As districts navigate mounting financial pressures within a shifting K-12 funding landscape, the stakes could not be higher. The opportunity to invest in solutions that deliver outcomes has also never been greater.

The call is simple: Buy what works, build for impact and hold everyone accountable to outcomes. Recent research that EdSolutions conducted on behalf of the revealed critical insights about how to make this happen.

When contracts focus on results over bells and whistles, every dollar stretches further toward meaningful learning gains. The question is no longer 鈥淲hat can this program do?鈥� but 鈥淲hat outcomes will my students achieve as a result?鈥�

This is the moment to move beyond feature checklists and unclear expectations for dosage. Districts and providers alike must embrace outcomes-based contracting, an approach that puts student learning at the center.

It鈥檚 not just about shifting financial incentives; it鈥檚 about ensuring shared accountability for implementation integrity. Every dollar should drive measurable student gains, not just fund another tool. Districts must weigh evidence of effectiveness as heavily as price when assessing value. Providers must clearly define the conditions 鈥� professional learning, supports, and implementation as designed 鈥� required to achieve results and ensure the product price reflects the full cost, including these conditions.

The call is simple: Buy what works, build for impact and hold everyone accountable to outcomes.

In today鈥檚 crowded edtech landscape, district leaders say they want to buy what works. A 2024 EdSolutions survey of 400+ educators shows most rely on evidence tools 鈥� 60% cite EdReports, 47% What Works Clearinghouse, 37% Evidence for ESSA 鈥� when considering options. Yet when it comes to actual purchasing, our analysis of district requests for proposals found price, not evidence, still drives decisions.

Why? Because quality evidence is scarce. Of 14 widely used K-12 math and literacy products we analyzed, only four earned the highest ratings for effectiveness. With limited proof and tight budgets, districts default to comparing features and costs 鈥� $20 vs. $40 鈥� rather than asking which tool actually helps students learn.

Districts need to flip that script and push beyond price by asking: Does the evidence hold up in our context? Are the promised outcomes worth the investment? Providers need to shift the conversation by proving their products deliver results, not just bells and whistles. And funders need to step in to underwrite rigorous, independent studies that give the field the confidence it badly needs.

Buying the right product is just the first step. Without strong implementation support, even the best tools flop. Take a district that invests in a new math platform: It looks affordable on paper, but training is optional, usage is inconsistent and get the required practice Results stall, teachers grow frustrated and the district ends up paying for something that never stood a chance.

The evidence is clear. Researchers from Northwestern University found that when teachers receive even, student gains are dramatically larger than when products are used off the shelf. Yet too many providers treat professional learning and requirements to use as designed as 鈥渆xtras鈥� rather than essentials.

Implementation has real costs: time, resources and training to use tools as designed. Providers should be transparent about these requirements and build them into their pricing and messaging. If a product鈥檚 effectiveness depends on dosage, training or fidelity, those elements aren鈥檛 optional; they鈥檙e part of the product itself.

Outcomes-based contracting transforms the provider-district relationship. By tying payments to student outcomes, districts must commit to implementing as designed, while providers must commit to delivering tools that actually work. Both parties have skin in the game.

The OBC approach sparks the critical conversations that traditional contracts don鈥檛 always surface:

• What outcomes do we expect, and how will we measure them?
• Who is this product designed for, and is that population similar to our target population?
• What implementation steps are non-negotiable and by whom?
• What professional learning and time commitments are required?

Instead of retrofitting products for the wrong contexts, OBC clearly and strategically defines the outcomes and expectations upfront. Instead of hiding implementation requirements in the fine print, OBC makes them explicit and actionable. This goes beyond accountability for outcomes, creating a unique opportunity to improve both product design and teaching practice together by working through real-world usability challenges to achieve the product’s research-backed intent. It’s a win-win.

Budgets are tight, communities want results and funders demand proof. Traditional contracting rewards features and sales; OBC rewards outcomes. It鈥檚 time to flip the script 鈥� and pay for what works.

By , ESSER had made available $40 billion to $60 billion in new government funding to education contractors by 2023, with 40% spent on vendors and the rest on personnel and labor. The amount spent by states and districts to cover COVID contracts could be much higher. Anticipating the end of their ESSER funding, districts such as have moved contracting expenses once covered by federal relief funds onto their general budgets.

