Faculty Accessibility Burnout Is Real: Here's What IT Directors Can Do

"Many faculty members are considering removing all slide presentations and images from their Canvas courses rather than jump through hoops."

"There is no additional compensation for meeting the new guidelines."

"I wasn't being paid to go through hundreds of slides."

These aren't isolated complaints. They're symptoms of a systemic problem: faculty accessibility burnout.

If you're an IT director, instructional designer, or accessibility coordinator watching this unfold, this article is for you. Here's what's actually happening—and what you can do about it.

Understanding Faculty Burnout

The Workload Reality

Faculty already work 50-60 hour weeks on:

• Teaching (prep, delivery, grading)
• Research (writing, lab work, grant applications)
• Service (committees, advising, admin tasks)
• Professional development

Accessibility remediation is being added to this without:

• Reduced teaching load
• Additional compensation
• Release time
• Graduate assistant support

The Emotional Dimension

Faculty aren't just overwhelmed—they're resentful. And their resentment is often justified:

"Why is this my problem?"

• Publisher materials are inaccessible (faculty didn't create them)
• LMS platforms have accessibility gaps (faculty didn't build them)
• University websites have issues (IT's responsibility)

"Why wasn't I told sooner?"

• Many faculty learned about compliance requirements months before deadlines
• Years of content creation happened without accessibility training
• Retroactive remediation feels punitive

"Why isn't there support?"

• Tools identify problems but don't fix them
• Training sessions teach theory but not practice
• Help desks are overwhelmed or unhelpful

The Rational Response: Deletion

When faculty face:

• 200+ hours of remediation work
• No compensation or recognition
• Inadequate tools and support
• Unclear standards and requirements

Deletion becomes rational. Zero content = zero accessibility violations.

It's the wrong solution. But it's an understandable response to an impossible situation.

Why This Is an IT Problem (Not Just a Faculty Problem)

The Structural Failure

Accessibility burnout isn't caused by:

• Lazy faculty (they're already overworked)
• Unclear guidelines (WCAG is well-documented)
• Faculty resistance to accessibility (most support the goal)

It's caused by:

• Unfunded mandates from administration
• Tools that identify problems without fixing them
• Training that teaches concepts without workflows
• Support systems that don't scale

These are infrastructure problems. Infrastructure is IT's domain.

The IT Director's Leverage

IT directors have something faculty don't: institutional purchasing power and technical authority.

Faculty can't:

• Negotiate enterprise tool licenses
• Integrate systems with the LMS
• Allocate technical staff to support initiatives
• Influence budget decisions

IT can.

What IT Directors Can Actually Do

1. Deploy Tools That Fix, Not Just Scan

The problem with scan-only tools:

Faculty see: "Your course has 347 accessibility issues."

Faculty think: "I don't have 347 hours to fix this."

Result: Nothing gets fixed.

The solution: scan-and-fix tools:

Faculty see: "We've generated fixes for 280 issues. Review and approve?"

Faculty think: "I can review 280 items."

Result: 280 issues fixed.

Action: Evaluate tools based on what percentage of issues they can auto-remediate, not just how many they can identify.

2. Centralize and Automate

Instead of: Each faculty member learning to use Adobe Acrobat's accessibility checker

Do this:

• Bulk process documents at the department or college level
• IT staff run remediation tools
• Faculty only review output (not create fixes)

The math:

• 100 faculty × 10 hours each = 1,000 faculty hours (expensive, inconsistent)
• 2 IT staff × 100 hours each = 200 staff hours (cheaper, consistent)

Automation makes central processing viable. Manual work doesn't scale.

3. Create Faculty-Friendly Workflows

Bad workflow:

1. Download file from Canvas
2. Open in Adobe Acrobat
3. Run accessibility checker
4. Research how to fix each issue
5. Make fixes
6. Re-export
7. Upload to Canvas
8. Delete old file
9. Update links

Good workflow:

1. Click "Scan my course" in Canvas
2. Review suggested fixes
3. Click "Approve" or make edits
4. Done (tool handles the rest)

IT can build or procure the second workflow. Faculty can't.

