During a recent conversation at School2Home, I found myself returning to a line I’ve said often,
but one that feels especially urgent right now: “If the work is not grounded in a classroom with teachers and students, it’s not going to hit.”
That idea keeps resurfacing as education grapples with big, sometimes conflicting signals: calls
to reduce screen time, cell phone bans, increasing scrutiny of edtech spending, and a growing
push toward outcome-based purchasing. Taken together, these aren’t signs that schools are
“anti-technology.”
They’re signs that leaders are asking for clarity. They’re asking: What is this
technology actually doing for learning, and for whom?
Usage data tells us what was accessed or accomplished in a platform, but not what changed.
Many tools do offer richer metrics around student progress, levels gained, or skills practice. That
data is valuable, but it still reflects performance within a platform. It does not tell us how
instruction evolved, how students applied learning in other contexts, or whether the tool
supported deeper understanding across classrooms and learner groups.
This is a long-standing problem that most educators recognize immediately. Professional
learning rarely adapts over time to match what teachers actually need once a tool meets the
reality of the classroom. An implementation kickoff or training series is delivered, and that
becomes the end of the support story. From there, tools often fall into one of three categories: a
handful of teachers love them, classrooms use them unevenly, or usage quietly drops off.
What’s missing in nearly every scenario is a system for measuring whether the tool is improving
learning and whether it’s doing so equitably across classrooms and student groups. We rarely
apply the same lens to educators: assessing how their understanding, confidence, and
implementation evolve over time, and adapting professional learning to meet those shifting
needs. In other words, we expect adaptive learning for students but design static systems for
adults.
Through my work with schools, districts, and statewide initiatives at CALIE, I’ve seen this
pattern repeat regardless of context or scale. The issue isn’t that educators don’t care about
impact. It’s that we’ve built systems that equate implementation with access and success with
activity. In doing so, we’ve avoided the harder questions about instructional alignment, learner
experience, and real outcomes.
This is where grounding innovation in classrooms matters.
Grounded innovation requires us to broaden how we evaluate edtech. Consider a common
scenario: a district adopts a digital curriculum tool that shows high login rates across schools.
From an IT perspective, the tool appears successful, but a closer look reveals uneven
instructional use, limited impact for multilingual learners, and wide variation in teacher confidence. Without examining classroom practice, student feedback, and evidence of learning,
those disparities remain invisible and unaddressed.
Another scenario plays out in professional learning. A district provides strong initial training at
rollout, but ongoing support is minimal. Teachers who are already comfortable with technology
adapt and experiment. Others struggle quietly or abandon the tool altogether. In some
classrooms, tools are used without a clear understanding of their instructional intent, leading to
practices that can reinforce misconceptions, limit access for certain learners, or even work
against the outcomes the tool was designed to support. Over time, the system unintentionally
rewards early adopters while widening gaps in implementation and student experience. The
data may show activity, but it doesn’t show equity.
What these examples point to is a necessary shift: professional learning must be treated as an
ongoing infrastructure, not a one-time event. If we want technology to deliver on its promises,
we must design support systems that evolve alongside classroom realities. That may mean
investing more deeply in fewer tools, aligning professional learning with instructional goals, and
creating feedback loops that include teacher voice, student experience, and evidence of
learning.
If we want technology to make a meaningful difference for learners today, the work starts with
more intentional investment—not in more tools, but in implementation, impact, and integration.
We can do this while also addressing the technology overwhelm many teachers and students
are experiencing. More screen time does not equal more learning, and it never has. When
education innovation starts with people—teachers, students, and real classroom practice—we
gain clarity about what to keep, what to strengthen, and what to let go. This is the work we are
committed to at CALIE, and we invite educators and leaders to join us in building more focused,
human-centered approaches to educational technology.
When innovation starts with people (teachers, students, and classrooms they inhabit) it
becomes clearer, more human, and more effective. Work grounded in classrooms doesn’t just
land. It lasts.
Rae Fearing
Director of Programs