With the help of a contract database called , I have been tracking national and regional patterns in what districts paid vendors to do before, during and after the pandemic.

In my forthcoming book, Private Ends, Public Means: Contemporary Dynamics in Educational Privatization, I identify several lessons from this large-scale experiment in federally subsidized education contracts.

First, ESSER-funded vendors helped school districts meet unique conditions but sometimes overlooked equitable access. At one level, vendor contracts supported public schools under emergency conditions in their mission of equal educational opportunity. One example is food service contracts that provided free lunches for pick-up when school cafeterias were closed. Contracts also arguably helped with continuity of instruction, which is another core responsibility of states and districts. Seven out of 10 traditional school districts used ESSER funds to purchase software during the pandemic and 9 out of 10 bought hardware, according to a conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.

These purchases made sense, given the quick pivot to remote learning. However, the pressure to spend quickly and with limited oversight may have contributed to redundancies (too many devices) and issues (wifi hotspots that did not function in areas without broadband or were not strong enough to provide students with stable video and audio). When the next emergency hits schools, public money will presumably once again be up for grabs, particularly for those with the fastest hands. What mistakes were made in areas of educational equity? How can the private sector do better when the next emergency hits?

Second, with physical schools closed, large urban districts spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technology such as iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and software licenses to keep classes in session. Then, they used ESSER funds for repairs, upgrades and parts to keep the devices running. The spending spiked at the outset of the pandemic but still remained higher than pre-pandemic levels once schools reopened. Post-pandemic, vendors are looking for ways to get resource-strapped districts to buy more devices, simply to maintain profit margins. It鈥檚 up to districts to exercise good management by pressing pause and reassessing.

There are at least two ways to approach this. First, districts should reassess whether vendor contracts are based on evidence of impact. During the pandemic, companies with minimal track records increased sales at record pace. For example, one small, relatively unknown business specializing in chat-based tutoring saw its annual revenues explode from less than $100,000 before COVID to nearly $3 million by March 2022. This company signed contracts in nearly half the states and showed little sign of slowing once schools resumed in-person instruction. But the strong evidence base around specifies that services must be delivered in person, not remotely. The bar should never be lowered for public school students when it comes to equal access for quality instruction. 

Third, it’s time to commit to transparency and ensure that the public has the information about and input into vendor contracts 鈥� particularly those addressing learning loss post-pandemic. That may mean reining in the use of noncompetitive bidding that state and local procurement policies allow during emergencies. In cities such as , noncompetitive bidding may have helped questionable vendors get contracts without proper vetting.

It also means requiring potential bidders to provide evidence of impact for high-needs student populations. I have been analyzing school board meetings across disparate regions of the country and found limited opportunities for public comment even on million-dollar purchases. Materials required by state or local law to help the public and school board make informed decisions, such as descriptions of how a digital product or service works, often are missing from the public record. Contracts commit taxpayer resources and are pivotal in shaping the quality of government-funded services. All stakeholders in education have the right to adequate and accurate information in all stages of contracting, from the bid to the contract to the decision on whether to renew. These are principles of to which districts across the country have committed.  

Fourth, account for the hidden costs for families of maintaining or eliminating certain types of vendor contracts. In my conversations with purchasing officers, I keep hearing that connectivity  鈥� which districts made significant investments in during COVID 鈥� is on the chopping block. Further, there are no plans to upgrade or replace older laptops and iPads that were loaned to students. It鈥檚 the lower-income kids whose families will bear these costs. As districts assess which contracts to renew and which to ditch, they must be guided by principles of equitable access to high-quality digital content. Low-income families may not be at the table when ed tech contracts are cut, but they shouldn鈥檛 be expected to absorb costs interpreted narrowly as district savings. 

During the pandemic, districts and states contracted with vendors to meet the unique needs of this emergency. Now that the public health crisis has passed and COVID funds are largely spent, it鈥檚 time for districts to reassess how vendor contracts support public schools in their core mission and to raise the bar for ensuring that purchased services and products directly address widening educational inequalities.

Frequently, districts use a single procurement process and request for proposal/contract documents to purchase everything from goods and supplies, like food and laptops, to instructional services. However, the latter are quite different from durable goods and supplies, which are easily quantified and measured. Determining whether a district got its money鈥檚 worth for instructional services is less straightforward; nationally, districts have in ed tech tools .

