Districts Reassess Edtech as Pressure Mounts on Proof

districts rethinking – In suburban Chicago, a school district convened parents, teachers, and administrators to question a familiar pattern in education technology: too many tools, too little impact. The effort reflects a broader shift across U.S. districts toward clearer expectatio

On a recent evening in suburban Chicago, parents, teachers, and administrators gathered with a question that has become harder to ignore: what is all this technology actually doing in classrooms?

The conversation wasn’t abstract. It was part of a three-session tech and learning focus group organized by Mary Jane (MJ) Warden. chief technology officer of Community Consolidated School District 15. in conjunction with the Teaching. Learning and Assessments Department. The district serves 11,000 preK-8 students. Over the past several years, it had—like many others—added digital tools. But with budgets tightening and concerns about screen time rising, the district decided it was time to take stock.

The re-examination didn’t start from scratch. Curriculum reviews and tightening budgets after the pandemic were already reshaping procurement. Then the screen time concerns arrived, and they changed the tone of the work. Participants discussed everything from screen time to what district technology use looks like at home. From those conversations came something the district is now using to guide decisions: a “Portrait of a Digital Learner. ” derived from the district’s Portrait of a Graduate.

The goal is to develop clear expectations around what skills students need—and. by extension. which technologies are worth keeping and how technology would be used by students toward positive learning outcomes. Warden described the shift in plain terms: “We’re trying to get much [clearer] about what this is going to address. ” she said. “What do we need students to learn, and which tools will help us understand where they are?”.

Across the country, that same reckoning is taking shape quietly, but with real consequences. After years of rapid expansion, district leaders are now entering a more consequential phase: reassessing what stays, what goes, and how decisions are made.

For much of the past decade, edtech procurement often began with the product. A new platform promised to boost engagement or personalize learning. Districts piloted it, added it to an already crowded ecosystem, and moved on.

That approach is no longer sustainable. said Erin Mote. CEO of InnovateEDU. a nonprofit focused on systems change in special education. talent development and data modernization in schools. In March. the State Educational Technology Directors Association released a free EdTech Quality Action Toolkit. meant to help school and state leaders apply common standards when selecting and reviewing products. The toolkit is built around step-by-step guidance for integrating five indicators—safety. evidence. inclusivity. interoperability and usability—into the full lifecycle of edtech decision-making.

Mote said the pressure is changing what districts ask in the first place. “We’re seeing a shift from ‘Does this look cool?’ to ‘Does this work?’” she said. “Districts have less money now; they have to be smarter.”

The end of pandemic-era federal funding has intensified that squeeze. Technology leaders are now expected not only to manage infrastructure and compliance. but also to demonstrate a return on instructional impact—something Mote called return on instructional impact. That shift is showing up in procurement conversations. Instead of starting with vendor demos, many districts are starting with learning needs.

“If you need to improve third-grade reading comprehension, you start there,” Mote said. “Then you ask: Which tool can move that needle?”

The new emphasis on “proof” is also changing the evaluation process itself.

One major change is the move toward tracking actual usage. Platforms like ClassLink and Clever can provide districts detailed analytics on which tools students and teachers are accessing. how often they’re used. and in some cases how much time is spent in each application. District leaders say the data has helped surface “zombie licenses”—products that continue to be renewed despite minimal use.

In Joliet Public Schools in Illinois, technology leaders review usage data each spring alongside feedback from a districtwide technology committee. John Armstrong, chief officer for technology and innovation, said the district uses that information to ask difficult questions. “If we’re not getting usage or we have another product that does it better. we start asking hard questions. ” he said.

But usage alone doesn’t settle the question. Districts weigh cost, redundancy, and alignment with instructional goals. During the pandemic, many schools layered new tools on top of existing ones. Now, leaders say they’re trying to simplify.

Kelly Ronnebeck. associate superintendent for student achievement in East Moline School District 37 in Illinois. described what that means at the classroom level. “We had so many products that teachers were going to four different places to run a lesson,” she said. “We’re trying to get back to a slower, more intentional process.”.

That often leads to replacing multiple standalone tools with a single platform that can do multiple jobs—even when it requires giving up features teachers value. Armstrong acknowledged the tradeoff: “It’s not always a perfect swap,” he said. “Someone gives up something.”

Interoperability and data privacy are now central to those decisions, too. Tools have to integrate with existing systems like learning management platforms and single sign-on tools. Vendors also have to be willing to sign increasingly stringent data privacy agreements.

