Education IT Reporter

School districts across the United States are spending billions on education technology. Yet much of that investment never reaches students in any meaningful way.

A recent report from The 74 highlighted a troubling reality: schools frequently pay for digital learning tools that students rarely or never use. The problem isn’t isolated. Studies have found that roughly two-thirds of educational software licenses purchased by schools go unused, representing a staggering amount of wasted spending.

In some districts, the numbers are even more alarming. Research has found that only about 30 percent of edtech licenses are ever activated by students. For education leaders struggling with tight budgets and growing expectations for measurable student progress, the question is obvious: why does this keep happening?

The answer lies not in technology itself, but in how schools buy it.

The EdTech Procurement Problem

Over the past decade, digital learning tools have flooded the education market. Platforms promise personalized learning, real-time analytics, and improved engagement. Districts, often encouraged by vendors and policymakers, have adopted these solutions at a rapid pace.

But adoption does not equal implementation.

In many cases, software purchases are made at the district level without sufficient input from the teachers expected to use the tools. Professional development is limited. Integration with existing systems is inconsistent. And educators, already stretched thin, are left juggling dozens of platforms that compete for attention during limited instructional time.

The result is what some analysts now call “edtech sprawl.” Recent research suggests the average school district now operates thousands of digital tools simultaneously. When everything is a priority, nothing is.

Teachers revert to familiar systems. Students log into platforms once or twice before abandoning them. Districts continue renewing licenses because the procurement cycle is disconnected from classroom reality.

Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill.

A New Model: Pay for Results

The report highlighted by The 74 suggests a different path forward: outcomes-based contracting. Under this model, school districts would no longer pay vendors solely for access to software. Instead, payment would be tied, at least in part, to measurable results such as student engagement, improved learning outcomes, or documented classroom usage.

In simple terms, vendors would only get paid when their tools actually work.

This approach isn’t new in other sectors. Healthcare providers increasingly operate under value-based payment models. Governments use performance-based contracts for infrastructure and public services. Investors rely on similar mechanisms in “pay-for-success” programs.

Education technology, however, has largely avoided this level of accountability. That may be about to change.

Why Outcomes-Based Contracts Could Work

Linking payments to performance would fundamentally change incentives across the edtech ecosystem. First, vendors would have a direct stake in ensuring successful implementation. Instead of simply selling licenses, companies would need to help districts integrate tools into instruction, train teachers effectively, and monitor real-world usage.

Second, school leaders would gain better visibility into what actually works. Today, procurement decisions often rely on marketing claims, anecdotal success stories, or pilot programs that do not scale across an entire district. Outcomes-based contracts would require clearer metrics and more transparent data.

Finally, the model would help districts focus on fewer, higher-impact tools rather than sprawling collections of redundant platforms. That matters more than ever as pandemic-era funding disappears and districts face difficult financial decisions.

Technology Isn’t the Problem

It’s important to note that unused edtech licenses don’t necessarily mean digital tools are ineffective.

In many classrooms, technology is delivering meaningful results—from adaptive learning platforms that help struggling students catch up to collaboration tools that expand access to advanced coursework.

The challenge is not whether technology belongs in education. The challenge is ensuring that schools invest in technology that teachers actually use and students genuinely benefit from.

Too often, implementation fails because the people closest to the classroom are left out of the decision-making process.

A Cultural Shift for EdTech

For outcomes-based contracting to succeed, both schools and vendors will need to rethink how technology partnerships work. District leaders must prioritize teacher input during procurement, clear implementation strategies, and ongoing training and support.

Vendors, meanwhile, must move beyond the traditional sales cycle and become long-term partners in student success. If they do, outcomes-based contracts could mark a turning point for the education technology industry.

From Access to Impact

Education technology has long been measured by adoption — how many devices are deployed, how many platforms are purchased, and how many students have accounts.

But access alone does not improve learning. Impact does.

By tying payments to real-world results, outcomes-based contracting could help ensure that the billions spent on edtech each year translate into something far more valuable: meaningful improvements in how students learn.

And that’s a return on investment every school district should demand.