茄子视频

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Step into any school district today, and you鈥檒l see it: a dizzying maze of educational technology tools. On average, districts access annually. Ed tech providers roll out flashy features, sometimes without clear evidence that they actually improve student learning. And yet, when results fall short, districts are left paying for products that don鈥檛 deliver. 

As districts navigate mounting financial pressures within a shifting K-12 funding landscape, the stakes could not be higher. The opportunity to invest in solutions that deliver outcomes has also never been greater.

The call is simple: Buy what works, build for impact and hold everyone accountable to outcomes. Recent research that EdSolutions conducted on behalf of the revealed critical insights about how to make this happen.

When contracts focus on results over bells and whistles, every dollar stretches further toward meaningful learning gains. The question is no longer 鈥淲hat can this program do?鈥� but 鈥淲hat outcomes will my students achieve as a result?鈥�

This is the moment to move beyond feature checklists and unclear expectations for dosage. Districts and providers alike must embrace outcomes-based contracting, an approach that puts student learning at the center.

It鈥檚 not just about shifting financial incentives; it鈥檚 about ensuring shared accountability for implementation integrity. Every dollar should drive measurable student gains, not just fund another tool. Districts must weigh evidence of effectiveness as heavily as price when assessing value. Providers must clearly define the conditions 鈥� professional learning, supports, and implementation as designed 鈥� required to achieve results and ensure the product price reflects the full cost, including these conditions.

The call is simple: Buy what works, build for impact and hold everyone accountable to outcomes.

In today鈥檚 crowded edtech landscape, district leaders say they want to buy what works. A 2024 EdSolutions survey of 400+ educators shows most rely on evidence tools 鈥� 60% cite EdReports, 47% What Works Clearinghouse, 37% Evidence for ESSA 鈥� when considering options. Yet when it comes to actual purchasing, our analysis of district requests for proposals found price, not evidence, still drives decisions.

Why? Because quality evidence is scarce. Of 14 widely used K-12 math and literacy products we analyzed, only four earned the highest ratings for effectiveness. With limited proof and tight budgets, districts default to comparing features and costs 鈥� $20 vs. $40 鈥� rather than asking which tool actually helps students learn.

Districts need to flip that script and push beyond price by asking: Does the evidence hold up in our context? Are the promised outcomes worth the investment? Providers need to shift the conversation by proving their products deliver results, not just bells and whistles. And funders need to step in to underwrite rigorous, independent studies that give the field the confidence it badly needs.

Buying the right product is just the first step. Without strong implementation support, even the best tools flop. Take a district that invests in a new math platform: It looks affordable on paper, but training is optional, usage is inconsistent and get the required practice Results stall, teachers grow frustrated and the district ends up paying for something that never stood a chance.

The evidence is clear. Researchers from Northwestern University found that when teachers receive even, student gains are dramatically larger than when products are used off the shelf. Yet too many providers treat professional learning and requirements to use as designed as 鈥渆xtras鈥� rather than essentials.

Implementation has real costs: time, resources and training to use tools as designed. Providers should be transparent about these requirements and build them into their pricing and messaging. If a product鈥檚 effectiveness depends on dosage, training or fidelity, those elements aren鈥檛 optional; they鈥檙e part of the product itself.

Outcomes-based contracting transforms the provider-district relationship. By tying payments to student outcomes, districts must commit to implementing as designed, while providers must commit to delivering tools that actually work. Both parties have skin in the game.

The OBC approach sparks the critical conversations that traditional contracts don鈥檛 always surface:

• What outcomes do we expect, and how will we measure them?
• Who is this product designed for, and is that population similar to our target population?
• What implementation steps are non-negotiable and by whom?
• What professional learning and time commitments are required?

Instead of retrofitting products for the wrong contexts, OBC clearly and strategically defines the outcomes and expectations upfront. Instead of hiding implementation requirements in the fine print, OBC makes them explicit and actionable. This goes beyond accountability for outcomes, creating a unique opportunity to improve both product design and teaching practice together by working through real-world usability challenges to achieve the product’s research-backed intent. It’s a win-win.

Budgets are tight, communities want results and funders demand proof. Traditional contracting rewards features and sales; OBC rewards outcomes. It鈥檚 time to flip the script 鈥� and pay for what works.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.