About NSPRA
Insights from the NSPRA + Sogolytics 2025 national survey
Clear, equitable communication builds trust and engages communities. Professional school communicators know this, but communication in schools is about more than messaging: It’s how we provide access. Every email, online form or digital lesson is part of how our districts teach, learn and operate.
As this report highlights, achieving true digital accessibility in our schools requires collaboration, not just within communications teams but across departments and with the vendors that provide our digital communication tools. It must be a shared responsibility across every part of a school system, from IT and curriculum to procurement and vendor management. Real progress starts at the source: when vendors are held to clear accessibility standards, when contracts and policies reflect those expectations, and when every department works together to maintain them.
The following pages show how school systems can move beyond compliance as a checkbox and build accessibility into the foundation of decision making.
Alongside NSPRA member perspectives, we’re proud to feature industry insights from Sogolytics in this report–demonstrating what’s possible when school communicators and education vendors collaborate on accessibility. From reviewing vendor claims to embedding requirements in procurement and fostering ongoing partnerships, their industry expertise and examples show what’s possible when strategic collaborations create inclusive experiences for all students, families and staff.
We hope this report inspires school communicators to take an active role in shaping accessibility, along with education leaders. By asking the right questions, leveraging the right tools and fostering collaboration across departments and with vendors, communication professionals can ensure the digital tools that their school systems adopt are inclusive from the start—transforming accessibility from a compliance requirement into a standard of practice that benefits the entire school community.
Whether you’re a communications professional, school leader or part of the IT or curriculum team, this report is designed to support your work and drive the decisions and actions that will lead to a culture of accessibility. Together, we can ensure that accessibility isn’t just a requirement—it’s part of how we serve our communities every day.
— Barbara M. Hunter, APR, NSPRA Executive Director
At Sogolytics, we believe accessibility is more than a standard; it’s a shared obligation. It’s about ensuring that every student, parent and educator can engage fully in their school community without barriers. As partners with hundreds of districts nationwide, we’ve seen how progress begins when accessibility becomes part of everyday practice, not just policy.
Our role is to make that possible. We build technology designed to include everyone. Tools that are intuitive, flexible and compliant from the start. But accessibility isn’t achieved by software alone. It takes collaboration, empathy and the willingness to listen and improve. That’s why we work closely with district leaders to understand their needs, validate every step and deliver solutions that are as practical as they are powerful.
This report reflects the shared values that drive both NSPRA and Sogolytics: clarity, accountability and inclusion. We’re proud to partner with organizations that see accessibility as a foundation for trust and equity, not a checkbox for compliance. Together, we can ensure that digital access is universal, so every voice in every district can be heard.
— Haris Azmi, Chief Revenue Officer, Sogolytics
Digital tools are now central to K-12 education, transforming how districts teach, operate and engage with their school communities. From online textbooks and learning platforms to district websites and mobile apps, technology promises to expand access and participation for all. But that promise falls short when these same tools introduce barriers that exclude students, families, staff or community members who rely on accessible design to fully engage.
Accessibility is no longer optional — it is both a legal requirement and proof of a district’s commitment to equity. The U.S. Department of Justice’s April 2024 update to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) removes previous ambiguities and explicitly requires state and local education agencies to ensure accessibility across all digital platforms by April 2026 or 2027.
This urgency reflects a growing national and global movement toward universal digital access. Across the United States, new laws such as Colorado’s HB 21-1110, which took effect in July 2024, are reinforcing federal expectations with stronger state-level accountability. Abroad, the European Accessibility Act, effective June 2025, signals similar progress toward consistent, inclusive digital practices.
Despite this clarity, a recent survey of NSPRA members, conducted in collaboration with Sogolytics, reveals that too many districts remain at the starting line. Just 14% of respondents say their districts are close to completing compliance work, and less than half say their districts consider digital accessibility a high priority. Efforts remain heavily website-focused, leaving other essential systems, such as student and parent portals, HR platforms and instructional materials, largely overlooked.
The survey also revealed systemic barriers. A lack of staff awareness, training and enforced policies to ensure accessibility of purchased digital tools continue to hinder progress in most districts. These findings underscore that accessibility cannot be achieved through siloed efforts; it must be a shared, organization-wide responsibility.
