Skip to Content | Skip to Search

KY Accessible Information Technology in Schools (AITIS) Project

School District Information Technology Accessibility Survey Results

Submitted by Steve Noble, KATS Network
Date of this report: August 30, 2004

Background:

Under Kentucky law, school districts are required to ensure that the information technology it uses will provide students with disabilities with access “that is equivalent to the access provided individuals who are not disabled” (KRS 61.982). As a means of determining conformity with this provision, Kentucky law further defines that the level of access provided by school systems and other covered entities must be in compliance with federal Section 508 access standards (36 C.F.R. 1194). Although Kentucky's Accessible Information Technology (AIT) law was passed in April of 2000, anecdotal evidence suggests that few school systems are aware of its implications and that few, if any, school districts have created formal policies to help deal with this issue.

To help provide a framework to address this issue, the Kentucky Assistive Technology Service (KATS) Network in collaboration with the Kentucky Department of Education's Division of Exceptional Children Services initiated the AITIS (Accessible Information Technology In Schools) project to develop accessibility guidelines, checklists, and other technical assistance materials for assisting school systems understand and fulfill their obligations under Kentucky's AIT law. An advisory panel of national experts was also formed to aid the AITIS project in its work. Core funding for the AITIS project is being provided by the Southeast Disability Business Technical Assistance Center, who is also an active collaborator in the project, through a grant by the U.S. Dept. of Education (Grant #H133D010207).

As a means of gauging the current level of information technology accessibility awareness and policy activity within Kentucky school systems, a survey was developed with input from the Kentucky AITIS Project National Advisory Panel. This survey was provided online as a web-based form, and details together with a link to the survey were included in emails distributed over the Kentucky District Technology Coordinator (KYDTC) listserv. Results of the survey were collected over the spring of 2004. The web version of the survey instrument can still be accessed from our website for reference purposes.

The survey dealt with three major areas: Section A was addressed at gathering general technology usage demographics; Section B focused on awareness of accessibility standards and laws as well as work toward implementing accessibility policies; and Section C examined such questions as who receives web content creation training and who typically creates web content. This Report addresses the full results of the survey, with a special emphasis on the section dealing with accessibility awareness and policy.

Survey Participation:

There are 176 school districts in the state of Kentucky, which includes both countywide and independent city districts. 77 surveys were submitted, representing a 43.75% participation rate. If random distribution can be assumed, the resulting data would have a margin of error of +/- 7% at a 90% confidence level.

Section A: Technology Demographics

Methodology for this Section

This section included a total of eight questions that seek to obtain general information on the number and types of computers and information technology resources used by Kentucky school systems. These questions attempt to quantify the prevalence of education-based information technology, as well as identify specific software applications that may be widespread.

Details of Survey Responses

For the complete wording of all questions and answers, see the full survey. Not all respondents to the survey answered every question. The percentage of respondents answering the question is reflected in the "respondent rate" percentage given for each question.

