Programs Need a Website. Districts Need a System.
A band director needs a place to explain what the program offers, and connect families to paying dues, placing orders, providing sponsorships and volunteer sign-up opportunities. A department needs somewhere to provide forms and foundational information about current processes. A campus or district needs to communicate its values, demonstrate its culture, build trust and help stakeholders find the information they need. Sometimes, existing ecosystems simply don't make that easy.
So someone creates a Google Site. Or a booster organization sets up a website. Or a program adopts another platform that solves the problem.
And often, it works.
In isolation.
For now.
But what looks like a simple solution at the program level can raise bigger questions for the district. Who owns it? Is there an ongoing cost attached and will that always be viable? Who maintains it? Is the information digitally accessible? Does it meet other obligations? Is information accurate and consistent with brand voice and image? What happens when the person who built it leaves? And as families increasingly rely on AI-powered search, can they - and AI - tell which information is current and authoritative?
None of this means campuses, departments and programs shouldn't have any autonomy or that every external platform needs to go. But when those individual solutions start adding up, it's worth asking whether the larger digital environment still works for everyone involved.
Google Sites Makes Sense - Until It Doesn’t
When a campus, department or program needs to quickly update specific content, Google Sites can look like an attractive solution. For a busy educational leader, the appeal is obvious: it's free within Google Workspace, quick to build with tools staff already know, and it launches without waiting on the district web team. It flexes to fit a department, program or one-off event, and handing it off when staff change is simple.
For someone who simply needs somewhere to put a calendar, forms and basic information, being able to build it themselves is pretty appealing.
The challenge is that a decision that makes perfect sense at the campus, department or program level can create new responsibilities at the district level. Digital accessibility is one of them.
The Digital Accessibility Deadline Has Moved. Have Your Systems?
The U.S. Department of Justice's ADA Title II rule requires state and local governments to make their web content and mobile apps accessible to people with disabilities, using WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard. The compliance deadline was extended in April 2026 to:
April 26, 2027: public entities with a total population of 50,000 or more
April 26, 2028: public entities with a total population under 50,000 and special district governments
The extension gives districts more time to prepare. It doesn't make accessibility optional. For districts with multiple campus, department or program websites, pages and digital platforms, preparation starts with knowing what actually exists. That starting point is simple to describe and surprisingly hard to answer: many districts may not have a current count of every public-facing site, page or platform tied to their name.
It's difficult to govern, monitor or remediate digital property that isn't on anyone's radar.
Google Sites Isn't Automatically Accessible
Google provides accessibility guidance for Google Sites, including recommendations for alt text, color contrast, informative link text, text size and alignment, and appropriate use of formatting and lists. Using Google Sites doesn't automatically make a site accessible however; the person creating and maintaining it still has accessibility responsibilities.
The bigger concern is what the platform itself actually allows you to control.
The University of Michigan's accessibility guidance describes Google Sites as having limited accessibility support and recommends considering another web publishing system when accessibility is a priority.
UC Berkeley goes further: while it is theoretically possible to create an accessible Google Site, it notes that Google Sites often have accessibility issues that the person creating the site can't fix themselves.
"We encourage you, whenever possible, to avoid using Google Sites. Instead, create a “sub-site” for your program or event on your department or unit’s existing website."
The University of Hawaiʻi similarly describes Google Sites pages as “largely not accessible” while offering guidance for improving accessibility.
Whether the site is maintained by a program director, department head, teacher, booster organization or PTO, if it becomes a source of information families need to access a school program or service, digital accessibility still matters and obligations still apply. Some accessibility issues may be within the content creator's control, but others are tied to the platform itself. This isn't simply a matter of telling someone to add alt text, use better contrast or fix their heading structure.
That's an important distinction when responsibility for a public-facing site falls to someone who may not have the ability to fix problems at the platform level. Site creators don't have access to the underlying HTML or ARIA code. If there's a structural accessibility problem they can't fix from the editor, they're stuck with the platform limitation. This can affect things like navigation, heading structure, tables and other elements that need to work properly with assistive technology. It makes “just make it accessible” a much more complicated instruction than it sounds.
When the Workaround Becomes the System
The issue isn't that someone created a Google Site. It's what happens when a reasonable program-level fix quietly becomes another public-facing digital property the district has to account for.
Now you potentially have:
Another website and URL to inventory and maintain
Another account, owner and set of permissions to manage
Another place for outdated or conflicting information to live
Another place where district, campus or program branding and voice may differ
Another place where district communications policies may not be consistently applied
Another place where inaccessible PDFs or other documents can be uploaded
Another site that may fall outside the district's accessibility monitoring and remediation process
Another place where student photos, staff information, forms, documents or links to other systems may be published or collected
Another digital service that needs appropriate security and privacy oversight
Another person who needs to understand how it works and what happens when they leave
None of these things automatically make an external site inappropriate. Each one simply adds another piece to the district's digital ecosystem - one that needs an owner, upkeep, and some form of oversight. That's the real gap: the program sees a website; the district sees a public-facing property with accessibility, security, privacy, ownership and maintenance attached to it.
From the program's perspective, autonomy matters. Campuses, departments and programs need to move quickly and sometimes use tools designed specifically for the work they do.
