The Accessibility Testing Nightmare: Why Schools Are Rejecting “Compliant” Platforms

Platforms selling into schools are discovering an uncomfortable truth. Passing a WCAG audit no longer guarantees adoption. Increasingly, schools are walking away from products that appear compliant on paper but fail when pupils actually use them.

When WCAG Compliance Stops Being Enough

WCAG 2.2 A and AA compliance remains a baseline requirement for schools and public sector buyers. UK guidance is clear that digital services used in education must meet these standards, as outlined in government accessibility regulations for public sector websites and applications.

What has changed is how schools interpret that requirement. A WCAG audit confirms that a platform meets defined success criteria. It does not confirm that the product works reliably with the assistive technologies pupils actually use. It does not reflect classroom constraints, device policies, or real user behaviour. Schools are no longer willing to assume those gaps will be manageable. This is where WCAG vs usability edtech becomes a practical concern, not a theoretical one.

The Automation Trap in Accessibility Testing

Most accessibility programmes still rely heavily on automated tools and checklist-based audits. These are useful, but limited.

Automated checks identify structural issues such as missing labels or contrast failures. They do not reveal what happens when a pupil navigates a lesson using a screen reader, keyboard-only input, or alternative access devices. They do not surface timing conflicts, focus traps, or inconsistent behaviour across browsers commonly used in schools.

UK procurement guidance increasingly reflects this reality. Buyers are asking suppliers to describe not just compliance status, but how testing was carried out and what tools were used. This is why accessibility testing based solely on automation is now seen as incomplete.

What Actually Breaks Classrooms

The failures that trigger rejection are rarely dramatic. They are persistent and cumulative.

A platform may technically support keyboard navigation, but the tab order makes the lesson flow unusable. Screen readers may announce controls correctly, yet fail to interpret dynamic content during assessments. Exam-approved assistive technologies, such as computer readers, braillers, or eye-gaze tools, may technically connect but behave unpredictably under real conditions.

UK examination guidance explicitly recognises the use of assistive technologies as reasonable adjustments. When platforms fail to work with these tools, schools face immediate risk. Workarounds burden staff. Pupils disengage. Accessibility becomes a safeguarding and inclusion issue rather than a technical one. This is where assistive technology testing moves from “nice to have” to essential.

Procurement Has Shifted, and Evidence Is Now Expected

Schools are no longer satisfied with statements of intent. Accessibility is being evaluated during procurement, pilots, and renewal discussions.

Department for Education standards require digital services used in schools to be accessible and capable of working with assistive technology. In parallel, DfE accessibility regulations outline how internal testing should be carried out and maintained.

This has led to a practical shift. Schools now ask for test evidence that reflects real use. Platforms unable to demonstrate real-user accessibility testing are seen as higher risk, regardless of audit outcomes.

Why “Compliant” Platforms Still Get Rejected

The underlying causes are consistent.

Accessibility is often treated as a release milestone rather than an ongoing discipline. Disabled users are involved late, if at all. QA teams test against guidelines, not live scenarios. Audit language reassures legal teams but does little to help school decision-makers.

AbilityNet’s guidance on accessible procurement highlights the need for broader evaluation and expert testing rather than reliance on tools alone. From a school’s perspective, this gap translates into uncertainty. And uncertainty is enough to halt a purchase.

What Credible Accessibility Testing Looks Like Now

Leading platforms are moving towards a blended approach.

WCAG audits establish baseline compliance. Disabled-user testing exposes interaction failures. Assistive technology testing confirms real compatibility across devices and browsers used in schools. Findings are documented in ways that procurement teams can actually interpret.

This approach aligns with broader public sector expectations around accessible procurement and risk management. Importantly, testing is no longer a one-off activity. It is tied to releases, updates, and changes in classroom technology.

Where Magic EdTech Fits

Magic EdTech supports platforms selling into UK schools by strengthening what already exists. There is no
off-the-shelf product and no generic accessibility overlay. Instead, Magic works within existing platforms to identify where compliance breaks down in real use. This includes validating behaviour with assistive technologies commonly used in schools and addressing gaps that audits alone do not catch.

This approach aligns with how Magic EdTech already supports UK-focused platform readiness, whether that is resolving structural integration issues or reducing long-term risk across complex education ecosystems, as explored in our work on tackling integration debt in UK edtech and accelerating standards readiness.

The focus is on making accessibility defensible during procurement and sustainable post-deployment, not treating it as a one-time certification exercise. As schools increasingly trial assistive technologies before committing to long-term use, platforms must be ready for real-world evaluation, not just theoretical compliance. Guidance on accessible procurement continues to reinforce this expectation across the public sector.

Accessibility Is No Longer a Pass or Fail Exercise

Schools are not rejecting accessibility. They are rejecting uncertainty.

WCAG compliance remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient on its own. Platforms that cannot demonstrate how their products perform with real users and real assistive technologies will continue to face stalled procurement and lost opportunities. This mirrors the growing regulatory pressure across education publishing, where delayed action on accessibility creates cumulative risk rather than isolated gaps, a challenge already emerging in discussions around upcoming European accessibility requirements.

Those who invest in meaningful accessibility testing, grounded in classroom reality, reduce risk for schools and for themselves. In the current UK education landscape, that difference is no longer subtle. It is decisive.