U.S. Department of Education: Ed Tech Must Prove Its Value

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is urging schools to take a more deliberate approach to education technology, saying the central question should be whether the tools districts use truly improve teaching and learning.Written by Kirsten Baesler, assistant secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Aug. 20 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) acknowledged growing concerns about excessive screen exposure while drawing a distinction between recreational technology and tools used for the purpose of education, conveying that ed tech should be judged by its instructional value, not by screen time alone.“The question before education leaders is not whether technology can support learning, but whether individual tools are selected, implemented and evaluated in ways that advance specific education goals,” Baesler wrote.

ED TECH VS. SCREEN TIME

The guidance did not dismiss worries about how much time students spend on screens, but claimed that those concerns require a siloing between recreational technology use — e.g., scrolling Instagram, watching television at home, playing noneducational video games — and educational technology that is purposefully integrated into instruction.“These concerns deserve thoughtful consideration. They also require careful distinction,” Baesler wrote. “Recreational technology and education technology should not be viewed as synonymous.”In the DCL, Baesler explained how technology has strengthened teaching and expanded educational opportunity, particularly when it is tied to clear instructional goals and implemented effectively. She pointed to examples where technology has served to improve learning, such as connecting rural students to advanced coursework, helping students with disabilities access curriculum through assistive technology, and providing both educators and families with timely information about student progress.Jean-Claude Brizard, president and CEO of the nonprofit Digital Promise, welcomed that distinction, particularly amid growing criticism of technology use in schools.“There’s been so much vitriol and so many things happening when it comes to education technology,” Brizard said. “I always get nervous whenever I see noneducators try to dictate what educators should be doing.”Sara Schapiro, executive director of the nonprofit Alliance for Learning Innovation, similarly said the ED’s distinction between recreational and instructional technology was important, but she also noted that the guidance rightfully does not reject concerns about excessive screen use.“If it’s not mapped to clear instructional goals, then it doesn’t have a use in the classroom,” she said.

PROVING ED TECH WORKS

The recommendations also set a higher bar for determining which tools belong in classrooms in the first place. In the department’s letter, Baesler said ed-tech investments should be guided primarily by evidence of efficacy, alongside considerations such as accessibility, interoperability, cost and a district’s ability to implement a product effectively.In a news release accompanying the DCL, the department distilled that approach into five questions it said every education technology product should be able to answer: What learning problem does it solve? When should it be used? For whom should it be used? For how long should it be used? And what evidence demonstrates that it improves student learning?Baesler urged schools to look beyond vendor claims and consider evidence such as third-party evaluations, randomized controlled trials, parent feedback and local outcome data when making decisions about products. The letter also called on ed-tech companies topublish independent evaluations when feasible, provide implementation guidance, and be transparent about product quality and efficacy.“Responsible design is the floor … but it does not by itself ensure educational value,” Baesler wrote. “Not only do we need to know if the tool works, but if it works; why does it work, for whom does it work, and under what conditions.”

WHAT DISTRICTS AND VENDORS SHOULD DO

Moreover, the guidance framed responsible ed-tech use as a shared responsibility across states, districts, educators, families, researchers and technology providers.For districts, selecting a product with evidence behind it is only the beginning. The guidance calls for schools to continually assess whether technology is producing its intended results, while providers are expected to refine their products based on evidence and feedback.According to Brizard, the recommendations themselves are realistic, but putting them into practice will require districts and states to build structures for continuously evaluating whether the technology they use is effective.“The real implementation is going to be the challenge,” he said.That responsibility extends to how districts work with ed-tech vendors. While the DCL calls on providers to produce evidence of effectiveness, share implementation guidance, and be transparent about their products’ capabilities and limitations, Brizard argued that districts can also use their purchasing power to push companies toward stronger standards.“You can’t always rely on the altruism of a company,” he said. “What drives market is customers. … If the customer demands certain things, it’s going to happen.”Schapiro said the guidance’s impact will likely vary across districts, but state education agencies may play an important role in determining how widely its recommendations influence local decision-making.“I spent a lot of my career working directly with districts, and I think it’s going to run the gamut because some districts will be fully tapped into what is happening in sort of the screen time, ed tech, AI debates, and other districts will, you know, be trucking along,” she said.State education agencies, she added, are likely to pay close attention to the federal recommendations and bring them into conversations with state lawmakers.“But states will be reading this closely, and I think that will then affect the way districts are doing business,” Schapiro said.
PolicyEducationDigital TransformationK-12

Source: www.govtech.com