How to Read a VPAT for Edtech Platforms
Trust note
This article was written by a person and reviewed against accessibility.chat editorial standards. Treat it as research and education rather than legal advice. We prioritize primary sources and correct material errors.
Filed unread, it's worse than nothing. Here's what to actually check before your LMS renewal.
An edtech vendor is going to hand you an Accessibility Conformance Report (opens in new window) this year — for the LMS, the curriculum platform, the assessment tool — and probably with an email that says "attached, we're compliant." Filing it unread as proof of diligence is worse than nothing: it looks like you checked, and you didn't.
Here's how to actually read one.
Nobody can "certify" this
Accessibility is a maintained practice, not a state a product achieves once. A vendor claiming their platform is "fully certified compliant" has either misunderstood their own report or is hoping you won't ask what that word means in a sentence where it doesn't belong.
The eight-point test
Age. Dated within the last twelve months, or newer than the platform's last major release?
Product identity. Exact product, version, and interfaces named — specifically, is the student-facing app named separately from the teacher/admin dashboard, since these are often different codebases with different conformance?
Author. Named author or firm with stated accessibility qualifications, or anonymous, or written by sales?
Standard. Evaluated against current WCAG (opens in new window), Levels A and AA, criterion by criterion.
Method. Automated and manual testing both described, with actual assistive technology named.
Scope. States plainly what was and wasn't tested — silent scope means assume the gaps are hiding there.
Terms. Standard conformance vocabulary, not an invented rating.
Ratings explained. Every non-"Supports" rating carries an actual remark.
A report failing three or more points isn't evidence of anything. Send it back before spending another minute on it.
Then read the content, and judge materiality for students
Read every row below full support and every remark under "Supports." Quote what you find. Then judge materiality specifically against what a student actually does with the product: can they navigate the assignment list with a keyboard? Can a screen reader user actually submit work? A missing alt-text attribute on a decorative background image is not the same finding as an assignment submission button that can't be reached without a mouse.
The discipline
Everything you record is a claim about the document, never about the product. "The ACR is dated 2021 and names no assistive technology tested" is a defensible fact. "This platform is inaccessible" is an assertion about someone's business, and it's not one a document review alone positions you to make.
This isn't legal advice about whether a specific vendor's report satisfies your obligations — verify against your own counsel. If you want a second pass on a page a vendor claims already conforms, ask Luke to check it before the next renewal conversation.
Previous: procurement language that actually works · Next: building the record
Sources: Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) overview (opens in new window) · ACR/VPAT Frequently Asked Questions (opens in new window) · WCAG 2 Standards Overview (opens in new window) · U.S. Access Board — Revised 508 Standards (opens in new window)
About Jeff Fryer
Jeff Fryer spent years working kitchens before moving into ADA compliance work for local government. He writes from that experience -- direct, plainspoken, allergic to compliance theater. Contributing writer at accessibility.chat.
Jeff Fryer is a person, not one of the AI analyst lenses this site also publishes under. A named human is accountable for this article.
Specialization: Local government ADA compliance, contributed from direct field experience
Authorship and Editorial Process
Jeff Fryer wrote this article. AI was not used to draft it. It went through the same editorial checks as everything else published here.