The U.S. Department of Education today issued new guidance about educational technology usage in the classroom but left rulemaking to states and school districts.

Edtech should ensure that “technology use is purposeful, instructionally sound, and contributing to measurable student outcomes,” writes Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education Kirsten Baesler in the Dear Colleague Letter. “Responsible design is the floor. 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.”

Industry observers welcomed the guidance, noting that it addresses a growing concern among educators that edtech too often fails to include verifiable evidence around learning outcomes.

“It is heartening to see the Department of Education emphasize that responsible design and product certification is merely the ‘floor,’” says Jean-Claude Brizard, president and chief executive officer of Digital Promise. 

“For too long, successful edtech adoption has sometimes been measured by access, log-ins, or frequency of use,” adds Helen Crompton, executive director for the Research Institute of Digital Innovation in Learning. 

Guidance for States and Districts

The letter encourages states and districts to:

• Distinguish between “recreational” and “instructional” technology

• Evaluate edtech on outcomes and instructional value, not just screen time

• Incorporate evidence of effectiveness into procurement, especially products that have conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

• Establish edtech implementation and outcome reviews

• Support efforts to help educators “integrate technology effectively into instruction”

The department’s guidance praised Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas for “exploring contracting models” that rely more on “performance measures” and less on “product adoption or usage metrics.”

“The key to effectively implementing the guidance is to avoid defining ‘evidence’ too narrowly,” explains Crompton. “Independent evaluation is important, but an RCT is not the only meaningful form of evidence. The same technology can produce very different results depending on the teacher, subject, age group, amount of training, and how it is integrated into instruction.” 

Guidance for Edtech Vendors

Meanwhile, the department encourages edtech providers to:

• Design products that support “high-quality instruction and meaningful student engagement with teacher and parent input”

• Incorporate evidence of effectiveness through independent evaluation and RCTs

• Minimize unnecessary screen exposure while maximizing instructional value in design

• Support educators with implementation resources and professional learning

• Continuously improve products using classroom evidence, parent feedback, and student academic outcomes

“Vendors should view this guidance as both a clear call to raise standards and an invitation to partner with the field in a deeper way,” says Brizard. “Moving beyond basic engagement or usage metrics gives developers a real opportunity to demonstrate meaningful learning outcomes.” 

In addition, states and school districts should expect edtech providers to:

• Publish independent evaluations of student learning outcomes “whenever feasible”

• Share effective classroom practice lessons

• Provide information about product capabilities, limitations, and performance

Screen Time in Focus

The guidance pays special attention to device screen time and draws a distinction between “educational value rather than screen exposure alone.” Noting that edtech increases learning opportunities for rural students, students with disabilities, and home-bound students, Baesler writes that edtech “should not be evaluated solely by the amount of time students spend using it.”

“The guidance rightly shifts the national conversation away from a reductive debate over screen time and puts the focus where it belongs: instructional value, real classroom and school context, and evidence of impact,” Brizard says. 

Adds Crompton, “This distinction is particularly important for rural students, students with disabilities, and others for whom technology may provide access to learning opportunities that would otherwise not be available.”

Laissez-Faire Federal Approach 

Notably, the education department’s guidance declined to offer new rules; instead, it expressly delegated implementation to states and districts – an approach that not everyone agrees with. “I would like to see a national floor, but not necessarily a national ceiling,” Crompton says. “There are some expectations that should not depend on which state a student happens to live in. Student privacy, accessibility, transparency, responsible use of student data, and basic protections around the use of educational technologies are examples where greater national consistency is valuable.”

“When technology rules vary wildly, we inadvertently widen equity gaps — leaving some students prepared for college and modern careers while others fall behind,” adds Brizard. 

Ultimately, schools should start with the learning need and the outcomes when evaluating edtech. “Educators should feel validated in demanding that technology serve their pedagogical goals, not the other way around,” says Brizard.

Read the full guidance.