April 24’s accessibility deadline catches schools unprepared

A major civil-rights deadline is set to land on April 24, requiring U.S. public institutions to bring their web content and mobile apps into compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. But surveys, audits, and legal concerns suggest many K-12 districts—along with the v

On April 24, the clock stops being theoretical for school districts that have left digital accessibility for later. By that day. public institutions must ensure their web content and mobile apps meet Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1—a standard that includes requirements such as a minimum color contrast ratio and audio descriptions.

The requirement isn’t new. Federal law has required accessibility for people with disabilities for decades. says Glenda Sims. chief information accessibility officer at Deque Systems. a company that specializes in digital accessibility. What changed two years ago is that the federal government finally gave schools a way to measure whether they were complying. In a “final rule. ” the government updated 2024 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. setting standards for public institutions covering website and mobile app accessibility.

When the rule was put in place, disability experts warned that clarity would come with a ticking clock. The rule set different deadlines for school districts and state and local governments—April 2026 or April 2027 depending on population size—but April 24 is the first deadline to hit. Institutions face the same core compliance task: bring web content and mobile apps into line with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

Behind the deadline is a simpler problem with a brutal edge: many districts don’t appear to know what they’re missing, and some haven’t built the internal processes required by the rule.

Only 14 percent of districts had completed the accessibility updates required by law. according to a survey from the National School Public Relations Association released last December. The same survey found fewer than half of districts prioritized digital accessibility or had procedures for vetting vendor accessibility—procedures required under the rule.

“I doubt if a single K-12 district in the U.S. or anywhere else has an inventory today of all the web apps and forms and content that they have that are not accessible,” Sambhavi Chandrashekar, global accessibility lead at D2L, said. D2L runs a widely used learning management system.

Finding that inventory means auditing. Chandrashekar said figuring that out requires performing an audit, which most schools likely haven’t done and which can be expensive.

At EdSurge’s request. AAAtraq surveyed around 20 of the largest schools across a number of states—California. Colorado. Florida. Illinois. New York. Texas and Washington state. Many school websites and online PDFs failed what the company described as “basic accessibility fundamentals. ” assessed using a benchmark it uses to gauge legal exposure.

According to AAAtraq. alt text was missing. there was not enough color contrast. and many websites didn’t have an accessibility statement. The company reported that 88 percent of the institutions it surveyed received an “F,” the lowest possible grade. AAAtraq’s assessments use AI, but the company said the approach does not cover all of the WCAG technical guidelines. It also said the assessments were meant only as a rough barometer. In some cases, the use of AI in accessibility is controversial.

“Title II should have been a wake up call. ” AAAtraq CEO Lawrence Shaw said in an emailed comment. referring to the major disability law behind the “final rule.” Yet the company’s findings and the pace of district work raise a stark question for schools: what happens when the deadline passes—and compliance gaps are already embedded in websites. PDFs. and the tools students use to learn?.

The question is made more complicated by the shift in how schools relate to technology itself. Two years ago, schools were rushing to embrace more digital tools; today, many are trying to limit screens. Luis Pérez. senior director of disability and accessibility for CAST. a digital access advocacy group. said schools and lawmakers need to separate meaningful tools from doomscrolling on social media.

Students with disabilities and multilingual learners. Pérez said. rely on certain digital tools—text-to-speech and adjustable text sizing are examples of supports used to navigate daily learning. Used correctly, digital tools that expand accessibility can foster a sense of belonging, especially for underrepresented groups.

Pérez also worries that screen time laws that lump all screens together could make digital accessibility harder.

For universities, the picture is often different. Sims said universities are usually more prepared for digital accessibility than state or local governments that run K-12 public schools. She said this is partly because students with disabilities are typically a more identifiable group in universities. allowing them to advocate for accommodation.

K-12 districts, Sims added, are heavily reliant on vendors for accessibility.

That vendor dependence sits on top of a separate uncertainty—whether the timeline will hold. While the accessibility deadline is still in place, the federal government’s intentions have become murky. Last year, the Department of Justice signaled it might issue a new “interim final rule” that would impact the deadline. Recently. the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs—an agency usually not involved with accessibility—has been holding meetings on the rule. That has happened as “credible rumors” circulated that the rule might be delayed or scrapped.

Jarret Cummings. senior adviser for policy and public relations at Educause. said the federal government has not publicly released information about its intentions. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs did not immediately respond to a question from EdSurge about whether a delay is expected. Even so. some documents related to the meetings are publicly accessible. giving a window into what some government entities are saying.

A group representing more than 800 Minnesota cities argued in written testimony that none of the Minnesota cities impacted by the rule are fully compliant. The letter states that compliance costs would squeeze small government budgets.

In a parallel argument. testimony from the National Association of Counties estimated that it would cost small counties about $32. 000 to fix accessibility problems on their sites and large counties as much as $700. 000. Educause. Cummings’ organization. has also argued that two years was not enough time for most higher-ed institutions to make changes and suggested that the government alter the timeline.

Mark Riccobono. president of the National Federation of the Blind. testified that the rulemaking process has been ongoing for decades with ample time for comment. Riccobono argued that the bill represents a compromise: it clarifies rules while reducing the burden on those under the law by providing exceptions and generous timelines.

The political climate has shifted since the rule was issued. Accessibility tied to diversity, equity and inclusion has been politically attacked under the Trump administration. The administration shredded grants it identified with “radical” DEI ideology. and mass firings have gutted agencies such as the Education Department. which the administration is actively trying to dismantle. For students with disabilities. Sims said. this means there’s no guarantee of federal support—even when a federal complaint is filed.

“I would say that so many of the places that were reasonably staffed… have been reduced to almost bare bones, nothing. And so even if there are complaints coming in, there’s no way to truly handle them,” Sims said.

A nonpartisan government watchdog report published in January found that mass firings contributed to 90 percent of all student civil rights complaints—including those from students with disabilities—being dismissed by the federal government in the second half of last year.

In the absence of federal help, people with disabilities have turned to the courts. There were more than 3,000 accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court last year, according to legal analysis of court data.

Even as institutions brace for compliance work, disability advocates are pushing for a longer view. Pérez of CAST said advocates should keep on track focusing on long-term strategy regardless of what happens at the federal level. He said accessibility benefits everyone, regardless of background or disability status.

Sims said she is also making a “business case” for considering accessibility during product design, arguing that vendors who build accessibility into their products will be rewarded as schools adopt more accessible tools.

Some advocates are betting that AI tools could help students with disabilities access information on their own, pointing to tools like Aira, an AI tool that aids in remote video interpretation for people with visual impairment.

Still, disability law experts say the rule itself hasn’t really changed. “The rule is the rule until it isn’t,” wrote Lainey Feingold in early March.

For districts trying to meet April 24’s requirement, that may be the most sobering message of all: uncertainty at the federal level may drag on, but the compliance clock keeps running.

digital accessibility WCAG 2.1 Level AA Title II Americans with Disabilities Act K-12 districts school websites mobile apps alt text disability rights EdTech vendors accessibility audits compliance deadline April 24 civil rights