Districts that embrace accessibility as a collective commitment are making measurable progress. Their success points the way forward: Strong leadership, clear policies, inclusive procurement and ongoing training and monitoring create the conditions for true digital equity, ensuring every student, family, employee and community member can fully participate.
As the federal government brings digital accessibility into sharper focus for K-12 education, many veteran school communicators may feel a sense of déjà vu. After all, accessibility obligations have existed in some form for more than 50 years.
It all started with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibited any program receiving federal funds — including virtually all public schools — from discriminating against people with disabilities. A 1998 amendment added Section 508, requiring that federal agencies make their “electronic and information technology” (EIT) accessible. However, the law’s definition of “accessible” was vague, and EIT itself was defined narrowly, covering specific categories such as telecommunications equipment, software, multimedia and websites. A 2018 refresh modernized the law for today’s digital and mobile environment and formally referenced the globally accepted WCAG 2.0 standards as the technical benchmark.
Meanwhile, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) cast an even wider net. By prohibiting discrimination by all “public entities,” including public schools, the ADA required equal access to services, programs and activities. But how these obligations applied in the digital realm wasn’t clearly defined.
The result was decades of uneven enforcement. Since the 1990s, clarity has often come through case-by-case investigations and legal settlements pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). By the late 2010s, disability rights advocates had ramped up the pressure, filing thousands of complaints aimed at school and district websites that failed to meet accessibility expectations. These resolutions focused on remediating website content, putting school communicators front and center in the effort to expand accessibility of public-facing communications.
In the wake of growing advocacy and the public’s increasing reliance on virtual interactions with governmental entities, the DOJ updated Title II of the ADA in April 2024. The update codifies a patchwork of existing laws into one enforceable, forward-looking standard. It reinforces the obligation of state and local education agencies, among others, to ensure that their digital platforms are accessible.
In its new rule, the DOJ makes it clear that accessibility goes beyond technical compliance and the ability to simply “get information.” Federal guidance emphasizes that schools’ digital content and platforms must provide “substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence and ease of use” for individuals with disabilities — highlighting that user experience is paramount.
Embedded in the DOJ’s definition of digital accessibility is the idea that individuals with disabilities must have equal access to “web content” — i.e., both information and experiences that are available online. Requiring “equal access” that is “substantially equivalent” to the experience of others requires considering how individuals interact with content, not just whether content or platforms meet technical standards, to ensure usability for everyone. In this context, accessibility means:
The ADA Title II update now establishes explicit and uniform regulations for the digital accessibility of web content and mobile apps across the K-12 education landscape, defining not just the technical standards but the scope of applicability and the deadlines for compliance.
The update also requires districts to anticipate and prevent barriers before they arise, ensuring digital tools and materials are accessible from the start. This contrasts with the approach established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is primarily reactive: Access is retrofitted or provided after a barrier is identified, often through IEP accommodations.
In practice, this distinction means:
While accommodations and retrofits will continue to play an important role when “born-accessible” options are not available, Title II makes equitable access the goal.
Despite the clarity provided by the 2024 Title II update, districts’ progress toward digital accessibility remains uneven. NSPRA’s recent survey of members reveals:
Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that while most respondents are somewhat confident in their ability to ensure that their district’s digital content is fully accessible, just 9% say they are very confident — compared to 24% who say they are not at all confident.
The journey toward comprehensive digital accessibility in K–12 education is complex and fraught with systemic challenges. NSPRA’s survey data highlights recurring obstacles that contribute to uneven progress across districts, from unclear responsibility to gaps in skills, training and vendor compliance.
One of the most significant issues is the widespread misconception about who is responsible for digital accessibility. Survey results show that most districts rely on communications and IT to lead the charge:
Meanwhile, although nearly all school communicators acknowledge their responsibilities for ensuring the accessibility of public-facing and internal communications — with 99% and 91%, respectively, saying they feel somewhat or entirely responsible — two-thirds (66%) say they do not feel at all responsible for accessibility of digital hiring practices or employee processes, including payroll systems, onboarding materials and online job applications.
This suggests that digital accessibility continues to be viewed and managed primarily as a communications task, hindered by lack of awareness and engagement among broader staff — even as 97% of survey respondents agree that digital accessibility should be a shared responsibility across multiple departments.
Survey comments expand on this consensus around shared responsibility, pointing to the scope and impact of the work and the need for organization-wide commitment. As one respondent noted, “Ensuring accessibility requires every single department to collaborate. It cannot be done in isolation, and it's not just ‘one more thing’ — it takes all of us to make it happen.”
