The new rule is undergirded by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law passed in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in aspects of public life, including employment, public services, and public accommodations. In 1996, the DOJ clarified those public accommodations included web content, requiring public entities to ensure that their websites are accessible. Despite this clarification and numerous pieces of guidance since, enforcement actions have stemmed from recurring litigation as it relates to web accessibility. The June 2024 DOJ rule reinforces the requirement that state and local government entities ensure that their online content through websites and mobile applications is accessible, without placing the burden of responsibility on people with disabilities to request accessibility accommodations on a case-by-case basis. This column discusses how the recent ADA accessibility rule will affect K-12 public school districts and provides strategies to help district leaders prepare for implementation.
Impact of new ADA rule on school districts
Digital accessibility is when websites and related tools and technologies are designed and developed in a manner that accommodates various disabilities. The new rule requires that school districts guarantee that websites, online course materials, and mobile apps used in schools are accessible to students with disabilities. Districts must comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA, established by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The WAI suggests that web accessibility for people with disabilities depends on the following seven components and how they interact with each other: content, web browsers/media players, assistive technology, users of technology, technology developers, authoring tools, and evaluation tools.
The WCAG 2.1, Level AA guidelines were last updated in fall 2023 to ensure that individuals with disabilities—including visual, cognitive, neurological, speech, physical, and auditory disabilities—can access technology tools. Some examples of providing digital accessibility in schools include making conventional electronic documents such as PDFs available in accessible formats, providing alt-text descriptions for images used on websites and presentations, offering text-resize options on digital tools, providing screen readers, embedding text-to-speech function on websites and mobile apps, and offering keyboard alternatives for students with fine-motor challenges. The accessibility rule also applies when districts contract with third-party vendors, meaning that learning management systems and popular mobile learning apps such as Blackboard, Schoology by PowerSchool, and Moodle will need to adhere to its requirements.
While WCAG 2.1, Level AA is the minimum standard for conformance, the recent DOJ rule does not prevent public entities from going above and beyond these accessibility requirements. Entities that are unable to conform to the recommended guidelines due to technical or legal limitations may pursue alternative methods, designs, and techniques that provide “substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.” There are some exceptions to the rule, including that public entities do not have to make archival content or preexisting outdated content accessible. The rule also includes a cost-benefit analysis for implementation. The estimates suggest that public entities will experience little financial burden to implement the new rule—estimated to be below 1 percent of each entity’s average annual revenue, with the exception of community colleges.
The date by which school districts must adhere to the accessibility rule is April 2026 or April 2027, depending on their size. School districts with a total population of 50,000 students or more must comply by April 2026, and those with 50,000 or fewer must adhere by April 2027. To help districts prepare to implement and comply with the new accessibility mandate, the next sections offer a road map to guide phases of implementation that outline important considerations.
Phase I: How districts can lead engagement and planning
- Conduct a needs assessment: Complete a needs assessment of students and individuals with disabilities within the school community to learn about their experiences and needs when it comes to web content and technology accessibility. This may involve focus groups with student users and their parents and teachers.
- Develop a strategic plan: Establish a local task force of district leaders, educators, technical and accessibility experts, and information technology personnel to develop a districtwide strategic plan for technology accessibility and implementation of the new rule.
Phase II: How districts can conduct analysis and determine feasibility
- Identify cost and return on investment: The ADA does not provide funding for compliance remediation and implementation of the new rule, although districts are expected to incur modest expenses. District leaders should identify and budget for all expected expenses. Developing a budget and financial plan will also help districts go above and beyond the requirements and have bigger returns on their investments. School districts may also leverage other federal programs to fund accessibility initiatives, including Title I of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), which provides funding for special education services, including accessible education; and the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, which provides funding to states through grants to address the assistive technology needs of people with disabilities. Districts may also pursue financial resources from the philanthropic community to bolster support for new technologies and digital accessibility.
- Create model personas: Districts should produce generalized model personas that represent typical accessibility needs of the students they currently serve. This will help them assess feasibility and prioritize needs to ensure that currently enrolled students receive immediate benefits.
