After years of rapid adoption, school districts nationwide are entering a new phase with educational technology (edtech): a critical reassessment of existing tools. Driven by tightening budgets, rising screen time concerns, and a demand for demonstrable results, leaders are shifting from simply buying tools to proving their value.
The Shift From Volume to Value
For much of the last decade, edtech procurement often prioritized novelty over necessity. Districts would pilot new platforms promising engagement or personalization, adding them to already crowded ecosystems with little long-term evaluation. This approach is unsustainable, especially as pandemic-era federal funding dries up. Districts now face pressure to justify every technology investment by showing a clear return on instructional impact.
The key change is a move toward need-based procurement. Rather than starting with vendor demos, districts are now identifying specific learning gaps and then searching for tools that can address them. As Erin Mote, CEO of InnovateEDU, explains, the question has shifted from “Does this look cool?” to “Does this work?”
Tracking Usage and Eliminating Waste
To assess value, districts are leveraging detailed analytics provided by platforms like ClassLink and Clever, which track tool usage by students and teachers. This data is uncovering “zombie licenses”—subscriptions being renewed despite minimal use.
Districts like Joliet Public Schools in Illinois review usage data annually, alongside feedback from a technology committee. If a tool isn’t being used, or if a better alternative exists, leaders are asking hard questions.
However, usage alone isn’t enough. Districts are also weighing cost, redundancy, and alignment with instructional goals. Many schools overlayered new tools during the pandemic, creating fragmented workflows. The priority now is simplification: replacing multiple standalone tools with integrated platforms, even if it means sacrificing some niche features.
The Difficulty of Measuring Impact
Determining whether edtech actually improves learning remains a major challenge. The field is too broad—spanning learning management systems, specialized math platforms, and communication tools—with varying goals and metrics.
As Naomi Hupert of the Education Development Center points out, it’s like asking if “books” work. The answer depends on the specific book, the context, and how it’s used. Districts must piece together data from vendors, pilot studies, teacher feedback, and external research, which often don’t align perfectly.
Jason Schmidt of Oshkosh Area School District describes his approach as “trust but verify,” emphasizing the need for direct teacher input alongside vendor analytics. Even then, results can be uneven; a tool may engage some students but not others.
Toward a Quality Framework
To address these challenges, a coalition of organizations—including 1EdTech, Digital Promise, and CoSN—is developing a shared quality framework built around five indicators: safety, evidence, inclusivity, interoperability, and usability. The goal is to reduce confusion and help districts make informed decisions. The initiative includes a planned directory of vetted validators and a central hub for educators seeking high-quality tools.
The Hard Choices Ahead
The most difficult part of reassessment is often letting tools go. Those decisions can disrupt classroom routines, teacher preferences, and even student outcomes. Districts are pairing these choices with professional development, clear communication, and community engagement to minimize disruption.
The future of edtech will be defined not by the number of tools used but by how thoughtfully they are chosen. Districts are moving toward a more intentional approach, aligning technology decisions with clear instructional goals and pushing vendors to demonstrate measurable impact.
This shift is not just about cutting costs; it’s about ensuring that edtech truly serves students and teachers, rather than simply adding another layer of complexity to the classroom.