Most efforts to improve accessibility have concentrated on public-facing websites. In fact, 70% of survey respondents whose districts have received digital accessibility complaints say the concerns involved their school or district website.
However, the new regulations make clear that websites are just the tip of the iceberg. Despite this, many districts have yet to expand their efforts to learning management system (LMS) platforms, instructional materials and third-party software.
Even in districts where digital accessibility is a high priority, nearly a third of survey respondents (32%) said that accessibility beyond the website remains a low priority — or not a priority at all.
With efforts and awareness often siloed within districts’ communications departments, digital accessibility expertise also remains focused largely on communication tools and platforms. Among the NSPRA members surveyed, at least 50% said they were very familiar with accessibility best practices for social media platforms and e-newsletters, and 73% with best practices for websites. But when asked about other critical tools, familiarity fell significantly — only 12% for LMS platforms, 7% for HR/hiring systems and 18% for parent/caregiver portals. Expertise is also limited among IT staff, with 83% of respondents saying it is a barrier to their districts’ efforts.
Training in how to make digital content accessible can help but is not yet widespread in districts:
Vendors play a pivotal role in providing accessible digital tools, yet school communicators are not confident in their ability to deliver what districts need. Based on their own experiences with vendors:
This perceived lack of available product options is only part of the problem. The affordability of accessible platforms, schools’ limited leverage to demand compliant products and insufficient vendor documentation regarding the accessibility of their products are all cited as challenges faced by districts in ensuring vendors provide accessible platforms.
But more than any of these factors, members cite a lack of accountability throughout the procurement process as a significant obstacle. The vast majority say lack of procurement policies on accessibility and lack of awareness about the requirements make purchasing compliant products a challenge:
There are some bright spots in the data, however. Among the 30 respondents who say their districts have implemented most or all of the new requirements, the data shows that:
Not surprisingly, digital accessibility ranks as more important among these districts — 57% say accessibility beyond the website is a high priority, compared to just 29% among all responses.
And when it comes to purchasing, these districts are again ahead of the curve. Those of them with a clear, enforced procurement policy climbed to 18% (from 5% among all respondents), and only 11% of them lack a formal review process for verifying the accessibility of purchased digital products (compared to 49% among all respondents). Data also shows that the responsibility for ensuring accessibility of purchased digital tools is more likely to be shared across relevant departments, with significantly higher percentages placing the onus among district-level administrators, IT staff and procurement staff in addition to communications. More importantly, the percentage that report no one owning this responsibility dropped to zero.
Disability:IN, a nonprofit advancing disability inclusion in business, released its annual benchmarking report on disability inclusion practices earlier this year.
Among nearly 700 companies surveyed across industries and countries, 93% said they ensure individuals with disabilities can access their digital content, up sharply from 69% in 2024.
Yet, efforts to hold vendors accountable have lagged, mirroring what’s happening in K-12 education. While most companies routinely audit and test the accessibility of their internal platforms, the Disability Index Report shows that only 39% require vendors to deliver products that meet accessibility standards.
The report emphasizes that real progress depends on “applying accessibility standards across internal systems, digital platforms and vendor relationships to reduce risk and open doors to innovation.”
For Janaca Scherer, Communications Director at the Special School District of St. Louis County (SSD), digital accessibility started as a practical website responsibility but has quickly become a personal and professional passion. Building on her earlier experience with accessibility committees, she recognized how small, deliberate changes to content and workflows could make information more accessible to everyone.
At SSD, those efforts have become a visible districtwide commitment to inclusion, ensuring that all students, families and community members can engage fully with the district’s communications and resources.
SSD’s communications, ADA and student services teams work hand-in-hand with colleagues in HR, curriculum, finance and technology to make accessibility part of daily practice. “Digital accessibility doesn’t live within communications,” Scherer said. “It’s a districtwide initiative and needs to be supported as such. The work would have been much more difficult without the buy-in of other district directors. Knowing that multiple departments are also championing this work makes it easier to move forward.”
SSD holds monthly accessibility meetings that bring together representatives from across departments to identify gaps and problem solve in real time. When new needs arise, the group adapts. “We didn’t initially have someone from HR, but we realized we needed their perspective on the applicant and onboarding experience,” she said. “Then we brought in our curriculum coordinator to review learning platforms and our finance representative to strengthen purchasing processes. Once people started to understand the why of digital accessibility, it became much easier to get staff on board.”