- Complete an audit: Complete an audit of existing websites, course materials, and mobile apps; identify which of these are not currently accessible; and formulate a plan to achieve conformance while ensuring a seamless transition with minimal disruptions. Future plans should involve technical changes in design, coding, and content, as well as extensive testing, adoption, and evaluation.
Phase III: How districts can implement the new accessibility standards
- Revise vendor agreements: While remediating and ensuring accessibility of existing websites and mobile apps, districts are encouraged to review all vendor agreements to ensure they adhere to the new rule by the date of compliance. Districts should consider including accessibility requirements in third-party contracts to ensure that vendors are responsible for providing digital tools and mobile apps that are accessible. As districts revise their vendor agreements, they should ensure that these agreements prioritize cybersecurity and protection of student data. A 2022 research study found that 96 percent of apps used in U.S. schools sent private student data to third-party vendors and advertisers. There’s also a concern that these third-party vendors and advertisers could monitor students using tools that don’t give families the option to opt out. This practice could potentially allow teachers, law enforcement, and others to access and misuse students’ private information.
- Evaluate existing and explore new policies or guidance: Review all existing school and districtwide policies that address accessibility and/or technology to align these policies with the new rule and its requirements. Identify new policies or guidance that may need to be developed by the rule’s date of compliance, considering the increased integration of technology in schools and recent federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and the DOJ. New policies should also align with state laws around technology use, AI, and digital accessibility; for example, in California, the state legislature has passed a series of AI bills, including one that sets standards for agency contracts involving AI services.
Phase IV: How districts can sustain accessibility efforts
- Cultivate partnerships: The accessibility standards present a unique opportunity for school districts to expand existing partnerships and establish new ones with small businesses and technology companies to support meaningful accessibility of digital tools. Expanding partnerships may involve establishing pilot programs to test new technologies to solicit feedback from teachers and students to improve design, effectiveness, and adoption. Schools can also leverage these relationships by exposing students to potential careers in science, technology, engineering, and math fields.
- Prioritize AI accessibility: As AI advances, it would be wise for districts to explore meaningful integration by allowing schools to use only AI tools that are accessible and ensuring that these tools are compatible with assistive technologies. Just recently, Google released its latest AI innovation, NotebookLM, which converts dense readings such as reports and book chapters into podcasts. This recent development confirms that AI tools hold great promise for teaching and learning, but industry leaders in education and technology must ensure that they’re developed and used in ways that benefit all students. These tools should account for language access needs of non-native English speakers, be easy for students with disabilities to use, and have technology interfaces that are intuitive enough to accommodate users with varying degrees of digital literacy.
- Provide training and resources: Develop trainings, fact sheets, and tutorials for members of the school community—including educators, students, and families—to provide information on accessibility resources and eliminate any barriers. Moreover, districts should ensure these materials are updated with regularity as the technology evolves.
Conclusion
Technology can be a powerful driver of innovation in education. As school districts adjust to its rapid evolution, education and technology leaders, as well as policymakers, must make certain that accessibility remains a top priority. The rise in online schooling has continued since the pandemic; therefore, it’s important that districts plan for the present and the future. Federal lawmakers should support further research on education technology solutions to ensure that the best and most accessible tools are being developed and used in the nation’s schools. Policymakers should also take into account recent technology standards and needs when making any updates to federal K-12 legislation such as ESSA and IDEIA. IDEIA includes provisions of assistive technology for students with disabilities and was last reauthorized 20 years ago, long before many of the technology tools used today were introduced. Lawmakers should also explore opportunities to enhance the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to protect student privacy as it relates to technology use in schools. Finally, meaningful technology integration should be both inclusive and interactive. Future policies must not lose sight of the importance of human interaction, which is what makes technology useful. Lawmakers and industry leaders should continue to advance policies to enhance human interactions and experiences for all students, particularlystudents with disabilities.
The author would like to thank Jared Bass, Megan Shahi, Nicole Alvarez, and Mia Ives-Rublee for their valuable insights on this column, and Tania Otero Martinez for her thorough fact-checking.