities. That does not mean that there is not a place for, and a need for, Adaptive Technology Labs in the overall scheme of things. Such labs can provide a level of individualized instruction in the application of adaptive technology that many students with disabilities may need before they can make effective use of the generally available technology. And clearly, there are some types of adaptive technology that are not needed everywhere but do need to be available somewhere. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water (but let's not assume that taking a bath in lukewarm water is acceptable, either!).

The issue of technology access on campus seems to be urgent. It is an issue that this newsletter will explore from several perspectives in the months to come. There are a few OCR complaints and opinions that need to be discussed. There are some basic steps that can be taken to move your campus in the right direction. To be continued...