“If a company can’t meet those requirements, that’s a red flag right away,” said Phil Hintz, CTO of Niles Township District 219 in Illinois.

Even with better metrics and tighter standards, proving whether edtech improves learning remains stubbornly difficult.

“It’s such a huge challenge,” said Naomi Hupert, director of the Center for Children & Technology at the Education Development Center. “We see so much that doesn’t seem to make a difference but costs a lot of money.”

Part of the problem is that “edtech” covers everything from learning management systems to specialized math platforms to communication tools. Different categories have different goals, users, and measures of success.

Hupert compared the problem to a familiar consumer question. “It’s like asking whether ‘books’ work,” she said. “It depends on the book, the context and how it’s used.”

District leaders often have to piece together evidence from multiple sources: vendor-provided analytics, small pilot studies, teacher feedback, and, occasionally, external research. But those data points don’t always line up.

Jason Schmidt, director of technology in Oshkosh Area School District in Wisconsin, described his approach as “trust but verify.” He said he knows vendors collect data and still needs to talk to teachers to understand how a tool is actually being used.

Even then, outcomes can vary by group of students. A platform might show strong engagement overall while failing to support certain groups—or the reverse.

In Alexandria City Public Schools in Virginia, leaders are developing a formal framework to evaluate both edtech and nontech programs. CIO Emily Dillard said defining “value” has been complex. “It’s not just usage and cost,” she said. In a district with a high number of English learners. some tools play a critical role for students who need targeted or specialized support.

“You might have a tool that isn’t working for most students — or takes time to show results — but for a small group, it’s the best thing we have. We have to think about what’s best for them, too,” Dillard said.

As districts confront those tradeoffs, a coalition of organizations is trying to bring more clarity to the edtech marketplace.

Through the Edtech Quality Collaborative. 1EdTech. CAST. CoSN. Digital Promise. InnovateEDU. ISTE. and SETDA are developing a shared framework built around five indicators: safety. evidence. inclusivity. interoperability and usability. Korah Wiley, senior director of edtech R&D at Digital Promise, said the initiative is meant to reduce noise.

“Right now, there are a lot of certifications and labels, and it’s hard for districts to know what to trust,” Wiley said. “We want to brighten the signal of what quality looks like.”

The initiative includes a planned directory of vetted validators, an implementation guide for districts, and a central hub to connect educators with high-quality tools. Leaders hope it will help districts make decisions more confidently and push developers to meet clearer standards.

Mote said “This is the cost of doing business in education,” adding that if companies want to be in classrooms, they need to build evidence and demonstrate impact.

But the hardest part of reassessment often comes after all the measurement work—when districts decide to cut or phase out a tool.

Those choices can affect classroom routines, teacher preferences, and even student outcomes. They rarely feel straightforward, Warden said.

In some cases, tools are phased out because of cost or low usage. In other cases, they are replaced by more comprehensive platforms. Sometimes, they no longer align with district priorities.

Even when the rationale is clear, transitions can be difficult. “Teachers build practices around these tools,” Warden said. “We have to be thoughtful about how we support them through change.”

Districts are increasingly pairing those decisions with professional development, clearer communication, and sometimes community engagement. In Warden’s district. the focus groups that helped define the “Portrait of a Digital Learner” are also shaping how the district explains its choices to families.

“We want to be transparent about what we’re using and why,” she said.

For District 15 and others like it, the push for a more intentional edtech future is less about abandoning technology than reshaping how it earns a place.

Many leaders describe the new phase as a reset forcing districts to be more deliberate about how technology fits into teaching and learning. That includes pushing back on broader narratives that treat all screen time as equal.

“There’s a big difference between passive consumption and purposeful edtech and we need to be clear about this,” Mote said.

Without alignment between technology decisions and instructional goals, even high-performing tools can fall short. CoSN CEO Keith Krueger said the alignment is the hinge point. “If you don’t know what you want teaching and learning to look like. it’s very hard to decide what tools you need. ” he said.

Back in District 15, Warden and colleagues are using the focus group work to build that alignment—informing not just which tools they keep, but how the district defines success.

“We’re still digging out from COVID, when we had to move fast and add a lot. Now we have an opportunity to be more strategic,” Warden said.

For district leaders across the country, the shift may be the most important change of all: not the number of tools schools use, but how thoughtfully they choose them.

edtech school districts digital learner screen time instructional impact ClassLink Clever procurement interoperability data privacy EdTech Quality Action Toolkit Edtech Quality Collaborative Digital Promise InnovateEDU CoSN SETDA Teaching Learning and Assessments Department Portrait of a Graduate