Superintendents who want to hold edtech vendors more accountable for improving student outcomes are shifting to a new purchasing model: outcomes-based contracting.
Districts have traditionally bought student licenses upfront. Under outcomes-based contracting, vendors are paid when their products help districts meet performance goals, panelists told attendees of the International Society for Technology in Education earlier this month. This is crucial for superintendents who are now operating with smaller budgets after the expiration of ESSER funds in January 2025.
However, we’re witnessing widespread community backlash against technology in the classroom, especially in the young grades. During the height of the pandemic, more than 70% of teachers said students were assigned a personal device, according to 2024 research from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization.
Now, amid concerns of declining mental health and social isolation, some parents want more agency over how much technology their children use at school. Last month, the Los Angeles Unified School District became the first major school system to enact strict screentime restrictions for younger students.
On the opposite end of the debate, educators remain optimistic about edtech’s role in instruction. Their argument: thoughtful screentime is better than an outright ban.
During a recent webinar hosted by the Consortium for School Networking, Beth Holland, managing director of research and policy at FullScale, noted that not all screentime is the same. For example, there are differences between edtech and big tech, and active and passive screentime.
Edtech has an educational purpose that aligns with a district’s curriculum, whereas big tech—such as social media—is designed for broad, commercial use and advertising.
The case for outcomes-based contracting.
Arkadelphia Public Schools is tracking the performance of its outcomes-based contract with Forward Arkansas, which recently launched the state’s “first outcomes-based contracting cohort” focused on high-impact tutoring, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Under the model, at least 40% of a tutoring firm’s overall payment relies on meeting student performance targets, the news outlet reports. So far, its impact “has been tremendous,” elementary Principal Mary Snowden told Arkansas Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Forward Arkansas officials at a gathering celebrating the program’s success.
Roughly 55% of elementary students were well below benchmark levels on a national literacy assessment at the beginning of the 2025-16 school year. That figure is now 49%, according to Jeanette Turner, district director of curriculum and instruction.
In a November letter to the editor of the Odessa American, former Ector County ISD superintendent Scott Muri argued that the shift to outcomes-based contracting is “long overdue.”
At Ector County ISD, Muri launched virtual tutoring for 40 middle school students.
After significant improvement, the district was invited by Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research to join its outcomes-based contracting pilot. The district later scaled its tutoring program to 6,000 students. “But what most people miss about outcomes-based contracting is that the goal isn’t to serve more students forever—it’s to serve them so well that they no longer need us,” Muri wrote.
By year two, participation dropped to 4,500 because students had reached their goals and moved on.
“An outcomes-based contract builds fidelity through shared accountability,” Muri concluded. “It doesn’t just hold vendors accountable; it creates a framework that keeps everyone focused on what matters most.”