Survey Questions
  1. Name of school district: (100% respondent rate)
    1. As mentioned previously, 77 districts responded to this survey. This was simply a "write in" text box to ensure each response was properly input, guard against duplication, and provide a means of follow-up if needed.
  2. Estimated number of computers in use? (100% respondent rate)
    1. For instructional or library use (primarily student):
    2. For non-instructional use (primarily staff):
      1. Responses to this question indicated that the average number of computers for instructional or library use in Kentucky school districts is 739, with an additional 263 non-instructional computers per district.
  3. Approximate percentage of desktop computers that are PC based: (100% respondent rate)
  4. Approximate percentage of desktop computers that are Mac based: (100% respondent rate)
    1. Responses to these two paired questions showed that among the 77 districts participating in this survey, approximately 93% of desktop computers in use are PC based, with the remaining 7% being Mac format.
  5. What are the primary HTML authoring tools being utilized in your district? (100% respondent rate)
    1. This question asked respondents to list the most frequently used tools. Many respondents cited more than one authoring tool frequently used in their district. The responses are ranked below.
      1. FrontPage - 60
      2. DreamWeaver - 13
      3. HoTMetaL - 0
      4. Netscape Composer - 9
      5. Created in Word and saved as HTML - 24
      6. Other - 8
        1. The 8 "other" responses included: Adobe GoLive (2 responses), created in text editor (2 responses), Publisher, Lectora, Ignitz, and NetObjects.
  6. Do schools in your district use any of the following online information technology resources? (52 districts responded to this question)
    1. Responses to this question indicate that online encyclopedias are by far the major online resource used by Kentucky school districts. The responses are ranked below:
      1. Blackboard - 4
      2. WebCT - 2
      3. Learning Space - 0
      4. Campus Crossing or other Web Crossing products - 0
      5. Online encyclopedias (such as Grolier Online or World Book Online) - 39
      6. KY Virtual Library - 0
      7. Other - 14
        1. The 14 "other" responses included KY Virtual High School, United Streaming, Atomic Learning, NetTrekker, eLibrary, Novelle Learning, Follete Web Collection, Scansion, Curriculum Mapper, Infosource, Riverdeep, Discover Database, Plato, and eSchool.
  7. To what extent do schools in your district develop or utilize online or computer-based assessments at any level other than just the CATS Online assessment? (100% respondent rate)
    1. 35% reported “one or more schools in my district frequently utilize online or computer-based assessments.”
    2. 33% reported “one or more schools in my district may occasionally utilize online or computer-based assessments.”
    3. 32% reported “as far as I am aware, there are no schools in my district that utilize online or computer-based assessments.”
  8. To what extent is instructional software used in the schools within your district? (100% respondent rate; all answers averaged for aggregate total)
    1. Elementary School Level (some examples include Reader Rabbit, Math Blaster, Grammar Blaster, Jump Start, Mighty Math, Lightspan, etc.)
      1. frequently used in: 90% of the elementary schools in my district
      2. occasionally used in: 59% of the elementary schools in my district
      3. rarely or never used in : 31% of the elementary schools in my district
    2. Middle School Level (some examples include Math Strategies, Renaissance Learning, Online Reader, Paragraph Punch, Writing Trek, etc.)
      1. frequently used in: 87% of the middle schools in my district
      2. occasionally used in: 73% of the middle schools in my district
      3. rarely or never used in: 60% of the middle schools in my district
    3. High School Level (some examples include Atomic Structure, Annelids, Geometer’s Sketchpad, HyperStudio, CyberEd, etc.)
      1. frequently used in: 76% of the high schools in my district
      2. occasionally used in: 83% of the high schools in my district
      3. rarely or never used in: 66% of the high schools in my district
    4. An analysis of this data suggests that the use of instructional software in Kentucky school districts is very prevalent at all school levels, but is much more prevalent at the elementary school level, less prevalent at the middle school level, and even less prevalent at the high school level.

Section B: Existing Policies and Procedures

Methodology for this Section

The middle section of the survey included eight questions, dealing with awareness of IT accessibility issues, current policy framework, and activity towards developing accessibility policies. With the exception of the last question, which was an open-ended textbox, these questions were presented as a series of four graduated statements representing increasing levels of awareness and activity on policy issues. The answers to these seven questions provide a snapshot that will be useful as one means of determining the current level of accessibility throughout Kentucky schools, and furthermore, will provide a useful means of measuring the progress of schools toward improvement in IT accessibility when a future follow-up survey is distributed at the end of the 2004-2005 school year.

For each of the seven questions with four graduated statements, the percentage of responses for each statement is given. In addition to providing this percentage breakdown, a modified Likert-patterned scale has been devised to assign progressive values to each response, which was then translated to a 100 point scoring system. In order to construct a Likert scale scoring system, each answer was assigned a point value in accordance with its strength of impact. Thus each “a” answer (the strongest favorable answer for all questions in this section) was given 10 points, each “b” answer given 6.7 points, each “c” answer given 3.3 points, and each “d” answer given 0 points. All points scored for each question were then totaled and divided by the highest possible score (i.e., if all districts had indicated the “a” answer), which resulted in a final score and “grade” for each question in this section. This scoring system provides a simple means of gauging overall attention to IT accessibility throughout Kentucky schools, and will help determine incremental progress toward accessibility goals over time.

Details of Survey Responses

To make data easier to comprehend at a glance, the content of each question and corresponding answers with percentages have been summarized below. Not all respondents to the survey answered every question. The percentage of respondents answering the question is reflected in the “respondent rate” percentage given for each question. The Likert scale score and corresponding grade is provided after the percentage breakdown.