, a strategic initiative of the, has offered tailored support, technical assistance and expert guidance to nearly 20 school districts. These resources and hands-on experience empower them to achieve measurable, long-term student outcomes. Under the outcomes-based contracting model, at least 40% of a provider’s pay is contingent on meeting agreed-upon student outcomes. This approach compels mutual accountability between school districts and providers and helps shift districts from buying services to prioritizing buying outcomes, ensuring that dollars spent deliver academic impact.

Two critical features make outcomes-based contracting effective. First, tying financial incentives directly to educational achievements ensures that every dollar invested drives tangible student success. Both the district and the provider have a financial stake in producing the agreed-upon results, with financial repercussions if either side does not uphold its end of the deal.

For example, a charter school network signed a $700,000 contract for high-impact literacy and math tutoring. It was 40% contingent on performance on the NWEA MAP and state assessment results, and the agreement included a midyear assessment to measure student progress. When it was discovered that not all students had taken the midyear assessment, the district and provider had to work together to ensure those students took the test in order to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Outcomes-based contracts include financial incentives tied to measurable student outcomes, like a midyear assessment, to formalize both sides’ commitment to student achievement.  

In addition to the financial incentives, the model requires ongoing commitment and partnership. This begins with presenting the contract to the school board for approval and gaining community buy-in, rolling it out in the district and ensuring all parties are aware of their responsibilities. The contract includes specific requirements, measures and outcomes for each student that districts and providers are required to revisit and continuously check throughout and at the end of the contract period. 

Final payment depends on three critical factors: whether the student met the attendance requirement, whether the provider upheld its responsibilities (such as ensuring students have the same tutor for each session) and whether the student achieved the expected outcomes. During ongoing continuous improvement meetings, the district and provider examine data for each student. If one is not on track for any of the three critical factors, they collaborate to determine how to address this deficit. 

This approach is much more in-depth than a typical contract. Because the final payment is contingent on specific outcomes for individual students, the outcomes-based model forces districts and providers to thoroughly evaluate their performance and adherence to the contract. This thorough review process guarantees that both sides remain focused on student success and accountability.

A great example of this collaborative approach is Jackson Public Schools in Mississippi. The district spent significant time working with principals to schedule high-impact math tutoring sessions to ensure at least 70% of its approximately 800 middle schoolers attended. Throughout the program, Jackson Public Schools monitored attendance and collaborated with the provider to address any challenges. Though attendance fell early in implementation, the district and provider, working together, were ultimately able to maintain an attendance rate of 70%-81% for the duration of the program.  

Districts are not simply committing to meeting a 70% attendance threshold in isolation. Instead, they are engaging in regular, collaborative progress monitoring with their providers. The schedule for evidence-based continuous improvement meetings is established in the contract 鈥� no less than every two weeks. These meetings ensure regular check-ins on progress toward achieving the specific goals articulated in the contract. If any issues arise, the district and provider work together to find solutions.

rl=”/article/under-pilot-program-in-texas-florida-tutoring-fees-depend-on-student-progress/”]

Additionally, this collaborative accountability has demonstrated improved instructional alignment between districts and providers. In the case of Jackson Public Schools, the district noticed some differences between how the provider was teaching the standards and how they were assessed on state exams. As a result, the provider adjusted its instruction and started sharing sample lessons and items ahead of time, allowing the district to give further feedback. The provider found this so valuable that it extended this practice to other partners as well.

These are just a few examples of how outcomes-based contracting directly translates into maximizing the impact of a district鈥檚 investment in instructional support services. It promotes a culture of mutual accountability and collaboration, holds all parties responsible for measurable outcomes through a contractual obligation, encourages efficient use of resources, prevents investments in ineffective solutions and drives meaningful progress in student success. 

Through clear and quantifiable expectations within contracts, districts and providers move from trying to work together, despite other priorities, to being mutually accountable for instructional interventions that lead to student success. District leaders, accountable to the community and students they serve, can work closely with providers to meet shared goals, turning accountability from a concept into a concrete practice. This collaboration drives continuous improvement and helps districts make strategic decisions under increasingly complex resource constraints while staying focused on what matters most: student learning.