To sustain that collaboration, SSD developed a Digital Accessibility Plan — a written roadmap that outlines priorities, responsibilities and goals. “Putting something in writing made it more official,” Scherer explained. “It gave us something to refer back to when work stalled or we encountered resistance.”
Scherer’s team leads by example, modeling accessible design in every communication. “It’s not fair of us to ask others for accessible content when we’re not providing accessible content ourselves,” she said. Demonstrating accessibility in action has been key to changing mindsets.
Looking ahead, Scherer believes sustained progress will come through advocacy and collective voice. “If all of us, as school communicators, advocate for updates and stand by those requests, companies will be forced to listen,” she said. “The more we collaborate and hold each other accountable, the stronger our impact will be.”
Her message to other districts: Start where you are and focus on progress over perfection. “Even baby steps are steps in the right direction. Having alternative text on 85% of our social media posts is better than 0%. Meaningful work continues to happen every day.”
The clock is ticking. The 2026-2027 deadlines for compliance with the updated digital accessibility requirements under Title II of the ADA are fast approaching. The work ahead for districts may be significant, but the opportunity is even greater. Acting now enables districts to not only meet legal obligations but also demonstrate a powerful and visible commitment to equity and inclusion.
Meaningful progress in digital accessibility doesn’t happen through a single sequence of steps, but through coordinated, districtwide actions that reinforce one another. Districts leading this work show that progress accelerates when accessibility is built into systems, not added on. No matter where a district begins, the following are high-impact actions that can create lasting, systemic change.
As echoed throughout survey comments from members, the responsibility for digital accessibility is “massive” and “too much for one department,” especially considering how digital tools permeate all aspects of education. Achieving comprehensive digital accessibility requires integrating it into the very fabric of district operations — not just communications — and moving from reactive solutions to an intentional, proactive “accessibility-by-design” mindset.
School communicators have long championed accessibility and advocated for inclusive practices, even as they have struggled to raise awareness among their district colleagues. The DOJ’s new rule can serve as the catalyst to shift culture from good intentions to a shared moral and legal commitment. To build that foundation of shared accountability, districts should:
Together, these actions establish the governance, policies and processes necessary to make accessibility an operational norm, setting the stage for sustainable implementation through training, procurement and ongoing monitoring.
The well-known saying, “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging,” applies perfectly to accessibility. Districts may not be able to fix everything at once, but they can control what comes next. Procurement is the single most impactful lever for rapid change.
Buying (or renewing) inaccessible technology can erase months of progress and create even more work down the road, as staff scramble to find workarounds or retrofit accessibility after the fact. Just like cost, functionality and vendor reputation, accessibility must factor into purchasing decisions.
Yet in many districts, this is more aspiration than reality. According to research from the American Federation for the Blind, during the COVID-19 pandemic, families reported that their school-age children used an average of nearly five different digital tools to participate in hybrid or online learning, and that more than half of those tools were inaccessible. In NSPRA’s digital accessibility survey, one participant described a “100% disconnect” between staff concerned with accessibility and those managing purchases and contracts. Another noted that “vendors claim accessibility, but I don’t think they’re honest or well-versed in what this means,” reflecting widespread frustration and skepticism about vendor accountability.
That frustration may at times be justified, but it’s not insurmountable. Districts should move decisively to close the gap by embedding accessibility requirements into existing procurement tools, requiring documentation that verifies compliance and treating vendor claims with the same rigor applied to financial or security assurances.
With consistent expectations and verification, accessible procurement can become standard practice rather than an afterthought. The National Center on Accessible Digital Educational Materials & Instruction (NCADEMI), a federally funded technical assistance center, recommends an “embed and add” strategy for operationalizing accessibility in purchasing, as explained below.
In its April 2025 publication, Including Accessibility in All Components of Procurement: A Guide for State Educational Agencies and School Districts, NCADEMI outlines the “embed and add” strategy—an approach that integrates accessibility requirements directly into existing procurement processes and supplements them with additional verification steps to ensure compliance. The following figure1 illustrates how districts can put the “embed and add” strategy into practice.
