School Vouchers: the Discrimination Problem

This is Part III of my attempt to catch folks up on the pluses and minuses of school voucher programs, especially as they impact minorities and kids with disabilities.  As I've mentioned, there's a new school voucher program here in Colorado (in Douglas County).  The school district, obviously, thinks this is a good idea.

Again, the ACLU does not agree.  See earlier discussion here.

Plus, as discussed in this WSJ article about the voucher program, this looks like the classic case of vouchers "skimming off the top" - since the vouchers won't actually cover the entire cost of the typical private school, low income families really can't take advantage of them.  In essence, it looks like the vouches are subsidies to middle and upper class families, who can now leave public schools in favor of something they think is better.

Now, some states have actively tried to address concerns with school voucher programs by offering additional assistance to low-income families, and ancillary supports (like transportation).  Some have even enacted scholarship programs (another way to describe school vouchers) for kids with disabilities - Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Florida, just to name a few.  (The 12 year old Florida McKay Scholarship, a leader in this movement, will be the subject of another post). This is a great development (check out this interesting piece in the NY Times.)

But, not so in this case here in Colorado!

12 Years after Olmstead

Twelve years ago, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Olmstead v. L.C., a case about two women in Georgia who were institutionalized despite their preference for community-based living.  The Court held that the ADA prohibits the unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities (meaning, public entities have an obligation to provide community-based living, not institutions, for individuals with disabilities wherever possible.) 

Just this past week, the Department of Justice - charged with enforcing the ADA - issued a statement re-enforcing its position on Olmstead's requirements that individuals with disabilities be integrated into community living as fully as possible.  You can read the report here, and I've summarized some of the key points below:

Accessibility of Digital Educational Materials

So, in case you didn't know, the U.S. Department of Education has a Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that's responsible for, among other things, enforcing the ADA (as it applies to public schools) and the IDEA (the special education law).

Last week, the OCR issued some policy guidance on the matter of digital educational materials.  They first tackled this issue in June 2010, when the OCR issued what they call a "Dear Colleague Letter" (a "DCL", and no, I have no idea where they came up with that naming system) on the issue of postsecondary institutions using e-books.  Last week's DCL basically updated the June 2010 policy guidance and clarified that the same principles apply to elementary and secondary schools.

What's the concern?  Well, with the increase in use of e-books - and technology in the classroom more generally - the OCR is reminding schools at all levels that they "must ensure equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of the technology for all students, including students with disabilities".  If teachers are using an online software program to track homework assignments, or assigning reading in e-books in lieu of paper textbooks, then these technologies need to accessible to all students, even those who may have learning disabilities, vision impairments, or anything else.  It really shouldn't be surprising - this is basic non-discrimination under the ADA, and isn't new law. 

Web Accessibility: Advanced Topics I

There are some interesting and challenging legal issues relating to the DOJ's anticipated regulations relating to the applicability of the ADA to website access.  (You can catch up and read my intro Web Accessibility and the ADA  if you missed it earlier.)  These are the kinds of issues that might not seem obvious - and might not seem all that important - but they are precisely the kinds of issues that make legislation and regulation in this area so difficult.

Because these issues are complicated, I'll break them down into separate posts.  Today, I'll talk about the hard distinction between public and private places on the internet.  Later on, I'll talk about copyright issues, as well as implications of international law.  (Fun, huh?)

Web Accessibility and the ADA (Intro and Links)

Rather unbelievably to me, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) celebrated its 20th anniversary last year.  That's right - until 1990 there *was* no ADA.  I suppose we should be pleased that I grew up in a country where I assumed that the ADA had always been in place.

But let's think about it for a minute: in 1990, there was no real Internet.  (Remember AOL?  and Prodigy?  ha!)  There was no Google.  No online banking, or airline ticket booking, or library services, or entertainment of any kind.  And so the ADA contains no provisions that address such scenarios.  As you might expect, there have been a number of lawsuits filed in the years since attempting to seek clarification as to whether the ADA does apply to websites offering services through their sites.  Courts have gone both ways, although the DOJ - charged with enforcing the ADA - routinely offered its non-binding opinion that the ADA did apply, at least in some situations.  (For you lawyers and other masochists out there, check out the suits and DOJ briefs here: NFB v. Target, Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, DOJ letter to Sen. Harkin, and the DOJ brief in Hooks v. OKBridge, which I was unable to find at press time.)