Why Schools and Districts Should Consider True Cost—Not Just Price—When Shopping for EdTech

August 5, 2024

With many school districts still trying to overcome the lingering effects of the pandemic, it’s understandable that leaders are eager to find strategies with proven academic benefits for students. 

But federal relief funds, which have paid for those recovery efforts over the past 3 years, are diminishing, and some states are facing budget deficits in the coming years. District and school administrators will therefore have to make strategic financial decisions to ensure they choose programs that improve student learning while keeping costs in line.    

Recent WestEd research on a supplementary math program offers some useful guidance at a time when leaders are often inundated with sales pitches for the latest edtech product on the market. Specifically, the researchers conducted a study that examines the impact and cost-effectiveness of ASSISTments, an online program that provides students—in this case 7th graders—with instant feedback on their math work and gives teachers real-time data on students’ progress. The cost-effective analysis offers practical tips for evaluating whether the adoption of a new tool or platform is worth the time and effort staff will need to put into it.  

In a sample of 63 schools from 41 North Carolina districts, students who used ASSISTments during 7th grade scored significantly higher on their 8th grade state end-of-grade math tests a year after schools implemented the program than did the comparison group of students whose teachers didn’t use the tool.  

But as the authors wrote, “Overreliance on effectiveness alone may encourage adoption of interventions that are too expensive to sustain with fidelity.” 

WestEd’s Mingyu Feng and Kelly Collins, along with Gary Weiser of the Gates Foundation, estimated that, overall, it cost $207,794.34—or $46.23 per student—on top of business-as-usual expenses to implement the program. 

But cost-effectiveness means more than just how much districts pay for a service. To determine whether an edtech purchase is right for a school, educators and school finance officials should also consider what’s needed to implement it—aspects like teacher training, ongoing support, and reliable technology and internet access.   

In fact, ASSISTments is a free program, and students used existing devices, so there were no hardware costs involved. Instead, districts’ expenses were primarily used for teacher professional development and coaching and, to a lesser extent, facilities.  

In each of the 2 years of the study, for example, the 7th-grade math teachers in the intervention schools participated in 2 days of training. Each received a $400 stipend, with lodging and travel expenses adding up to $250 per teacher. Other expenses included a local coach who met with teachers throughout the year; an ASSISTments staff member to train the coach; and some labor hours of software engineers from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), which developed ASSISTments, to provide ongoing “platform maintenance.” 

However, the authors note that whether a program is cost-effective can vary widely depending on local conditions. Many districts have struggled to fill teacher vacancies, especially in math. Should they invest in professional development for a staff member who might be a long-term substitute? Districts that have used pandemic relief funds to hire instructional coaches could lose those positions when the funding ends. The same goes for one-to-one laptop programs. And in rural areas internet connections can be inconsistent, which is something to consider if students are using the program at home. 

Finally, school leaders should also consider the demands on teachers’ time when they introduce a new tool. Is the planning required to implement the program taking them away from something more important? 

The good news about ASSISTments is that not only was the cost modest but also the results for students were on par with those seen from a high-dosage tutoring program that cost thousands more per student. 

Schools could consider cost-effective strategies to improve student learning, such as optimizing professional development hours or creatively leveraging program resources. Those are options worth exploring when thinking about any new product or service—especially for districts planning for tighter budgets.