1Citation: National Center on Accessible Digital Educational Materials & Instruction and National Instructional Materials Access Center. (2025, April). Including Accessibility in All Components of Procurement: A Guide for State Educational Agencies and School Districts. Logan, UT: Author. Retrieved October 2025 from https://ncademi.org/resources/publications/procurement/. Used with permission.
QUOTE: “A vendor can build an accessible system but there is not always follow through or training to ensure that we implement the platform in an accessible way.” – Survey Respondent
Survey findings underscore that training is central to advancing digital accessibility: 94% of respondents cited lack of training as a barrier, while 92% said staff training, more than any other resource, would help overcome accessibility challenges. These results highlight the need for a comprehensive, organization-wide training program to build consistent awareness, understanding and application of accessibility practices across all roles and departments.
Training should address accessible content creation (e.g., captions, transcripts, color contrast, alt text and proper header styles) as well as the selection and use of tools or platforms that maintain content accessibility. For instance, teachers often adopt free classroom apps outside of formal procurement processes, which means they may not meet accessibility standards. Professional learning that helps staff experience accessibility barriers, such as navigating a web page while wearing a blindfold, can foster more intentional, inclusive choices.
Training cannot be “one and done” but should be embedded in new employee onboarding and offered to existing employees on an ongoing basis, customized and adapted as technology and workflows change. In short, employees should understand that knowledge of accessibility best practices is essential to performing one’s duties.
To advance digital accessibility, districts first need a clear understanding of where they stand. A digital accessibility audit provides this clarity by systematically reviewing a district’s digital ecosystem — including websites, learning platforms, instructional materials, communication systems and employee tools — to identify gaps, barriers and areas that do not meet accessibility standards.
Audits serve multiple purposes:
A typical accessibility audit follows these steps:
The narrow exceptions outlined in the updated Title II regulations can also help districts triage their efforts and focus initial remediation where it will have the greatest impact.
Districts making the most progress in accessibility consistently rely on automated testing tools. In fact, 90% of survey respondents who said they are well on their way to compliance use these tools, compared to just 60% of others. This finding underscores the importance of combining both automated and manual approaches for a complete picture of accessibility.
The 2024 DOJ Title II rule identifies five types of content that may not need to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards. In its fact sheet, the DOJ explains that these exceptions are designed to let districts focus compliance efforts on current, frequently used content most essential for access to services, programs and activities.
The exceptions include:
Even if content qualifies for an exception, a district’s other ADA obligations still apply. If a person with a disability requests an accessible version, the district must provide a reasonable modification or accommodation (e.g., providing a large-print version of the student’s lunch account record). Likewise, if older content remains in active use to access or participate in district programs or services (e.g., a PDF of a building use request form posted in 2023 that is still the correct form to use), it does not qualify as an exception.
Because the exceptions include important nuances, districts should consult the DOJ’s official rule and fact sheet for full details before making determinations.
QUOTE:“The work of providing universal access to cover every possible user requires more than a checklist or individual point of assessment…. This is a mindset change that requires us to make best practices the only practices, and it demands a discipline of viewing everything from the perspective of the user with every potential barrier removed from the moment that content is being considered and throughout the preparation process to delivery.” – Survey Respondent
Federal regulations have challenged every K-12 district to move from reactive fixes to a proactive, born-accessible mindset, embedding accessibility into everyday operations rather than treating it as an afterthought. Meeting this moment means more than checking boxes for compliance; it means ensuring every student, staff member, family and community member can fully engage and belong.
The risks of inaction are real — legal complaints, costly retrofits, reputational harm and inequitable access. Yet the opportunity is greater: a digital future that reflects the values of inclusion, transparency and equity at the heart of public education.
In districts nationwide, school communication professionals have been champions of accessibility, often among the first to recognize how a design or workflow decision could unintentionally create barriers and to adjust their practices to remove them. They have learned new skills, rethought design choices and modeled inclusive communication, often without the systemic support needed to sustain the work.
Now, the momentum for accessibility isn’t just coming from Title II updates—it’s coming from the people districts serve. Families, students and staff are demanding information and tools they can all use. That pressure creates a real opportunity to make lasting change. As districts align efforts across the organization, school communicators can help translate that oppurtunity into coordinated action, advocating for collaboration, guiding and informing staff training, connecting procurement and content teams and continuing to model accessibility in everyday communication. Districts can draw on trusted partners like NCADEMI, WebAIM and the Center on Technology and Disability for tools and training to accelerate their work.
