[Cato] [External] Testing Service Business Model - feedback request

Thu Dec 7 12:17:30 PST 2017

Great stats - thank you Jess!

These will come in handy at our local institutions as well as folks ask for support of Accessible IT efforts.

Best,
Amy

From: Cato [mailto:cato-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Jess Thompson
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:14 PM
To: Fusco, Karen <kfusco at olympic.edu>; Hsiao, Terence <thsiao at cascadia.edu>; cato at lists.ctc.edu
Subject: Re: [Cato] [External] Testing Service Business Model - feedback request

That data if we want to add it in:

  *   American Association of Community Colleegs had a report that 12% of community college students have a disability. -- publication has since been removed from website, but I'm on a quest to find it.
  *   In our system: 12,414 students identified (at time of enrollment, I believe) as having a disability in 2014-15 academic year (is equivalent to the student body of one of our larger CTCs). -- This number may be different than those that disclose to DSS offices.
  *   I think WaTech has said 20% of users benefit from web accessibility (3/4 million Washingtonians)....
  *   We can also pull in stats on ESOL and international students (who benefit from captions) -- our system has 24,754 students in English Language Acquisition programming in 2016-17
  *   Mobile use (when surveyed nearly 90% of my students used smartphones to do work -- accessible design equates to mobile design)
  *   "A 1996 survey conducted by the American Association of Community Colleges found that only half of community college students who reported having a disability used disability support services that were available (Barnett, 1996).

Students with disabilities have also been more likely to enroll in community colleges versus other postsecondary institutions. Among students with disabilities, an estimated 54 percent were enrolled at community colleges (Raue & Lewis, 2011), compared to 36 percent in the student population as a whole (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2011). Likewise, a recent study of young adults with disabilities indicated they were more than twice as likely to have attended a two-year college at some time after leaving high school (44 percent) than young adults in the general population (21 percent) (Newman et al., 2011)." Source: https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/CommunityCollegesOlderStudents.pdf

Jess Thompson
Program Administrator, Accessible Technology Initiatives
Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
p: 360.704.4327 | c: 253.229.8591
Current Projects<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KXjxctpTAa2R06iRksMrjaeiCkphAJzqkwX-awvJh9g/edit?usp=sharing>

________________________________
From: Cato <cato-bounces at lists.ctc.edu> on behalf of Fusco, Karen <kfusco at olympic.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Hsiao, Terence; cato at lists.ctc.edu
Subject: Re: [Cato] [External] Testing Service Business Model - feedback request

CATO is really fortunate to have your perspective and expertise, Terence - thank you!  This looks really comprehensive, and I can't see that anything is missing from your Assumptions or Pitch.  I don't have much to offer on the Business Model section, but I especially love the " . . . become a national leader in technology accessibility" part of the Value Proposition statement!

I don't know if this matters, but at one point, we discussed having data on the number of students with disabilities in our system, or the amount spent on accommodations statewide, like that would help us make our case.  This information would be relatively easy to obtain, but it's irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what we're currently spending, or if we have five million students or just one - we still need to do this.  The only reason I mention it is that when Mark and I presented to the State Board's Board (?) last June, I recall they had questions about numbers/impact, as if it mattered.  It may just be something to prepare for . . .

Thanks again - I'm thrilled with our momentum!

[OCEmailLogo]

Karen Fusco | Director | Access Services

1600 Chester Avenue | Bremerton, WA 98337-1699

360.475.7540 | Fax 360.475.7436

kfusco at olympic.edu<mailto:kfusco at olympic.edu>

www.olympic.edu/accessservices<http://www.olympic.edu/accessservices>

From: Cato [mailto:cato-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Hsiao, Terence
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:56 AM
To: cato at lists.ctc.edu
Subject: [External] [Cato] Testing Service Business Model - feedback request

We've talked about how to set up a sustainable business model for the testing service. Before I dive into creating a roadshow slide deck (for commissions/WACTC) and the Excel model to create scenarios I wanted to run the basics by you for your feedback:

Assumptions

*        Colleges are beginning to take technology accessibility mandates seriously

*        Colleges have only a limited understanding of what it will cost to comply

*        Given a "fair deal" and a well-organized service colleges will pay for testing rather than taking advantage of the law to obtain the work of other institutions through public records requests

*        Incentives work and some colleges that have testing capacity that can benefit the "system"

Value proposition

By creating this service WCTC can reduce their compliance risk and their costs dramatically and become a national leader in technology accessibility.

Very Rough Pitch

*        We have to deal with OCIO #188, State Board Tech Accessibility Policy, OCR complaints etc.

*        You have to test your applications for accessibility to protect yourself - if someone finds the problem before you do, you will suffer financial and reputational damage (cite some examples and disruption)

*        It's a lot of work - just testing your top 100(?) software applications will take about XXX man hours or $XXX if you hire a third party tester

*        90% of the top 100 software  applications at your college are used at other WCTC colleges as well

*        If all WCTC schools get together and share testing we can cut our individual cost of testing by a factor of 30. Instead of a campus spending $300,000 on testing a campus can save $270,000 on testing if we follow a systems approach

*        We don't have the skills to do that testing ourselves yet.

*        We propose hiring third party testers to do the testing of the "core" applications that virtually all of us use.[Mark has some money to do this now]

*        How does this all get paid for?

*        An annual subscription fee for each school that covers the cost of testing the "core applications" and making the testing results easily accessible (we'd just put the price out there and compare it to going it alone, risks associated with doing so)

*        The subscription fee should go down over time the cost of testing the updates of core applications is not as great as the initial testing

*        Schools can reduce their subscription fee by testing applications; when a school tests an application and submits its results it will receive a financial credit against its subscription fee.

*        Faster, better, cheaper for all

*        Sign here

Business Model

Base subscription fee = Total cost of paying 3rd parties for testing X TBD margin factor: Can implement as a skim or based on # of participants

Testing credits - 5 different credit levels for testing, associated with degree of difficulty: amount TBD [relates to the margin factor]

Third Party Fees (Assuming we address legal/liability concerns) - Set at what the market will bear. OR take extend the WCTC model to all "Consortium members"

Feedback Request

Please share the issues you see with this approach . . . or tell me I'm on a good enough track to proceed with refining the argument and building out a financial model to illustrate how to pay for it and what the benefits would be for participants. Thanks!

Terence

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/cato_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20171207/7cc244e3/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1759 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/cato_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20171207/7cc244e3/attachment-0002.jpg>