4. Provide Tiered Support

Tier 1: Self-Service (80% of issues)

• Automated scanning and fixing
• In-context guidance in LMS
• FAQ and video tutorials

Tier 2: Help Desk (15% of issues)

• Specific questions about their content
• Tool usage support
• Escalation path for complex issues

Tier 3: Done-For-You (5% of issues)

• Complex remediation (forms, interactive content)
• Edge cases requiring expertise
• High-priority/high-visibility content

Most institutions only have Tier 2. Tier 1 prevents burnout; Tier 3 handles what Tier 1 can't.

5. Advocate for Resources

Faculty can't effectively advocate for:

• Tool budgets ("That's IT's job")
• Staff positions ("We need more TAs, not accessibility people")
• Process changes ("I just teach my classes")

IT directors can make the business case:

• "Manual remediation costs $X. Automated tools cost $Y. ROI is Z%."
• "Without proper tools, we're exposed to $X in compliance risk."
• "This investment reduces faculty time burden by X hours."

Translate faculty pain into budget language.

6. Measure and Report

What gets measured gets managed.

Track:

• Compliance rates by department/college
• Time to remediation (how long from upload to fix)
• Faculty satisfaction (are tools helping?)
• Support ticket volume (are issues getting resolved?)

Report:

• To administration (progress toward compliance)
• To faculty (how the tools are helping)
• To yourself (where to focus resources)

Visibility creates accountability—and justifies continued investment.

What to Tell Faculty

Acknowledge the Problem

Don't say: "Accessibility is easy if you just follow these steps."

Say: "We know this is a lot. Here's how we're trying to make it manageable."

Don't say: "You should have been doing this all along."

Say: "The requirements changed, and we're working to support you."

Explain What's Changed

Bad: "Here's a 50-page accessibility guide."

Better: "Here are the 3 things that matter most for your content type."

Offer Concrete Help

Bad: "Contact the help desk if you have questions."

Better: "We've already scanned your course. Click here to see the results and approve fixes."

Set Realistic Expectations

Bad: "Everything must be compliant by April."

Better: "Let's focus on your high-enrollment courses first. We'll tackle the rest systematically."

Building a Sustainable Program

Phase 1: Triage (Immediate)

1. Identify highest-risk content (high enrollment, known issues)
2. Deploy automated remediation for quick wins
3. Provide just-in-time support for faculty hitting roadblocks

Phase 2: Scale (1-3 months)

1. Roll out tools to all departments
2. Train faculty on review workflows (not creation workflows)
3. Establish ongoing monitoring to catch new issues

Phase 3: Sustain (Ongoing)

1. Integrate accessibility into content creation workflows
2. Include accessibility in new faculty onboarding
3. Regularly assess and improve tools and processes

Phase 4: Improve (Continuous)

1. Track metrics and identify bottlenecks
2. Gather faculty feedback
3. Iterate on tools and processes

The IT Director's Checklist

This Week

• [ ] Acknowledge the burnout problem in communications with faculty
• [ ] Inventory current tools (what do they actually do?)
• [ ] Identify the biggest faculty pain points

This Month

• [ ] Evaluate scan-and-fix tools (not just scan-and-report)
• [ ] Develop a support tier model
• [ ] Create a faculty communication plan

This Quarter

• [ ] Deploy automated remediation tools
• [ ] Establish metrics and reporting
• [ ] Pilot with 2-3 departments before full rollout

Ongoing

• [ ] Monitor faculty satisfaction
• [ ] Track compliance trends
• [ ] Advocate for continued resources

The Bottom Line

Faculty burnout isn't a faculty problem. It's a systems problem.

When faculty are:

• Given impossible workloads
• Provided inadequate tools
• Offered insufficient support
• Expected to develop expertise they don't have

Burnout is inevitable.

IT directors have the leverage to change the system:

• Deploy tools that fix, not just scan
• Centralize processing to reduce individual burden
• Create workflows that respect faculty time
• Advocate for resources to make compliance achievable

The goal isn't to make faculty care more about accessibility. Most already care.

The goal is to make accessibility achievable given the constraints faculty actually face.

That's an IT infrastructure problem. And IT directors are the ones who can solve it.

See how Aelira reduces faculty remediation burden | Request a demo