  1. Level of awareness with Section 508 Accessibility Standards. (100% respondent rate)
    1. 32.4% reported they were “informed” and “aware of the implications”
    2. 20.8% reported they were “informed,” but “have not considered” the implications
    3. 23.4% reported they have had “no formal exposure”, but had “heard the term” used
    4. 23.4% reported they had never “heard the term ‘Section 508’ used before”
    5. KY School District Score: 54% Grade: F
  2. Familiarity and use of “Bobby” and other accessibility checking software. (100% respondent rate)
    1. 00.0% reported “regularly” using such software and displaying “approved” icons
    2. 09.1% reported being “familiar” with such software and having used it in the past
    3. 23.4% reported having “heard of” such software, but have never used it
    4. 67.5% reported they had never “heard of” such software before
    5. KY School District Score: 14% Grade: F
  3. Familiarity with Kentucky's Accessible Information Technology Law. (98.7% respondent rate)
    1. 11.8% reported they had “thoroughly examined” the law and were “fully aware of its requirements”
    2. 31.6% reported they had “been informed” about the law and were “in the process of examining its requirements”
    3. 30.3% reported they had “heard something about this law in the past”, but “had never received any details about its requirements”
    4. 26.3% reported they “don’t believe we have ever been told about this law before completing this survey.”
    5. KY School District Score: 43% Grade: F
  4. The extent to which district policies currently in place to address web accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities. (98.7% respondent rate)
    1. 7.9% reported they “have a district level policy in place that addresses web accessibility requirements”.
    2. 10.5% reported that they “are in the process of developing a district level policy that addresses web accessibility requirements”.
    3. 38.2% reported they “are aware of the need for a district level web accessibility policy, but have not formally started the process to develop one as of this date.”
    4. 43.4% reported they “have not really considered the need of developing a district level web accessibility policy before completing this survey.”
    5. KY School District Score: 28% Grade: F
  5. The extent to which district policies are currently in place to address requirements for the purchase and/or use of educational technology products that meet accessibility requirements. (100% respondent rate)
    1. 16.9% reported they “have a district level policy in place that addresses accessibility of educational technology products.”
    2. 14.3 reported they “are in the process of developing a district level policy that addresses accessibility educational technology products.”
    3. 35.1 reported they “are aware of the need for a district level educational technology accessibility policy, but have not formally started the process to develop one as of this date.”
    4. 33.7 reported they “have not really considered the need of developing a district level educational technology accessibility policy before completing this survey.”
    5. KY School District Score: 38% Grade: F
  6. Description of steps taken by school districts to put in place policies, procedures or guidelines for the selection of appropriate instructional technology products or online resources. (94.8% respondent rate)
    1. 11.0% reported they “have adopted mandatory policies, procedures or guidelines that must be used when selecting instructional technology products or online resources.”
    2. 12.3% reported they “have suggested voluntary policies, procedures or guidelines for use when selecting instructional technology products or online resources.”
    3. 32.9% reported they “have begun a process to identify or adopt policies, procedures or guidelines for selecting instructional technology products or online resources.”
    4. 43.8% reported they “have not begun to address this issue as of this date.”
    5. KY School District Score: 30% Grade: F
  7. Description of steps taken by school districts to create policies or standards that cover the creation of materials that are placed on school websites.
    1. 13.5% reported they “have adopted mandatory policies or standards for all content creators to follow.”
    2. 12.2% reported they “have suggested voluntary policies or standards for content creators to follow.”
    3. 39.2% reported they “have begun a process to identify or adopt policies or standards for content creators to follow.”
    4. 35.1% reported they “have not begun to address this issue as of this date.”
    5. KY School District Score: 35% Grade: F
  8. Details of accessibility requirements and policies noted by school districts.
    1. The final component of this section was an open-ended textbox response which allowed school districts to elaborate on previous answers and include policy details, links to policies on district websites, etc. Only five districts provided such details. However, in such cases the policies cited were general software selection guidelines, which had no specific mention of accessibility. In other cases the district pointed to practice rather than policy, for instance in stating that "special education teachers serve on school technology committees," or "we use the IEP to guide the implementation of accessibility." Such results, when coupled with the results from the previous seven questions in this section, seem to suggest that many District Technology Coordinators may not understand the concept of information technology accessibility in contrast to assistive technology accommodation.

Section C: Current Practices

Methodology for this section

This section included a total of ten questions which seek to obtain information on who creates web content, if templates are used, if students are required to use the Internet, and what training opportunities and technical assistance resources are available to district staff and volunteers who create web content. The purpose of this line of inquiry is to identify the best means of getting accessibility information and training to district web content creators.

Details of Survey Responses

Many questions in this section contained segmented subsections. Not all respondents to the survey answered all portions of every question. In most cases the raw number of responses is indicated in such complex questions, rather than a percentage, since multiple (“check all that apply”) answers were possible.

