Like any industry or area of innovation, EdTech revolves through a near-constant “hype cycle”. In previous decades, the “next best thing” was the digital projector, the smart whiteboard, or one-one tablet rollouts: today it is the dawn of AI in education. But whatever the innovation, there is a consistent pattern of high expectations, subsequent disillusionment, and ultimately a plateau of productivity where one-time innovations become the classroom norm.

For education leaders, understanding this cycle can be the key to creating and sustaining a cutting-edge classroom infrastructure. It’s also an indispensable tool when you need to tell the truly “sticky” advances in tech from the flash-in-the-pan products coated in a layer of marketing hype. The cycle is perhaps best illustrated by the research of US research and advisory firm Gartner, which represents the emerging visibility of new technologies and their common journey over time:

The Gartner hype cycle, first developed in 1995

So how can this understanding of a maturity pattern in technologies be applied to education? Whilst there is no perfect science to follow, key indicators exist that can help identify initiatives with strong potential over those that will more likely disappear into obscurity. Below are five questions that we ask when making EdTech procurement decisions:

  1. Does it fill a need? The multi-billion-dollar EdTech industry attracts a wide array of startups and investments, not all of which are grounded in a strong educational use case or need. Putting the principle of need first – ahead of the standalone excitement prompted by new tech – is a reliable way to gauge the viability of new opportunities. A simple way to test this is to clearly identify the problem the tool is meant to solve and check whether the problem genuinely exists in your context.
  1. Are educators on board? The small EdTech solutions that don’t survive the test of time generally have a common factor. They have been created and pushed by developers and entrepreneurs, rather than having a strong foundation in the classroom and the experience of educators. Having teachers involved in the creation of a new tool leads to greater curriculum, classroom and competency alignment: generalist products may look shiny, but they often miss the mark when it comes to long-term use. We prioritise tools that have been designed specifically for education – with clear curriculum links, classroom workflows, and pedagogical principles built in – rather than general-use technologies adapted for schools.
  1. Is it right for our context? One of the key reasons for the vast range of EdTech solutions on the market is the diversity of educational contexts – across markets, languages, curricula, grade levels, and student populations – which means schools need different tech solutions. One size absolutely does not fit all. Understanding that context is crucial in making appropriate decisions about which tools fit our ecosystem, and which look more exciting than truly useful.
  1. What is the value added? Any new tool or initiative introduced into an education ecosystem must add value to schools, students, teachers, parents, school leaders, or some combination of the above. If it isn’t possible to see the value added, chances are that the tool is more hyped than helpful. This value may be as simple as working towards stronger grades; but it may also include strengthening efficiencies, improving oversight, or creating entirely new educational opportunities. We define what success looks like in measurable terms – such as reduced workload minutes per week, improved student outcomes, or fewer administrative steps – and ensure the vendor can demonstrate evidence aligned to those metrics before purchasing.
  1. Is it safe and compliant? This is a non-negotiable in our selection process as we must ensure that any tool can meet our stringent safeguarding and data protection requirements. This includes transparent data storage and usage policies, age-appropriate design, and robust controls to prevent harmful or inappropriate content. Any AI tool used in the classroom must clearly demonstrate how it protects students, how it uses student data to train its models, and how bias, misuse, or unintended exposure is mitigated.

These questions formed the basis of our decision to partner with Flint on their AI-powered personalised learning platform last year. Having started with our list of requirements based on conversations with educators, we used a scorecard system to identify that Flint was worth exploring further. We then went through a thorough pilot process involving representative schools from each region to test the value add, safeguarding considerations and real life application for students and educators in the classroom. Following impressive results and positive feedback from those involved, we secured an agreement with Flint to rollout the platform across 50 of our schools, which we believe will benefit most from it.

These considerations apply to all educators and settings, but every environment in our rapidly evolving industry has a different range of needs to meet and problems to solve. Taking the time to understand our goals before considering any given opportunity – no matter what attractions it may present – help ensure that we make the right decisions for our schools.

James McLeod, Group Chief Technology and Innovation Officer