If you've spent any time researching ADA Title II compliance for your school district, you've probably encountered the term "VPAT" — often with the implicit assumption that you already know what it means. Most district administrators don't, and that's completely understandable. It's a procurement document that lives at the intersection of legal compliance and technical accessibility, and nobody teaches it in an education administration program.
Here's everything you need to know about VPATs — what they are, how to read them, what good ones look like, and what to do when a vendor doesn't have one.
VPAT: The 30-Second Version
A VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) is a standardized document that a software vendor uses to report how their product conforms to accessibility standards. It's "voluntary" in that vendors aren't legally required to publish one — but for school districts operating under ADA Title II, it's the primary evidence you need to demonstrate that a tool you've deployed meets federal accessibility requirements.
Think of it as the nutritional label for digital accessibility. It doesn't guarantee a product is fully accessible any more than a nutrition label guarantees food is healthy — but it tells you what the vendor claims, in a standardized format, and lets you make informed decisions.
The current version of the template is called VPAT 2.x (WCAG Edition), published by the IT Industry Council (ITI). When evaluating a VPAT, confirm it uses this version and references WCAG 2.1 Level AA — not older standards like Section 508 alone or WCAG 2.0.
What's Actually Inside a VPAT?
A standard VPAT covers the product against each relevant accessibility criterion and assigns one of five conformance levels. Here's what those terms mean in practice:
The most useful thing to look at in a VPAT isn't the headline conformance claim — it's the "Remarks and Explanations" column. A credible VPAT provides specific, detailed notes about what works and what doesn't. Vague entries like "Vendor is committed to accessibility" or "All reasonable efforts have been made" are signs the VPAT wasn't authored by someone who actually tested the product.
What Makes a VPAT "Good"?
Not all VPATs are created equal. Here's how to distinguish a credible accessibility document from a legal cover exercise:
| Indicator | Strong VPAT | Weak VPAT |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Referenced | WCAG 2.1 Level AA explicitly named | Generic "WCAG" or only Section 508 |
| Date | Published 2023 or later | 2020 or older, or undated |
| Remarks Column | Specific notes for each criterion | Blank or generic boilerplate |
| Partial Supports | Honestly reported with detail | Every row says "Supports" — implausible |
| Authorship | Third-party auditor or named accessibility team | No author, or "Marketing Team" |
| Not Evaluated entries | Zero or explicitly justified | Multiple rows marked Not Evaluated |
The tools in DistrictCheck's database that we rate as low risk — Google Classroom, Canvas, Khan Academy, Microsoft Teams — all have current VPATs that meet these criteria. They contain honest "Partially Supports" disclosures with explanations, they reference WCAG 2.1 AA explicitly, and they were updated in 2024.
What Does "Specific WCAG Claim" vs. "Vague Claim" Mean?
When evaluating an edtech tool's accessibility posture, you'll often find vendors making claims about WCAG conformance that range from specific and verifiable to marketing-speak. Here's how to read the signal:
- Specific claim: "This product conforms to WCAG 2.1 Level AA criteria 1.1.1 through 4.1.3 with the following exceptions…" — This is what a trustworthy conformance statement looks like.
- Vague claim: "We are committed to digital accessibility and strive to meet WCAG guidelines." — This is a marketing statement, not a conformance claim. It means nothing from a compliance standpoint.
- Aspirational claim: "We are working toward WCAG 2.1 AA compliance." — This is an explicit admission of current non-conformance. Kahoot, for example, explicitly states it is "working toward" WCAG 2.1 AA. That means it currently doesn't meet the standard.
Many districts file away a vendor's accessibility FAQ page or terms-of-service language as evidence of compliance. It isn't. The only document that counts as a conformance record is a current, version-appropriate VPAT or a third-party audit report that references the specific WCAG 2.1 AA criteria.
When a Vendor Doesn't Have a VPAT
This is the situation most districts will find themselves in with a significant portion of their edtech stack. In our review of 47 common tools, fewer than half had a current, accessible VPAT. So what do you do?
Send written outreach to the vendor
Email or submit a support ticket requesting a current VPAT and a WCAG 2.1 AA conformance statement. Keep a record of the date and the contact. This creates your good-faith compliance documentation.
Set a follow-up deadline
Give vendors 2–3 weeks to respond. If you hear nothing, follow up and escalate to their account manager. Document every touchpoint.
Document an accessible alternative
If the deadline passes without adequate documentation, write a one-page policy describing how a student who cannot use the tool can access equivalent instructional content or participate through an accessible pathway. File it with your special education director.
Factor it into renewal decisions
A vendor that can't produce a VPAT after multiple requests is signaling that accessibility isn't a priority. That should factor into your next contract decision. Include VPAT requirements explicitly in your RFP and renewal terms going forward.
Where to Find VPATs for Common Edtech Tools
The easiest starting point is each vendor's dedicated accessibility page. Here are the direct sources for the most commonly deployed tools:
- Google Workspace / Google Classroom: Google Accessibility documentation → "VPAT" section
- Microsoft Teams / Flip: Microsoft Accessibility Conformance Reports portal
- Canvas (Instructure): Canvas Accessibility page under "Compliance Documentation"
- Khan Academy: Khan Academy Accessibility Help Center
- Seesaw, Pear Deck, Newsela: Each has a dedicated accessibility or legal page — search "[Tool name] VPAT" to locate it
For tools that don't have a public VPAT page — which includes ClassDojo, Formative, Edulastic, Kahoot, IXL, and many others — you'll need to request the document directly through the vendor's support or sales channels.
DistrictCheck has pre-assessed the VPAT status of 47 common edtech platforms. Instead of hunting through vendor websites for each tool, use the free lookup to see VPAT availability, the WCAG claim type, and recommended next steps — all in one place.
Building VPATs Into Your Procurement Process
The districts best positioned for ADA Title II compliance are those that treat VPATs as a standard procurement document — the same way they'd require a data privacy agreement or a software license. Here's the language to add to your next RFP:
"Vendor must provide a current VPAT (VPAT 2.x WCAG Edition) demonstrating conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The VPAT must be dated within the past 24 months and reference the specific product version being provided to the District. Vendor must provide updated VPATs upon request and no later than 60 days following any major product update."
This language shifts the documentation burden where it belongs — to the vendor — and establishes an ongoing obligation rather than a one-time check at procurement.
Check VPAT Status for Your Tools
DistrictCheck shows VPAT availability, WCAG claim type, and recommended next steps for 47 common edtech platforms — free, no signup required.
Run a Free VPAT Check →Need a full district audit? Enter your work email and district name, then continue to the live intake form.
For concrete examples of strong versus weak documentation, compare the individual pages for Google Classroom, Canvas, ClassDojo, Formative, and Kahoot.