Over the last two decades, school districts have been inundated with edtech tools promising transformation. Fueled by federal stimulus dollars, districts acquired more tools than they could realistically evaluate, implement, and sustain.
Now, edtech is facing a reckoning—and it’s overdue.
District leaders face tighter budgets and pressure to focus resources where they matter most. Families and educators are asking tougher questions about whether technology is enhancing learning or distracting from it.
This pressure is shifting the conversation from “What can this tool do?” to “Is this tool actually helping us achieve our goals?”
I spent more than 20 years as a teacher, principal, and school system leader. In schools, accountability is unavoidable. Educators are expected to show growth, respond to data, and continuously improve outcomes for students.
When I moved into the edtech world, I was surprised by how disconnected many vendor relationships were from that level of accountability. Procurement generally focuses on purchasing access rather than ensuring impact. A district buys a platform, teachers receive training, and everyone hopes usage translates into results. Too often, it does not.
Rise of outcomes-based contracting
The most promising solution is outcomes-based contracting. In this model, districts and providers work together to define measurable goals and share responsibility for achieving them.
According to the Center for Outcomes-Based Contracting, at least 40% of the payment to the provider should be contingent on achieving specific outcomes, such as individual student growth or absolute performance on key academic measures. In return, districts make specific commitments like professional learning for teachers and regular product usage.
Outcomes-based approaches force districts and providers to have candid conversations about expectations, evidence, and implementation from the beginning.
They also highlight an important reality: educational technology rarely succeeds or fails based solely on the quality of the product itself. Strong implementation, including professional learning, alignment with district priorities, and ongoing support are often just as important.
When both sides are accountable, conversations change. Data becomes a tool for improvement. Challenges surface earlier, and adjustments happen faster.
A well-known but often-overlooked fact is that usage of most edtech products is notoriously low. In most traditional contracts, vendors get paid regardless of teacher or student usage—in fact, low usage might even save providers money because they do not need to pay for the marginal AI, data, or server costs.
In an outcomes-based contract, when usage is low, the provider has a big incentive to figure out why and to address the underlying reasons.
Most products are designed to work in ideal circumstances, which rarely exist in the real world. Educators are constantly balancing competing priorities and limited time.
When you care whether your product gets used, you need to build something that fits into this messy reality and is not another “extra.” To do this, you have to engage directly with students and teachers to understand what makes a product easy and desirable to use.
And an outcomes-based contract takes it one step further. While usage is the first step, impact is now the goal.
When interim academic measures are off-track, both districts and providers dive into the data. Why is the product working for some students but not others?
What is different about the way outlier schools or teachers are implementing the product? Providers are motivated to innovate and improve their product or implementation support quickly to turn the tide on concerning data before it’s too late.
If a company truly has student outcomes as its goal, accountability is essential.
The complexity of making it work
That doesn’t mean everything we care about can be measured. While outcomes are critically important, districts should vet and choose tools based also on how well they align with the district’s vision and values for the kind of student and teacher experience they believe in.
Quantitative measures should exist alongside qualitative measures and observations of tools in action. Outcomes-based contracts can also include student and teacher survey results or leader observations of the instructional experience.
Especially in the age of AI, we need to consider whether students are actively working together to develop their thinking and engage in meaningful discourse. We also need to consider the rigor of learning experiences and the thinking students are asked to do with any tool.
Outcomes-based contracts also require breaking down silos in district decision-making. At a recent discussion at the ASU+GSV Summit, Jasmine Walker of the Center for Outcomes-Based Contracting described how these agreements often force districts to build cross-functional collaboration between curriculum, procurement, finance, and school leadership teams.
None of these changes are easy, but they are worth it.
The future of edtech should not be dominated by AI hype and vague assurances. School districts need strong implementation, evidence, coherence – and partners willing to share responsibility for results.
The image above was created with AI.