Each step forward strengthens accessibility, equity and trust — the very principles that define the mission of public education and the vital role of those who communicate it.
How redefining the district-vendor partnership fosters progress through shared accountability
In early 2022, Sogolytics, a platform allowing users to design, distribute and analyze surveys, polls and other feedback instruments, launched a targeted initiative to ensure its survey participation and reporting tools met client needs for digital accessibility compliance. This work was sparked by requests from several of their district clients who required products that met WCAG standards for accessibility.
“Our district partners helped us realize that we, as their analytics partner, had to share responsibility for upholding the ADA,” said Haris Azmi, Chief Revenue Officer at Sogolytics. “So, we committed to the important work of creating an inclusive digital experience for all survey participants.”
Sogolytics collaborated directly with district clients to identify and address accessibility barriers across its platform and reporting features. The company’s engineering and product teams made significant improvements, striving for compliance with the higher WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards, including:
To document conformance with WCAG 2.2 AA, Sogolytics has completed an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR), which is currently undergoing review by an external expert to validate the findings. “We are confident that the external consultants will endorse our efforts to date and provide recommendations about how we can further strengthen accessibility measures across environments,” Azmi added.
The company intends to update its ACR annually and incorporate accessibility review into each major product release. Sogolytics’ engineers regularly use industry tools, such as JAWS and TalkBack, to test platform compatibility with assistive devices.
To support clients in building ADA-compliant accessible surveys, Sogolytics developed:
Ongoing audits, user testing and partner input inform Sogolytics’ accessibility roadmap. Future development plans include features that automatically notify survey builders when their designs may not meet accessibility standards and expanded training modules to help survey developers build more inclusive content.
This focus aligns with the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG), created by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which emphasize not only making digital authoring tools accessible to users with disabilities, but also supporting the production of accessible content by all content creators.
This initiative reflects a collaborative approach to accessibility, grounded in shared responsibility and continual improvement. Through feedback-driven development and transparent evaluation, Sogolytics and its district partners are working together to ensure that every survey interaction, regardless of ability, is accessible and equitable.
This appendix summarizes results from a national survey of NSPRA members conducted August 11–September 5, 2025. A total of 229 members responded (191 complete, 38 partial), for a 7.9% response rate (±6.2% margin of error). Most respondents (87%) work in public school districts, with 67% in districts under 10,000 students. Responses came from 38 states.
Who in your district has a formal responsibility for ensuring communications are accessible? (Select all that apply.)
Communications staff: 82%
District-level administrators: 28%
School-level administrators: 23%
IT/Technology staff: 41%
Special education staff: 13%
HR staff: 14%
Purchasing/procurement staff: 5%
Teachers: 6%
Don’t know: 18%
Other: 7% Examples of “other” responses included: no one; administrative assistants; board clerks; school social media managers; Title I/ESL staff; design staff.
To what extent do you personally feel responsible for accessibility?
Public-facing communications:
Entirely responsible: 82%
Somewhat responsible: 16%
Not responsible: 1%
Internal communications:
Entirely responsible: 43%
Somewhat responsible: 49%
Not responsible: 9%
Digital hiring or employee processes:
Entirely responsible: 2%
Somewhat responsible: 32%
Not responsible: 66%
Vendor selection:
Entirely responsible: 6%
Somewhat responsible: 52%
Not responsible: 42%
Should digital accessibility be a shared responsibility or owned by one department?
Shared responsibility: 97%
One department should own it: 3%
Why did you select that answer?
Among the 178 respondents who chose “shared responsibility,” common themes included:
The volume of platforms, files and daily content creation across schools and offices makes the work too large for one person or department.
Accessibility should be embedded where content and tools are created and managed.
Cross-functional expertise is needed since no single department holds all the knowledge.
Visible commitment from district leaders signals that accessibility is a priority.
Many advocate for a coordinated model with an accessibility lead or cross-department “A-Team” for standards, training and shared ownership.
Legal and compliance risks necessitate a shared effort to meet timelines and maintain consistency across systems.
Shared responsibility prevents bottlenecks, especially for departments of one.
Multiple perspectives improve solutions and promote equitable access.
Proactive creation beats remediation; accessibility should be built into everyday workflows, not added at the end.
Has your district started addressing the new Title II ADA requirements for accessible digital content?
