A new push for outcomes-based contracts in K-12 education argues districts should stop treating edtech like a simple purchase. The piece says educators and vendors must share ownership, tie payments to measurable growth, and reject products without rigorous ev
Walk into a classroom where an intervention is rolled out on good intentions alone. and the logic can feel thin: more screens. more software. more training—without proof it actually lifts learning. The experience is familiar enough that it can become background noise. But the stakes, the author argues, are not.
To illustrate the gap between medicine and education. the piece draws a comparison that lands hard: imagine a children’s medication released to the market without rigorous clinical trials. Without reliable data on proper dosages and modes of administration. doctors would be left to prescribe based solely on a pharmaceutical company’s assurances that the pill “works perfectly well.” In medicine. the author says. strict government and industry safeguards protect children’s health—while education often does the opposite. using classroom interventions with zero evidence of effectiveness.
The argument turns directly to today’s education spending and its results. The piece says K-12 education is fundamentally failing even as spending per pupil increased 140 percent in real dollars since 1975. while reading scores have remained unchanged. It adds that two in three children were not proficient readers 50 years ago and two in three are not proficient readers today.
Against that backdrop. the author says the “answer to stagnating test scores” is not adopting technology that has never demonstrated the ability to move test scores. Educators. the piece argues. must stop rewarding vendors who show up without randomized controlled trials and rigorous validation—because “hope is not a strategy. ” and classroom resources can’t be treated like speculative bets.
What comes next is a procurement prescription with bite: districts should adopt outcome-based contracts (OBCs) that center on building a true partnership between educators and edtech providers. The goal is shared ownership and accountability rather than a one-way transaction where a product is delivered and the results are left behind. In this model, the district side must start by paying attention to the warning signs hidden in sales pitches.
The piece lists four clear signals that districts should steer clear of when considering an edtech offering.
First. it points to an absence of independent research—especially cases where districts have to dig through a vendor’s website to find third-party evidence of effectiveness. When credible research is real and repeatable. the author argues. it should be easy to find; “proven products” are described as putting that evidence in front of customers on the home page.
Second, it warns against demands for massive screentime. The author says research is clear that too much screen time is harmful to students’ development. and frames a specific threshold: products requiring 45 minutes or more of screen time per week are. in effect. confessing they can’t deliver a reasonable return of growth on minutes invested.
Third, the piece flags a lack of positive approvals by state education agencies (SEAs). It says providers need to show that products have been evaluated and recognized by SEAs, including evidence of efficacy and verified impact on student test scores.
Fourth, it calls out failure to provide clear outcomes. Providers, it says, must be transparent about measurable impact from usage and the precise dosage required to deliver that impact.
The human tension beneath those rules is about trust—who is accountable when students don’t improve. The piece argues that right now the system often works like this: vendors take funding and then give nothing back. It insists the time has come to stop operating “like vendors selling buses and books. ” and instead become “true partners in growth creation. ” where educators’ job is not to be software customers but to help students succeed.
That partnership, in turn, is tied to training and implementation. The author argues that monetizing teacher training and other requirements for implementation fidelity is “the ultimate act of self-defeat. ” drawing another comparison back to medicine: would any pharma company ask physicians to pay for the training needed to use a drug effectively?. The point is that in medical settings. major investments go into transferring knowledge because training is essential for treatments to be efficacious.
In this education model. the piece says payment should be linked to growth and that payment should not be demanded for the services that provide the foundation for growth. With that mindset in place. it offers a scenario of reciprocal accountability: providers could truthfully state. “If you use our product with fidelity. we will deliver for your kids. ” while educators respond. “And we will take ownership for implementing the product with high fidelity when equipped with the right training and resources.”.
The piece also insists the relationship has to begin with alignment. From the outset. both educators and edtech providers must commit to clearly defined outcomes—whether the target is guiding students through a third-grade reading gate or closing critical learning gaps in middle school. Once those outcomes are agreed, it says pinning down the metrics that matter becomes “typically easy.”.
It then points to research that matches the skepticism already felt in many districts. The author says recent research has confirmed what educators “have all known”: edtech. while impactful when implemented with fidelity. has not moved the needle significantly. More sharply, the piece says edtech’s widespread use has coincided not only with stagnation but with test score declines. For anyone building software for large-scale deployment. it calls the coincidence “frightening. ” even as it acknowledges the software can matter under the right conditions.
Now the story turns to AI, and the stakes shift. The piece says “yesterday’s edtech” was mostly a non-event. while “today’s (AI)” is different—“massively more capable.” That capability. the author argues. creates a fork in the road: AI will do one of two things. either help students as never before or “rot their brains as never before.”.
To avoid the worse path. the piece calls for a refusal to deploy AI that has never proven its worth in rigorous research. It also says districts shouldn’t allow vendors to give teachers tools that undermine the district’s instructional strategy and defeat coherence. And it argues against business models keyed to charging for training or monetizing student data via advertising.
The end point is a single, sustained demand: shared ownership of what matters—driving student growth—through outcomes-based partnerships, with the highest standards held on both sides. The author frames the job plainly: not manufacturing software, but helping students succeed.
outcomes-based contracts OBC edtech accountability K-12 education teacher training learning outcomes screen time state education agencies AI in education research validation randomized controlled trials