How to Improve Procurement Agreements With Edtech Vendors

After spending the last leg of my teaching journey in the middle school technology classroom as a curriculum writer and then as a district-level K–12 edtech specialist, I knew something wasn’t quite adding up. A couple of decades into critics saying that “tech is not a pedagogy” and “stop throwing tech at the problem,” the only major shift was the amount of school funding we were pouring down the drain with solutions that, well, weren’t solving anything.

It wasn’t that the products themselves were bad. In fact, some had the potential to make a real difference in closing gaps that Tier 1 instruction often leaves, in an effort to keep up with the almighty curriculum pacing calendar. That potential, however, was—and is—undercut by the lack of a cohesive plan for implementation. While pockets of teachers do experience success after the usual back-to-school program professional development or “train-the-trainer” campus refreshers, most teachers are trying to get by with far too little training and ongoing support, especially in areas like dosage, data interpretation, and a districtwide implementation plan.

An EdTech Educator’s Experience

My first experience with the concept of outcomes-based contracting (OBC) unleashed a string of aha! moments and hallelujahs. I was part of a district learning cohort at the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting, where I learned that OBC is a model that ties at least 40 percent of the vendor payment to predetermined, mutually agreed-upon outcomes.

This means that instead of buying seats that often go unused because of a lack of teacher training or integration plans, both a district team and a vendor team come together before a contract is signed to define goals and build out a collaborative plan for how to realize those goals. Until my own cohort experience, I knew that an implementation plan was the thing missing in most intervention programs. But never in a million years had I considered procurement as what the Center for OBC director, Jasmine Walker, calls it, “a lever for student success.”

At that time in 2023, the concept of outcomes-based contracting was still fairly new in the K–12 space, and our chosen vendor was skeptical about how it all would work from a business standpoint. But as they saw the opportunity to gather data on their program in real-world, best-use scenarios—with students being impacted in clear and measurable ways—they agreed. Fast-forward a year and a half, and not only have they come aboard, but other K–12 providers have also become OBC believers.

Vendors and Districts Working as Partners

A strong partnership is what makes the difference for students. Resources like Standards of Excellence for Outcomes Based Contracting, yearlong learning cohorts, or annual conferences prepare stakeholders to partner and collaborate through better contracts that are focused on student outcomes.

Outcomes-based contracts aren’t procurement agreements where strapped-for-funds districts buy licenses, or “seats,” for every student in a grade band. These contracts are finely crafted tools for success that define everything from dosage—time spent using a product and the expected learning outcomes for that time—to how data is delivered so that it can be easily interpreted by building-level leaders, teachers, and interventionists.

Because districts and vendors work together to get the best possible results from the purchased edtech and tutoring products, everyone wins, especially students. Even without the learning cohort experience, district leaders can use exemplar contracts from free and open resources to update years-old procurement language to develop more collaborative partnerships with vendors.

What This Means for District and State Leaders

The big shift with OBCs is that instead of paying based on hours delivered or log-ins tracked, districts pay based on whether students actually make progress. Districts want student success as a return on investment. K–12 service providers want to make an impact and grow their businesses. OBCs provide a path forward on both sides. In fact, a recent research brief from Stanford’s Systems Change Advancing Learning and Equity initiative shows that outcomes-based contracting is indeed driving a more efficient use of public funding to drive student success.

If you are thinking (as I did), “Why would companies want to do the extra work when they can just drop off a product and return when it’s time for renewal?” you’ll be pleasantly surprised to learn that vendors are intrigued, even invested, in the model, finding that it works to their advantage.

John Sipe, executive vice president of sales at Curriculum Associates, says, “It’s also really good business because when students grow, districts are going to want to work with you.” This means that as districts and states increasingly advocate for better contract conditions, they can expect service providers to want to get on board and partner under outcomes-based contracts.

These types of student-centered partnerships are gaining national attention, and they have been used to rethink professional development on tutoring, edtech, and curriculum implementation in places like California, Florida, and Arkansas. Successes in large districts like Uplift Education in Texas, and Duval County and Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida, show that OBC partnerships are already delivering results. Finally, outcomes-based contracting in education is even making legislative headway. In Texas, a recently enacted House bill will ensure that the model has the potential to drive success for students in some of the largest public school systems in the nation.

How You Can Get Started

As stated earlier, there are several fair-use and open-source templates and guides online that can give you a quick overview of OBCs. If you’re a district leader, start by identifying a priority area where implementation gaps are common. Then, talk with your edtech or tutoring companies about shared goals and how success will be measured. Maybe it won’t be for all your students at first, but by zooming in on high-needs populations, as determined by your district priorities, you can begin the shift.

In short, by clearly defining the population, outcomes, and metrics; tying payments to outcomes; and working together to continuously improve implementation based on data, districts can change the way contracts are built. From there, with all stakeholders focused on student outcomes rather than seats bought or minutes logged, districts and providers can move from transactional service delivery to true partnerships that drive student growth.

For too long, the process of procurement has been separated from instructional practice. By marrying the two through outcomes-based procurement, contracts become living tools for instructional improvement.