No, not started: 12%
Planning stages: 24%
Currently implementing: 38%
Implemented most or all requirements: 14%
Don’t know: 11%
How confident are you in ensuring digital content is accessible?
Very confident: 9%
Somewhat confident: 64%
Not confident: 24%
Don’t know: 2%
How does your district assess the accessibility of digital content? (Select all that apply.)
Manual review by staff: 60%
Automated testing tools: 64%
External accessibility audits or consultants: 9%
No accessibility assessment: 21%
Other: 3%
“Other” responses included vendor review, sporadic checking or uncertainty.
What barriers prevent your district from achieving better digital accessibility?
Funding/budget
Significant barrier: 39%
Somewhat a barrier: 39%
Not a barrier: 23%
Lack of awareness among staff
Significant barrier: 73%
Somewhat a barrier: 24%
Not a barrier: 3%
Lack of staff expertise/training
Significant barrier: 70%
Not a barrier: 5%
Lack of staff time/capacity
Significant barrier: 69%
Somewhat a barrier: 26%
Limited IT support or expertise
Significant barrier: 41%
Somewhat a barrier: 42%
Not a barrier: 17%
No clear policies or enforcement
Significant barrier: 48%
Somewhat a barrier: 41%
Not a barrier: 10%
Vendor limitations (tools not accessible)
Significant barrier: 21%
Somewhat a barrier: 53%
Not a barrier: 26%
Have you received complaints about the accessibility of digital content?
Yes: 28%
No: 72%
What were the topics of those complaints? (Select all that apply.)
Issues with public website: 70%
Lack of content translation: 19%
Inaccessible PDFs: 49%
Inaccessible online surveys or forms: 9%
Inaccessible social media posts: 5%
Lack of captions/transcripts: 19%
Lack of alternative formats: 7%
Inaccessible digital curriculum or instructional materials: 7%
Inaccessible hiring platforms: 5%
Employee systems/staff intranet issues: 5%
Student learning platforms/portals issues: 4%
Inaccessible district mobile app: 2%
Inaccessible third-party platforms (e.g., registration, lunch payments, sports schedules, board materials): 21%
Other: 11%
“Other” responses included color contrast issues and inaccessible livestreamed meetings.
What support or resources would help you address accessibility challenges? (Select all that apply.)
Training for staff: 92%
Clear district policies: 67%
IT/technology support: 65%
Enforcement of policies: 62%
Vendor accountability: 57%
More funding/staffing: 52%
Have you received formal training on digital accessibility?
Yes: 48%
No: 52%
Does your district have a policy requiring accessibility when selecting digital tools or vendors?
Yes, clear and enforced: 5%
Policy exists but inconsistently followed: 6%
No formal policy, but sometimes considered: 39%
No policy and not considered: 13%
Don’t know: 36%
Who is responsible for ensuring purchased digital tools meet accessibility standards? (Select all that apply.)
Communications staff: 39%
District-level administrators: 19%
School-level administrators: 2%
IT/Technology staff: 52%
Special education staff: 2%
HR staff: 3%
Purchasing/procurement staff: 8%
Teachers: 1%
No one: 32%
Don’t know: 15%
Other: 5%
How many of your vendors meet ADA requirements?
All: 5%
Most: 17%
Some: 24%
A few: 16%
None: 1%
Don’t know: 37%
When is accessibility reviewed during vendor selection or renewal?
No formal review: 49%
During procurement: 30%
During contract renewals: 8%
After the contract is signed: 1%
Ongoing throughout the contract: 13%
What challenges does your district face in ensuring vendors provide accessible platforms?
Budget constraints
Significant challenge: 35%
Moderate challenge: 43%
Not a challenge: 21%
Lack of awareness
Significant challenge: 66%
Moderate challenge: 28%
Not a challenge: 6%
Lack of available vendor options
Significant challenge: 23%
Moderate challenge: 58%
Not a challenge: 19%
Limited leverage with vendors
Significant challenge: 42%
Moderate challenge: 40%
Not a challenge: 17%
No procurement policies
Significant challenge: 56%
Moderate challenge: 34%
Not a challenge: 10%
Insufficient vendor documentation (e.g., VPATs)
Significant challenge: 36%
Moderate challenge: 47%
Not a challenge: 16%
What other challenges, if any, does your district face in ensuring digital accessibility?