From the district's perspective, consistency and governance matter too. Districts need to know where information is published, who controls it, whether it's compliant and what happens when the person managing it leaves.
Both readings are correct, which is exactly why the tension doesn't resolve itself.
Today's Separate Tool May Be Tomorrow's Integrated Feature
Many departments and programs create or rely on external websites and platforms because they offer functionality the district website currently doesn't. Think online stores managed by boosters, registration and payment tools, ticketing, fundraising, forms, volunteer management and other program-specific services.
But for parents, what should feel like one school or program can actually become a collection of disconnected digital experiences.
It's important to note that not every external platform is a problem, and not every one belongs inside the district's website. A payment processor, ticketing platform or specialized registration system may provide functionality that would be unreasonable to recreate within a district CMS. A separate website that simply contains information that could easily live within the district's existing ecosystem, however, is a different question.
At the same time, this is a space worth watching. Integrated K-12 communications platforms are continuing to add functionality, including forms, registrations, payments, calendars and other tools that programs may once have needed separate platforms to provide. What wasn't practical to bring into the district ecosystem a few years ago may be possible today - or soon.
So this isn't really a "bring everything in" or "keep everything out" call. It's a running question worth revisiting periodically: what does the district's current ecosystem already provide, what do programs genuinely still need outside it, and where do external tools continue to earn their place?
The AI Problem: What Happens When There Isn't One Source of Truth?
There's another reason this matters now: AI-powered search. Parents aren't always going to navigate through a district website looking for the right page. Good communications strategy, clear navigation and transparency can help, but sometimes families just want an answer - and they want it now. They may simply ask:
“When does marching band rehearsal start tonight?”
“How do I register my child for athletics?”
“Who is the band director?”
The more places a district publishes information, the harder it can be to establish which information is current and authoritative. Imagine the district website says school starts at 7:45, an old Google Site says 8:00, an athletics page has a two-year-old PDF season schedule and a booster website has yet another version. A parent may not know which one to trust, and an AI-powered search tool may have the same problem.
This doesn't mean every external website will confuse AI, or that every district necessarily needs one website for everything. It does mean that clear ownership and current, consistent information carry more weight than ever when people - and AI - are searching across multiple sources.
That's where GEO, or Generative Engine Optimization, enters the conversation. You may also hear terms like AI search optimization, AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) or LLMO (Large Language Model Optimization). The terminology is still evolving, but the underlying idea is fairly simple: make your information clear, current, connected and understandable
For K-12, that shouldn't mean trying to “game” AI. It's about making sure the information you publish works for people first - and is organized well enough for the systems helping them find answers to understand it too.
Integration Doesn't Have to Mean Giving Up Control
The model below is illustrative, not a description of one specific product - most K-12 platforms support some version of role-based access, and the structure matters more than the vendor.
Some integrated K-12 platforms do now offer more of the functions programs need - forms, registrations, sign-ups, payments, calendars and other program-specific workflows - within a managed ecosystem. That doesn't eliminate every external platform a program might need, but it can reduce the number of places families and staff have to navigate and districts have to manage.
The key is separating ownership, publishing, editing and approval. A district can own the infrastructure without controlling every piece of content. The people closest to the work can have the access they need, with appropriate roles and permissions. For example, a district might structure access like this:
District Communications/Technology:
Owns platform | Full publishing access
↓
Fine Arts Co-ordinator:
Department editing access | Publishes Fine Arts content
↓
Band Director:
Band editing access | Publishes routine band content
↓
Authorized booster:
Limited access | Submits designated store or payment content for approval/publishing by Band Director
Compare that with:
District website + band external/Google Site + booster store + registration platform + payment platform + sign-up tool + separate calendar.
Both models can give programs real say over their own content. The difference is where that control sits and who's backing it up. In the first, programs build and maintain their own infrastructure, alone. In the second, they get meaningful control inside a system the district can still support, secure and keep compliant.
The goal is a digital environment with fewer unnecessary handoffs, clearer ownership and fewer competing sources of truth.
A Symptom of an Organizational Design Problem?
Google Sites may be a symptom of an organizational design problem rather than a technology problem.
If a band director, athletics department, fine arts program, counseling department or campus team creates its own website because the district's existing web environment doesn't meet their communication or operational needs, the answer probably isn't simply: "Don't use Google Sites." The more useful question is why they didn't have an appropriate, supported place to publish that information in the first place.
If the district's official website is intended to be the accessible, well-maintained and monitored source of truth, but programs still need separate sites to meet legitimate communication or operational needs, that may be a signal that the current model isn't fully serving either side - it may be quietly working against the district's own accessibility strategy, and its privacy, security, information-governance and AI-search goals along with it.
With the April 2027/2028 deadlines approaching, now is a good time to take stock - not wait for an accessibility audit to uncover websites no one realized were part of the district's digital footprint.
The first step may be surprisingly simple: make a list. Start with the count you couldn't easily produce earlier in this piece, then go further: who owns each site, who can edit it, what actually lives there, which one is the authoritative version, and what happens the day the person responsible for it moves on?
The goal isn't to eliminate program autonomy. It's to make sure programs have safe, accessible, well-supported and sustainable ways to do what they need to do - within a digital environment the district can actually stand behind.
That's a harder problem than "get rid of the Google Sites" - but it's the one actually worth solving.
