As schools continue investing in technology, are we evaluating it with the same rigor we expect of every other educational initiative?

Every Educational Initiative Begins With a Promise

Every educational initiative begins with hope.

A new reading curriculum promises stronger literacy.

A new mathematics program promises higher achievement.

A new behavior framework promises a more positive school climate.

A new instructional strategy promises deeper engagement.

Eventually, every initiative is asked the same question.

Did it work?

If the evidence is positive, we continue investing.

If the results are mixed, we refine our approach.

If the initiative no longer produces the outcomes we expected, we replace it with something better.

Continuous improvement depends on our willingness to evaluate outcomes rather than intentions.

So why should educational technology be any different?

Over the past two decades, schools have invested billions of dollars in laptops, tablets, software licenses, digital curriculum, cloud-based learning platforms, and one-to-one technology initiatives. These investments were intended to expand access, personalize instruction, improve engagement, and prepare students for a technology-driven future.

Technology has unquestionably changed education.

The more important question is whether we are evaluating those changes with the same level of rigor we expect from every other educational investment.

The Evidence Deserves Our Attention

The conversation surrounding educational technology has become more nuanced.

Large-scale research has not concluded that simply placing a device in every student's hands consistently improves academic achievement. Instead, findings suggest outcomes depend on how technology is implemented, the age of students, instructional design, teacher preparation, and whether digital tools genuinely enhance learning rather than replace effective instruction.

At the same time, researchers continue to recognize meaningful benefits.

Technology can increase accessibility for students with disabilities.

It can provide immediate feedback.

It can expand opportunities for collaboration.

It can connect classrooms with information and resources that were once unimaginable.

The evidence is not that technology has failed.

The evidence is that technology, by itself, is not the intervention.

If that is true, then perhaps our focus should shift.

Instead of asking how much technology we can add to classrooms, perhaps we should continually ask whether each technological investment is producing outcomes that justify its financial, instructional, and human costs.

The Hidden Cost of Innovation

Every innovation solves a problem.

Every innovation also creates new responsibilities.

One-to-one devices required device management.

Device management required cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity required monitoring software.

Monitoring software required privacy policies.

Privacy policies required staff training.

Artificial intelligence required entirely new guidance for educators and students.

Digital learning environments required digital citizenship instruction.

Online collaboration required schools to respond to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, impersonation, phishing attempts, AI-generated harassment, and student data privacy concerns.

None of these responsibilities are unreasonable.

They are the natural consequence of creating digital learning environments.

But they are responsibilities nonetheless.

Every technological solution required another solution.

The question is not whether these protections are necessary.

The question is whether we have fully accounted for the complexity they introduce—and whether the educational benefits consistently outweigh those additional responsibilities.

When School Climate Went Digital

Schools have always been responsible for creating safe learning environments.

We supervise hallways.

We build relationships.

We investigate bullying.

We teach students how to resolve conflict.

We work intentionally to create cultures where every student feels safe, respected, and connected.

For decades, those responsibilities focused primarily on physical spaces.

Today's students experience school somewhere else as well.

On school-issued devices.

Inside learning management systems.

Within collaborative documents.

Across digital communication platforms.

School climate no longer exists exclusively inside classrooms and hallways.

Part of it now exists online.

That shift changes the responsibilities placed on educators.

A student experiencing cyberbullying at 10:00 p.m. may arrive at school the next morning unable to focus.

A phishing attack may disrupt instruction across an entire district.

A security incident involving a third-party educational platform may require schools to communicate with families, protect student information, and restore instructional systems.

The environment has changed.

Our understanding of school climate must continue evolving with it.

Missouri's Conversation

Missouri offers an interesting case study.

The state has recently acted to restrict student cell phone use during the school day, citing concerns related to distraction, learning, and student well-being. Lawmakers have also considered proposals to reduce screen time for younger students and encourage more hands-on instruction.

At the same time, many Missouri districts continue investing in one-to-one technology programs and digital learning environments.

These conversations are not necessarily contradictory.

Personal cell phones and instructional technology serve different purposes.

But together they raise an important systems question.

If we are beginning to reconsider how much personal technology belongs in schools, should we also periodically evaluate whether our instructional technology initiatives are producing the outcomes we hoped they would achieve?

Measuring Innovation

Education has never been afraid to evaluate its work.

We analyze curriculum.

We evaluate professional development.

We review assessment systems.

We revise instructional practices.

We retire initiatives that no longer produce meaningful results.

Educational technology should be held to that same standard.

Not because technology is harmful.

But because every educational investment should demonstrate value.

Innovation should never be measured by the number of devices in a classroom.

Innovation should be measured by outcomes.

Are students learning more deeply?

Are teachers spending more time teaching?

Has accessibility improved?

Have relationships grown stronger?

Has school climate improved?

Are schools becoming safer, healthier places to learn?

If the answer is yes, we should continue investing.

If the answer is unclear, we should have the courage to ask why.

What Should Remain Human?

Perhaps the next great innovation in education will not be another application.

Or another platform.

Or another device.

Perhaps it will be remembering that technology is a tool—not the purpose of education.

No software can replace trust.

No algorithm can replace belonging.

No device can replace a teacher who knows a student's strengths, struggles, and potential.

Technology should continue serving learning.

Learning should never become secondary to technology.

The future of education will not be defined by how much technology we adopt.

It will be defined by how wisely we choose to use it.

As educators, policymakers, and communities continue shaping the future of our schools, perhaps one question deserves to guide every new initiative:

If every educational investment is expected to demonstrate meaningful benefits for students, should educational technology be held to a different standard, or the same one?

In pursuit of better outcomes,

Lyndsay LaBrier
Merchant Ship Collective

References

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2024). 2024 National Educational Technology Plan: A call to action for closing the digital access, design, and use divides.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (Various reports). Research on educational technology and one-to-one computing.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (Current ed.). School safety, bullying prevention, and student well-being guidance.

StopBullying.gov. (n.d.). Missouri state laws and policies. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws/missouri

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2023). Protecting our future: Partnering to safeguard K–12 organizations from cyber threats.

Disclosure: The Education Catalyst is an independent publication intended to encourage thoughtful discussion about educational systems, policy, and practice. The opinions, analysis, and conclusions expressed are my own and are informed by publicly available research, policy documents, and professional experience. Artificial intelligence was used as a research, editing, and organizational tool during the development of this publication. All factual claims are intended to be supported by credible sources, and all final editorial decisions remain my own. The purpose of this publication is not to discourage innovation, but to encourage thoughtful evaluation of whether educational initiatives are producing the outcomes they were designed to achieve.