Inclusive Design Evaluation Rubric (Resource D)¶

Element · All elements
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Resource D helps decision makers score whether a tool is sufficiently inclusive, across baseline accessibility, design for variability, evidence of inclusive impact, and operationalizing inclusivity. It notes federal law mandates minimum accessibility standards, but validation standards go beyond the minimum. A promising-evidence example states the tool's impact "has been evaluated in a robust study (aligned to one of the ESSA Tiers of Evidence)" that considered differential impact across demographics and concluded the tool tended to reduce rather than widen achievement gaps. Validation sources include CAST UDL certifications, the Digital Promise Learner Variability Certification, and the ISTE Seal.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Tools should be tested by students with disabilities and users of assistive technology; vendors should offer specific guidance and support for accessibility features

Constraints¶

• Weak-evidence descriptors include tools designed only for the average user, with only one way to experience the tool

Target Learners¶

• Students with disabilities, English language learners, and other diverse student populations in K-12 districts

Target Learning Goals¶

• Procuring edtech that is accessible and equitable by design for all students

Affordances¶

• Five Edtech Quality Indicators Framework

Related Elements¶

• EdTech Index with third-party validations
• EdTech Pilot Navigator with four pilot models (Resource E)
• Maker Learning Self-assessment Rubric

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Digital Promise. (2026). EdTech Quality Indicators Guide: Leveraging the Five EdTech Quality Indicators to save time and money, reduce risk, and improve student outcomes. https://digitalpromise.dspacedirect.org/items/f1e0fd08-9047-42e7-9a2d-190ccb4d10dd