Thirty-four respondents provided answers to this open-ended question, including the following:
Vendors who make claims without understanding accessibility standards or providing proof
Required federal or state systems and forms that are not accessible (for example, employee IRS forms)
Lack of leadership awareness, urgency and buy-in
Decentralized purchasing in which each department selects its own products according to its own criteria
Apathy and complacency
Individual districts feeling powerless to demand accessibility compliance from major companies without collective national advocacy
Pursuing compliance with a higher standard (for example, WCAG 2.2) that many vendors do not yet meet
Undue cost and burden of switching or fixing platforms
Vendor platforms that fail to prevent users from creating inaccessible content
Lack of expertise in how to assess vendor claims
The following resources were used to inform this report and are recommended for further learning on digital accessibility in K–12 schools.
Accessibility Works LMS ADA Title II Compliance Requirements https://bit.ly/481hHsc Explains compliance requirements for learning management systems and EdTech providers.
Disability:IN Procurement Toolkit https://bit.ly/4oV8pna Guidance for embedding accessibility into procurement practices and evaluating vendors.
University of Wisconsin–Madison IT Guide to Purchasing Accessible Technology https://bit.ly/49b6OoV Guidance on RFPs, bids, vendor evaluation, and contracts with accessibility considerations.
American Foundation for the Blind Accessible Ed Tech Resources https://bit.ly/4oXrFAB Guides on inventorying tools, defining accessibility requirements, evaluating products, using VPATs, and embedding accessibility in contracts.
WebAIM Accessibility by Design: Preparing K–12 Schools for What’s Next https://bit.ly/47I4t22 Discusses proactively designing accessible digital learning environments.
ADA Website State and Local Governments: First Steps Toward ADA Title II Compliance https://bit.ly/4nRZu5i Step-by-step guidance for web and mobile accessibility compliance.
U.S. Department of Education Disability Discrimination: Technology Accessibility https://bit.ly/4okFZDe Policy guidance, video series, and OCR case examples related to digital accessibility in schools.
WCAG Understanding the VPAT: A Complete Guide https://bit.ly/4oroBwF Explains how VPATs document accessibility conformance for vendors and products.
WCAG ATAG At a Glance https://bit.ly/43bzQks Overview of accessibility standards for content creation tools.
AASA Blog 2025 K–12 Digital Infrastructure Brief: Accessibility https://bit.ly/4p0xBce Highlights accessibility considerations for school technology infrastructure.
Center for American Progress Ensuring Digital Accessibility in K–12 Schools https://bit.ly/4opcSP4 Overview of common challenges and strategies for improving digital accessibility.
Deque Systems Accessibility in Education https://bit.ly/4qCANfw Blogs, webinars, toolkits, and accessible component libraries tailored to K–12 EdTech and LMS.
EdSurge Are Schools and EdTech Companies Ready for the Digital Accessibility Deadline? https://bit.ly/3Lsi4Dm Discusses whether schools and vendors are prepared for new accessibility requirements.
Minnesota State Accessibility Quick Cards https://bit.ly/3Jp4zUu Quick reference cards for accessibility standards and practices in educational technology.
U.S. Department of Education 2025 K–12 Digital Infrastructure Brief: Accessibility https://bit.ly/4hLVWzN Research, case studies, and guidance on instructional materials, assistive technology, and equity for students with disabilities.
University of Maryland (MIDA) Understanding Digital Accessibility Needs in K–12 Education https://bit.ly/4oU3jrj Research on barriers facing students with disabilities and recommendations for inclusive EdTech design.
NCADEMI Understanding New PreK–12 Digital Accessibility Requirements https://bit.ly/4nHjjfo Overview of new ADA requirements for websites and mobile apps, including compliance timelines and district action steps.
NCADEMI Including Accessibility in Your EdTech Decisions https://bit.ly/47rQgHN Guidance on accessibility in procurement, RFPs, scoring matrices, contracts, and vendor documentation.
NCADEMI The Intersection of Special Education and New PreK–12 Digital Accessibility Requirements https://bit.ly/4qJ0afK Explains how ADA and IDEA work together to support accessibility across general and special education.
NCADEMI Webinar Series: Powering Digital Accessibility Through Systemic Action https://bit.ly/43Xg0tk Free, interactive series supporting districts in implementing NCADEMI’s Quality Indicators for Accessible Materials.