Accessibility maturity in an educational context – part 3

Lens 2 - Responsibility

In the previous post we made the assertion that culture is made visible through practice. When it comes to the second lens of the maturity model – responsibility – this is especially noticeable. For too long the responsibility has lain with the wrong people - disability support teams. It's not that they aren't good at their job. It's just that their expertise is different.

They are good at helping disabled learners climb over barriers. They're not the ones who can be designing barrier-free experiences in the first place.

The importance of freeing learning support teams from overall responsibility for disabled students has been recognised for a long time. In 2007 the TechDis Senior Manager briefings included a self-assessment resource for those responsible for the external website, admissions, induction, independent learning, learning resources, career progression and guidance and assessment. That was 14 years ago.

2 years later, the TechDis publication “12 steps towards Embedding Inclusive Practice with Technology as a Whole Institution Culture in UK Higher Education”. Step 1 was this:

“Deputy / Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic / Learning and Teaching) formulates and leads the inclusive practice action team.”

In order to belong to everyone, it must be championed from the top.

Unpacking the “Responsibility” lens

An organisation with a low level of accessibility maturity is characterised by the absence of joined up thinking. Accessibility is owned by the passion of a few rather than the professionalism of the many. It is likely to be a marginal activity delegated down to people with limited authority to make necessary changes. Organisations that were just meeting the basics or below may be characterised by the following:

• a cross-institution steering group that meets infrequently and has little visibility in terms of change practice,
• technical expertise in accessibility is limited, for example to the web team. Many teaching staff wouldn’t know if the documents they uploaded were accessible or not.
• outside of the disability team of the web team, few people will have much awareness of digital accessibility or know how it impacts on their roles.

As organisations become more mature, the sense of ownership and responsibility begins to extend. For example

• teaching staff may be made aware of basic accessibility templates for document creation or course design.
• the steering group may meet more often or have a more visible influence on changed practices.
• accessibility testing may baked into the design and sign-off for new digital projects or developments.

At the upper levels of maturity, the confidence and competence of a wide body of staff will mean the organisation moves beyond micromanagement of accessibility. Accessibility may mandatory but a wide range of templates will be available. Even better, many staff will have enough understanding to create their own accessible content and courses without needing a template. At this level, the following lines of evidence will be available:

• a senior sponsor will be responsible for digital accessibility across the organisation,
• any cross-organisation steering group will be hosted by senior staff, meeting regularly and evidencing positive outcomes.
• digital accessibility will be a standing item in self-assessment reviews or quality assurance processes, and appropriate training will be in place to make this meaningful (see the later lens on skills and expertise!).
• students will be actively involved in accessibility developments.

Conclusion

In total, the “Responsibility” lens covers 13 different statements, using evidence from different parts of the organisation to tease out whether digital accessibility is owned or delegated and driven by passion or professionalism.

 Some key observations from our pilot with 18 institutions included:

• a number of organisations felt they were being led from the bottom or middle without the authority to influence the practice of other people.
• the accessibility maturity of the organisation can depend on specific individuals. It is not unusual for specific teams (eg the library or web team) to have a very real sense of responsibility but other teams in the organisation have none at all. Equally, it is not unusual for the disability support team to be over-burdened with a sense of responsibility for the practices of others over whom they have little influence and less knowledge.
• A real sign of maturity is when everyone within the organisation recognises digital accessibility as simply good practice - and inaccessible content as simply unprofessional practice to be noted and improved.

What next?

• Consider how our findings might help your organisation to become more “accessibility mature”. How would you respond to those sample statements? Who is championing cross-institution digital accessibility? Do they have the clout to make changes?
• Download the Accessibility Maturity Model overview from the AbilityNet website and have a go at the free interactive tool on the link provided.
• Consider getting a couple of colleagues together to attend our next guided training session on Wednesday 10 February 2021, 14:00 - 16:00 GMT where we take you through the detailed, granular questions that help you score yourself.
• Consider our bespoke service where we meet online with key staff, walk you through the self-assessment process and make specific recommendations for your organisation. Contact [email protected] for more details.

Next post: Two lenses together: Model of disability and Focus of effort? How does one influence the other? How do you become more mature in both?