$5.6B
Technology product mismanagement can cost districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. This large amount of waste stems from four key factors:
- Lack of effective teacher training on existing technology products
- Poor communication between district-level technology administrators about available technology products, which can lead to overlapping purchases or subscriptions to the same product across schools within the district
- Technology purchases incompatible with existing district infrastructure
- Unclear expectations for who evaluates, manages, and purchases technology products
This report profiles and compares technology product management models from districts with a record of superior technology performance (e.g., two profiled districts won awards for technology innovation) to explore how these districts address the above four factors.
Centralize technology product management
Centralization can help administrators align technology purchases with district infrastructure and priorities and to prevent redundant purchases. Centralization, however, can also stifle experimentation and technology innovation.
Technology product management model archetypes
- District technology administrators control all technology funding (i.e., schools do not have technology budgets).
- District technology staff research, procure, and manage technology products for all schools (i.e., no school-level technology differentiation).
- School-level administrators and teachers have no or little say in the technology products they want to use.
Drawback: Complete centralization can discourage technological innovation and cause potential teacher pushback if administrators force teachers to use technology that teachers find useless.
- District technology administrators control little to no funds for technology purchases.
- School-level staff research, procure, and manage all products in use at their school. While individual schools may implement technology products consistently across classrooms, there is significant variation between schools in the district.
- School-level administrators and teachers are the primary decision makers for what technology products teachers use.
Drawback: Complete decentralization can lead to gross inefficiencies such as wasted funds on incompatible technology products and exorbitant amounts of time spent by teachers, parents, and students learning how to sign-in and use a multitude of technology products.
Administrators at all profiled districts pursue a centralized approach to technology product management. Central, district-level administrators all oversee technology product adoption (e.g., funding, approval) to some extent. Contacts at profiled districts report that this approach ensures that schools do not implement technology products that contradict district priorities. However, the degree of centralization varies significantly across profiled districts.
For example, district administrators at District B chose an almost completely centralized approach to minimize redundant technology purchases while administrators at District D diffuse some technology purchasing and implementation power to individual schools to encourage school-level technology innovation.
Rely on one or two district-wide learning management systems (LMSs)
Administrators at all profiled districts rely on one or more central, district-wide LMSs. Contacts report that districtwide LMSs allow administrators to distribute standardized online lessons and digital textbooks to teachers at all schools, increase district technology staff’s ability to support the LMS (i.e., address teacher concerns or technical questions), and house district-wide teacher and staff professional development modules.
Standardize the review process for new and existing technology products
To move toward a more centralized technology product management model, administrators should develop a district-level technology approval process to track all technology products in use at the district.
To maximize the likelihood that adopted technologies align with district priorities, implement a holistic technical and curricular review process.
District administrators who wish to provide more school-level flexibility (e.g., administrators at District D) should—at minimum—implement a technical checklist for all new technology products to ensure compatibility with districtwide infrastructure (e.g., network, 1:1 devices). District administrators who wish to ensure technology products promote student learning and align with the district’s curriculum (e.g., administrators at District B) implement a curricular alignment review process alongside a technical review process.
Districts can improve mapping technology products to curricular standards
No profiled district explicitly maps technology products to curricular standards, nor automates the assignment of technology products to address student skill gaps. Some profiled districts have made progress toward these goals. For example, administrators at District C employ the software Atlas, which integrates with the district’s LMS (Canvas) to map specific units, assessments, and lessons to the curricular standards they address.
Profiled districts that prioritize aligning district curricular standards to technology products to address student skill gaps require teachers to act as intermediaries between the data identifying a skill gap on a specific curricular standard and the appropriate technology product or module to address the gap.
Administrators who want to align curriculum standards with technology products to address student skill gaps must accomplish three tasks:
1. Match technology products or learning modules with specific lessons or standards in the district curriculum
2. Measure student skills gaps on specific topics or subjects within the district curriculum
3. Develop a process to assign the technology product or digital content associated with a curricular standard to students with visible gaps in that standard.
This resource requires EAB partnership access to view.
Access the research report
Learn how you can get access to this resource as well as hands-on support from our experts through District Technology Leadership Forum.
Learn More