During a session called “Beyond the Sales Pitch: Evaluating EdTech for Efficacy and Equity,” Chief District Office Door Opener Jacob Kantor of the consulting firm JK K-12 Co.; Chief Information Officer Rob Dickson of Wichita Public Schools; Executive Director Julia Fallon of the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA); and Chief Executive Officer Michael Conner of the consulting firm Agile Evolutionary Group laid out a framework for evaluating ed tech through the lenses of efficacy, equity and curriculum alignment.
For districts still feeling the aftershocks of pandemic purchasing, the message was clear: It’s time to move from rapid reaction to intentional adoption.
PURPOSEFUL PROCUREMENT
Kantor opened the discussion with a reflection on how school buying habits have evolved since COVID-19. During the pandemic, districts had unprecedented access to $180 billion in federal relief funds, and many rushed to adopt technology without long-term evaluation.
“School districts were able to buy things in one 30-minute call, and people were doing $500,000 purchase orders,” he said. “That was just the influx of money into the system.”
INTENTIONALITY AND EVIDENCE OVER HYPE
The panelists urged vendors to take time to learn about a district’s culture, demographics and priorities before pitching.
Dickson called “intentionality” his “word of the year,” emphasizing that purchasing decisions should be rooted in evidence and context, not sales pitches. He also noted that vendors must prioritize understanding who today’s students are, and what they specifically need.
“Skills today don’t equal the same skills that I grew up with ... nor should I expect the outcomes of those students to be the same as mine if I give them the same educational experience,” he said. “When you approach us with a solution, I need to find some evidence and research to support what you’re bringing to the table.”
Connor agreed, stating that his guiding questions for any vendor — which he encourages district leaders to ask — are simple: “What do you know about my kids? How is your solution aligned to mitigate any of these insidious gaps that we see in education? How is your project aligned to our objectives and also strategies within our strategic operating plan?”
THE STATE PERSPECTIVE: AI TOPS THE AGENDA
Fallon provided a broader policy lens, citing findings from SETDA’s State EdTech Trends report this year that found AI has overtaken cybersecurity as the top ed-tech priority among states.
“We’re moving from policy to implementation, and that requires intentional use cases, not just curiosity,” she said.
Some districts are already taking steps in that direction. Dickson shared that Wichita Public Schools created its own AI guidelines for staff and students, since Kansas does not yet have a statewide policy. It’s an example, he said, of how local leaders are filling gaps while awaiting broader guidance.
Fallon also pointed to tools like SETDA’s EdTech Quality Indicators and state procurement guide, which help agencies vet products for accessibility, interoperability and instructional alignment. Her advice to states and districts alike was to become “better consumers” of technology by asking harder questions before purchasing.
RELATIONSHIPS OVER RHETORIC
Beyond funding, policy and evidence, all panelists agreed that relationships drive sustainable partnerships more than flashy demos or mass emails.
“You can have the best product out there. You can have the best solution that is going to rectify some of the access gaps that you’re facing or that learning organization might be facing,” Connor said. “Without relationships, even from a partner standpoint to a learning organization standpoint, you won’t get into the district.”
Fallon also noted that district technology leaders are a close-knit community.
“Our tech community is pretty small,” she said. “You should be exploring different ways that you can maximize relationship building, either by joining CoSN if you really want to work with CTOs across the country, or if you want to work with states, like a SETDA.”
Kantor added that the most effective vendors are those that spend their first hour with a district learning about its challenges and only ask for a demo after they’ve listened.
PILOTS THAT PROVE VALUE
When it comes to piloting new tools, the panelists urged a deliberate approach that includes metrics.
Dickson said his district has lengthened its pilot timelines to allow for meaningful evaluation, particularly around emerging AI tools. Strong pilots, he said, clarify the problem being solved, define success metrics in advance, and assess how implementation affects teachers and students over time.
Conner encouraged districts to adopt a research-and-development mindset, testing products in small, controlled environments and comparing outcomes to baseline data.
“Know it’s going to be dynamic, it’s going to be iterative, it’s going to be changing,” he said. “How are you impacting the students? What is the capacity level of the teachers implementing it as well?”
DON’T FORGET THE ‘SMALL FISH’
Another recurring theme was the value of small and rural districts as testing grounds for innovation.
Fallon noted that roughly 60 percent of U.S. districts serve fewer than 200 students, making them ideal for piloting tools and demonstrating measurable, districtwide impact.
“Think about rural and really small communities where you could be having a lot of efficacy and evidence that are coming out, and then it gets extrapolated to those larger districts,” she said. “Everybody wants the big fish, but I’m encouraging you to actually look at the smaller schools and think about working with them in partnership.”
Fallon also highlighted statewide collaborations, such as those in Utah and North Carolina, that pool resources and promote equity through shared infrastructure and broadband expansion. Consortium purchasing models, she said, can help smaller schools access vetted tools at fair prices.
