Education · A practical reflection guide
How to evaluate your accessibility culture
Examine what your organization repeatedly prioritizes, supports, and does—not just what its policies say.
Working guidance, not a validated assessment. These six review areas are practical organizing prompts, not a claim that they are the study’s validated constructs or scales. Do not use the descriptions to certify conformance, rank organizations, or produce an ACLT score. Culture review complements technical accessibility testing; it does not establish WCAG or legal compliance.
Run an evidence-informed conversation
- Define the scope. Choose a learner journey, such as enrolling, finding course materials, participating in class, or completing an assessment. Name the teams, systems, and time period covered. Start with a manageable scope rather than claiming to evaluate the whole organization.
- Bring different perspectives. Include a decision maker, people doing the work, accessibility expertise, and people affected by barriers. Offer accessible formats, more than one way to contribute, and appropriate support for participation.
- Gather examples before judging. Combine conversations, work artifacts, and observed practice. A policy shows an intention; examples show whether it is used. As a practical starting point, seek two recent examples where feasible, without treating that as a validation threshold.
- Discuss the six areas. Record what supports each judgment and any disagreement. Separate missing evidence from evidence that a practice is absent. Look for counterexamples and exceptions.
- Choose one or two changes. Identify who can act, what support they need, what evidence would show progress, and when you will review it together.
Privacy: Use approved organizational processes. Record de-identified patterns and document references rather than student records, patient information, personnel details, or identifiable accounts of disability.
Describe practice without inventing a score
Select the description best supported by evidence within the scope you reviewed. Different areas may have different descriptions. Do not average them. A small pilot cannot establish an organization-wide pattern.
| Description | What it means |
|---|---|
| Unclear | Evidence is missing, conflicting, or too limited to judge. Record what you need to learn. |
| Person-dependent | The practice happens mainly through individual effort, exceptions, or reminders. |
| Defined & supported | Ownership, expectations, resources, and a repeatable process are documented and used in the reviewed scope. |
| Embedded & learning | Multiple examples over time show the practice continuing across people and teams, with feedback shaping improvements. |
Worksheet: Notes entered below stay on this page only and are not saved or submitted. Print or save as PDF before leaving. Avoid confidential information.
Review area 1
Leadership & purpose
Ask together
Can academic and institutional leaders explain accessibility as part of learning and demonstrate the resources that support it?
Look for evidence
Academic plans, leadership decisions, course preparation schedules, staffing, and interviews with faculty and staff.
A sign of culture in practice
A department provides preparation time and support for accessible course materials before the next term.
Review area 2
Governance & decision authority
Ask together
Are responsibilities clear across faculty, disability services, IT, libraries, procurement, and academic leadership?
Look for evidence
Course approval processes, platform purchasing requirements, role descriptions, and escalation records.
A sign of culture in practice
A barrier in a purchased learning tool has a named owner and a vendor follow-up route instead of being passed between offices.
Review area 3
Everyday practice & accountability
Ask together
Do course design, materials, media, assessments, and student communications follow accessible practices routinely?
Look for evidence
Course templates, caption workflows, sampled materials, learning-platform practices, and completed course review records.
A sign of culture in practice
A course team uses accessible templates and checks materials during preparation, before a student requests an alternative.
Review area 4
Learning & capability
Ask together
Do faculty and staff receive support tied to the actual tasks they perform?
Look for evidence
Instructional design support, onboarding, training exercises, faculty interviews, and examples of revised materials.
A sign of culture in practice
An instructor can create a structured document and knows where to get help with a more complex learning activity.
Review area 5
Participation & belonging
Ask together
Can students with disabilities contribute to decisions without having to disclose unnecessary personal information?
Look for evidence
Accessible feedback routes, student participation practices, research summaries, and evidence that student input changed decisions.
A sign of culture in practice
Students’ experiences with a course activity inform the next course design, while individual accommodation information remains protected.
Review area 6
Feedback & continuous improvement
Ask together
Does learning from each term influence the next cycle of course design and technology decisions?
Look for evidence
Term reviews, platform issue trends, assigned improvements, follow-up notes, and communication to students and staff.
A sign of culture in practice
Repeated difficulties accessing readings lead to changes in selection and preparation practices, reviewed the following term.
Turn the review into a practical next step
Choose a recurring barrier or organizational condition that matters to people affected and that your team can influence. Consider impact, repetition, decision authority, and the support required. Avoid choosing only the easiest item or only the area with the least documentation.
- Name the finding: “Within this journey, we observed… supported by… with these uncertainties…”
- Name the change: Specify one decision or recurring practice to improve.
- Assign authority and support: Agree an owner, decision maker, time, resources, and a route for escalation.
- Define evidence of progress: Identify what would show changed practice and an improved experience, alongside any relevant technical checks.
- Set a review date: Revisit in 30–90 days, using the same scope where possible. Ask what changed, what did not, and what you learned.
Keep a short record of the scope, participants’ roles, evidence dates, findings, differing views, priorities, owners, and review date. Share an accessible summary with participants and invite corrections.
Discuss your findings
These guides are starting points for organizational reflection and improvement. For questions about applying the approach in education, contact Dr. Deb.