Schools Across America Spend Millions on EdTech Amid Pandemic without Concrete Evidence of Effectiveness
Amid the influx of federal pandemic relief funds to schools across the United States, educational technology (EdTech) companies seized the opportunity to pitch their software and services to eager school districts. With promises of enhanced learning experiences and no financial burden on already stretched budgets, tech companies capitalized on the situation. An analysis of public records conducted by the Associated Press (AP) reveals that many of the largest school systems in the country spent hefty sums, totaling tens of millions of dollars, on EdTech software and services. However, there is little to no evidence that these programs actually benefited students, with some software being hardly used at all.
The true extent of the spending remains unknown due to the absence of reporting requirements for individual purchases. While Congress allocated a record $190 billion to schools, they did not mandate public disclosure of specific expenditures. The AP requested contracts funded by federal pandemic aid from the nation’s 30 largest school districts. About half of them provided records revealing substantial investment in various EdTech software and technology, commonly referred to as edtech. However, other districts either did not respond or demanded significant fees to produce the requested records.
One prominent example is the Clark County School District in Nevada, which signed contracts worth at least $70 million over two years with 12 EdTech consultants and companies. These contracts include Achieve3000 for a suite of learning apps, Age of Learning for math and reading acceleration, Paper for virtual tutoring, and Renaissance Learning for learning apps like Freckle and MyON.
The demand for EdTech skyrocketed as schools shifted to remote learning during the pandemic, leading to a boom for tech companies in terms of revenue and investments. Simultaneously, advancements in marketing technology made it easier for these companies to capture the attention of school officials. Chris Ryan, a former EdTech professional, commented on the situation, stating that while some of the tactics used by companies might be considered predatory, schools were actively seeking solutions, making them susceptible to such pitches.
School districts, such as Nekoosa in Wisconsin, were inundated with calls and emails from eager EdTech vendors. Lynn Knight, the business manager for Nekoosa’s school office, noted the relentless pursuit, saying, It’s unbelievable how many calls we got. While these interactions might seem initially promising, the lack of evidence and research within the EdTech industry raises concerns.
Bart Epstein, the founder of the nonprofit organization EdTech Evidence Exchange, highlights the issue of funding being distributed based on marketing and relationships rather than merit and evidence. He argues that many companies sold products worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, even though they could see that they were rarely being used.
Moreover, a study conducted by international researchers from Harvard, Norway, and Germany revealed that EdTech, in general, has failed to live up to its potential. With minimal regulation, companies have little incentive to prove the effectiveness of their products. The federal government’s intervention in this matter has been limited, with the Education Department encouraging schools to choose technology with a proven track record. However, studies show that the majority of popular EdTech products fall short of even the lowest tier of evidence required.
School districts like Clark County, Louisville in Kentucky, and Prince George’s County in Maryland spent significant sums on EdTech contracts. While some students experienced gains using specific apps, others failed to engage with the software. Results varied across districts, leading some to reconsider their investments while others look to expand the usage of successful programs.
Even before the pandemic, schools struggled to effectively manage technology, with many educational software licenses remaining unused. In light of this, experts urge a focus on direct instruction with students, acknowledging that technology alone cannot guarantee positive outcomes in education.
As schools near the end of their pandemic aid disbursements, the question of whether these investments truly paid off remains unanswered. The lack of concrete evidence backing the effectiveness of EdTech programs highlights the need for greater regulation and oversight in this burgeoning industry, ensuring that future spending is based on merit and proven success rather than marketing tactics. As the dust settles, schools are left to evaluate the impact of their EdTech expenditures and determine the best path forward in leveraging technology for educational purposes.
