School districts are spending billions of dollars on education technology without consulting the teachers who actually use these tools in the classroom. This top-down purchasing model has led to widespread teacher frustration and high-profile software failures. To prevent wasted budgets and administrative headaches, school systems must shift decision-making power back to educators and local communities.
What Happened
The scale of the problem is massive: American schools spent approximately 30 billion dollars on classroom technology in 2024, and that spending is projected to grow rapidly over the next decade. Yet, school leaders are routinely bypassing teachers when signing these expensive contracts. According to an ISTE survey, while 60 percent of K-12 teachers believe they should be the primary decision-makers regarding classroom technology, only 38 percent report being consulted during the procurement process.
This disconnect can have disastrous results. In 2024, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) launched a heavily promoted $6 million artificial intelligence chatbot named "Ed," developed by the vendor AllHere. Within three months of its launch, the vendor collapsed, and the chatbot was pulled from service. The fallout has been severe, culminating in an FBI raid on the home and office of LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho. Following this failure and an effort to limit student screen time, the school board has put all classroom technology contracts under review.
The Bigger Picture
The issues in Los Angeles are not isolated. Higher education faces similar friction, such as when California State University signed an OpenAI contract that caught faculty and students completely off guard. A 2025 survey revealed that 71 percent of university faculty report administrators overwhelmingly lead conversations about introducing AI into teaching and research with little to no input from staff or students.
These top-down mandates often result in "shelfware," or expensive programs that districts buy but teachers do not use because the tools do not fit classroom needs. Districts are finding that classroom technology is becoming as integrated into basic school infrastructure as textbooks, according to data compiled by Civic IQ. But as we previously reported, adding more digital tools does not guarantee better learning.
When districts do prioritize teacher voices, the purchasing outcomes change. In standard school procurement processes, teachers are best positioned to identify instructional gaps and advocate for software that improves student engagement. To avoid wasting public funds, some California districts are taking a different path. For example, the ABC Unified School District has successfully integrated community roundtables to write policies, even establishing a "transparency badge" system to flag when AI is used in school materials.
What This Means for Families
When school boards buy technology based on a vendor's sales pitch rather than a teacher's classroom request, students pay the price. Money spent on unused or failed platforms is money diverted from school resources like counselor salaries and classroom supplies. Parents are also left managing a chaotic mix of apps that may not actually improve their child's reading or math skills. Families deserve to know that the digital tools their children use have been tested and approved by teachers.
What You Can Do
You can take action by asking your child's teacher which classroom apps they actually find helpful, and which ones are mandatory, top-down requirements that simply add screen time. At school board meetings, ask district leaders what percentage of their technology budgets went toward tools requested directly by teachers rather than those pitched by salespeople. Finally, advocate for policies that require any new educational software to undergo a teacher-led pilot program with measurable student growth before a district signs a contract.