  1. Who creates web pages for the district website? (Check all that apply)
    1. Technology personnel: 4 rarely or never, 6 occasionally, 63 frequently
    2. Classroom teachers: 38 rarely or never, 23 occasionally, 9 frequently
    3. Students: 39 rarely or never, 25 occasionally, 8 frequently
    4. Outside contractors: 59 rarely or never, 6 occasionally, 1 frequently
    5. Volunteers: 61 rarely or never, 2 occasionally, 3 frequently
    6. Other: 9 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 2 frequently
  2. Who creates web pages for school websites in your districts? (Check all that apply)
    1. Technology personnel: 12 rarely or never, 19 occasionally, 51 frequently
    2. Classroom teachers: 15 rarely or never, 34 occasionally, 32 frequently
    3. Students: 20 rarely or never, 39 occasionally, 22 frequently
    4. Outside contractors: 69 rarely or never, 5 occasionally, 0 frequently
    5. Volunteers: 57 rarely or never, 13 occasionally, 2 frequently
    6. Other: 9 rarely or never, 5 occasionally, 0 frequently
  3. Who creates web pages for individual teachers in your districts? (Check all that apply)
    1. Technology personnel: 33 rarely or never, 23 occasionally, 14 frequently
    2. Classroom teachers: 7 rarely or never, 27 occasionally, 36 frequently
    3. Students: 28 rarely or never, 26 occasionally, 9 frequently
    4. Outside contractors: 56 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 1 frequently
    5. Volunteers: 51 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 1 frequently
    6. Other: 11 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 1 frequently
  4. Does your district have a mandatory or suggested template to follow for creating web pages? (73 districts responding)
    1. 4% reported they "have a mandatory template in place."
    2. 29% reported they "have a suggested template in place."
    3. 4% reported they "are in the process of creating a template."
    4. 63% reported they "have not started a process to create a template at this time."
  5. To what extent are students in your district required to use the Internet for research and instruction? (Check all that apply)
    1. Elementary Schools: 4 rarely or never, 4 occasionally, 33 frequently
    2. Middle Schools: 0 rarely or never, 19 occasionally, 57 frequently
    3. High Schools: 0 rarely or never, 11 occasionally, 61 frequently
  6. Are website authors required to attend training programs before being allowed to create or upload website content? (Check all that apply)
    1. Technology personnel: 32 rarely or never, 15 occasionally, 25 frequently
    2. Classroom teachers: 28 rarely or never, 18 occasionally, 24 frequently
    3. Students: 30 rarely or never, 20 occasionally, 16 frequently
    4. Outside contractors: 58 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 0 frequently
    5. Volunteers: 51 rarely or never, 3 occasionally, 1 frequently
    6. Other: 10 rarely or never, 0 occasionally, 0 frequently
  7. If training is required, how extensive is the typical requirement? (57 districts responding)
    1. 30% responded “one day or more”
    2. 26% responded “half day”
    3. 33% responded “two to three hours”
    4. 11% responded “one hour or less”
  8. If training is not required, are optional training experiences provided at the district level for the following? (Check all that apply)
    1. Technology personnel: 12 rarely or never, 26 occasionally, 13 frequently
    2. Classroom teachers: 5 rarely or never, 33 occasionally, 15 frequently
    3. Students: 16 rarely or never, 23 occasionally, 10 frequently
    4. Outside contractors: 41 rarely or never, 1 occasionally, 0 frequently
    5. Volunteers: 35 rarely or never, 7 occasionally, 1 frequently
    6. Other: 5 rarely or never, 2 occasionally, 0 frequently
  9. If training is only optional, how extensive is the typical training provided? (54 districts responding)
    1. 17% responded “one day or more”
    2. 28% responded “half day”
    3. 48% responded “two to three hours”
    4. 7% responded “one hour or less”
  10. When district and school technology personnel encounter problems, have questions, or need advice on technical issues, where do they turn for information? What sources of information and resources are available in your district?
    1. By far the most common resource cited (19 times) was some type of local district technology staff, such as network administrator, school technology coordinator, technology resource teachers, etc. The second most cited resource (7 times) were on-line or CD-based resources, such as the Kentucky District Technology Coordinators' listserv, the Microsoft website, and CD training manuals. An assortment of other lesser cited resources include KY Department of Education (2 times), Regional Technology Engineers (2 times), local universities (2 times), vendors (1 time), and the Student Technology Leadership Program (1 time).

The overall results from Section C indicate that training on creating accessible web content should primarily be directed to District Technology Coordinators and other district technology staff, with classroom teachers as a possible secondary training target as feasible. However, since the majority of districts do not require authors of web content to attend training sessions, resources such as web or CD-based accessibility tutorials which can be used by staff outside of formal training situations may be the best way of reaching a maximum audience of web content creators.

Return to the Main AITIS Page

Events Calendar

September 2010
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

View all Events | Submit Event

KATS Network Coordinating Center
Charles McDowell Center
8412 Westport Road
Louisville, KY 40242
Local: (502) 429-4484
Toll Free: (800) 327-5287
Fax: (502) 429-7114