The end of EdTech Sprawl is the first in a five-part series I'm calling The Coherence Goal. Over the next few weeks we're going to look at five separate pressure points facing education and its leaders now, technology sprawl, AI policy, writing instruction, the four-day week, and how we develop teachers. I want to make the case that they're all the same problem from different perspectives. Every one of them comes down to a leader choosing to connect what already works instead of reaching for one more thing. I've watched both instincts play out throughout my career, the impulse to add, in search of answers, and the discipline to connect, using what's already in place.

Instructure's 2026 EdTech Top 40 report found that the average district now maintains access to more than 3,000 unique digital tools, but students and educators interact with only four of them on a regular basis (Instructure, 2026). That gap is not a rounding error. It is the issue schools face on a daily basis. Somewhere between the purchase order and the classroom, thousands of licenses, integrations, and privacy reviews pile up around a handful of tools anyone actually uses.

Early in my administrative career, I approved the purchase of a benchmark assessment platform that promised to change how we tracked student progress. It never fully talked to our student information system. The Ed Services and IT Divisions had different ideas in mind. Teachers ended up entering the same data twice, once in the new platform and once in the system we already had. And instead of solving a problem, we had created one more.

That is the pattern repeated across school districts, on a broader scale.

Every one of those 3,000 tools arrived with a good reason attached. A teacher found something that simplified grading. A department needed a platform for one specific compliance requirement. No single decision was wrong. But nobody was responsible for the sum of all those decisions, and the sum is what districts are living with now: overlapping licenses, redundant logins, and a privacy review burden that grows every time procurement says yes one more time (Instructure, 2026). Technology leaders now have a name for the worst version of this problem, zombie licenses, subscriptions that keep renewing year after year for tools almost nobody opens anymore, quietly billed while everyone assumes someone else is watching.

For most of the last decade, edtech adoption ran on a simple filter: does this look promising. That filter is no longer sufficient, and district leaders know it. As Erin Mote, CEO of InnovateEDU, put it, the field is "seeing a shift from 'does this look cool' to 'does this work'" (EdSurge, 2026). Instructure's own chief academic officer put it almost the same way from the vendor side: districts are no longer asking whether a tool works, they are asking for evidence of impact and independent validation that it actually improves outcomes (Instructure, 2026). When the buyer and the seller start using the same language, that is not a coincidence. That is a market correcting itself.

In March, the State Educational Technology Directors Association released a free toolkit built around five indicators, safety, evidence, inclusivity, interoperability, and usability, meant to give leaders a common standard for that harder question (EdSurge, 2026). That is a meaningful shift. It moves the burden of proof from the skeptic to the vendor, which is exactly where it belongs.

Some districts are already proving this works. Oklahoma City Public Schools once ran on what its own IT leadership called a "lock and block" mentality, and by the time the pandemic hit, the district had 1,800 apps in circulation, none of them fully vetted (EdSurge, 2025). Since then, the district has narrowed that number down to 250 approved applications, each one reviewed for interoperability, privacy, and alignment with instructional goals, as part of a five-year plan to build an accountability culture around edtech use (EdSurge, 2025). Going from 1,800 to 250 is not trimming around the edges. It is a different relationship with technology altogether.

I made this same argument in my own book, before it became an industry talking point. When thought leaders adopt systems thinking, I wrote, they do not just intervene in broken processes, they redesign the systems that gave rise to them in the first place, and that is what sets coherent districts apart (Valentino, 2025). It is also why one of the five components in the technology framework I developed, the Networked Educational Systems and Technology model, is a Connected Learning Ecosystem, built specifically to link tools and resources together rather than let them sit next to each other, unconnected (Valentino, 2025). Coherence was never about owning fewer things. It was always about deciding which things get to talk to each other.

You do not need a new tool to fix tool sprawl. You need the discipline to reflect on what you already own, to understand what it is actually doing, and what happens if you connect it instead of adding to it. That is a harder conversation than a procurement meeting. It is also the only one that ends the cycle.

Instructure. (2026, June 29). New Instructure data shows K-12 districts are demanding evidence, not just access to edtech tools. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-instructure-data-shows-k-12-districts-are-demanding-evidence-not-just-access-to-edtech-tools-302812840.html

EdSurge. (2026, April 2). Too many tools, not enough impact: Districts rethink their edtech stacks. EdSurge News. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2026-04-02-too-many-tools-not-enough-impact-districts-rethink-their-edtech-stacks

EdSurge. (2025, May 16). Trimming the edtech fat: How districts are streamlining their digital ecosystems. EdSurge News. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2025-05-16-trimming-the-edtech-fat-how-districts-are-streamlining-their-digital-ecosystems

Valentino, L. R. (2025). Thought leadership in education: A comprehensive exploration of transformative educational ideas. Valgar LLC. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0990566064lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback

This week's Educational Leadership article looks at coherence from inside the institution, and the discipline to connect what you already own instead of buying more. This companion essay from Edupreneurs Network looks at the same shift from the other side of the table. Districts are scrutinizing every purchase now, and the vendors who last are the ones who can prove impact, not just pitch features. If you sell into education, this is the mindset shift you cannot afford to miss.

Read the full essay at Edupreneurs Network →

Systems Thinking and Organizational Tansformation

When thought leaders adopt systems thinking, they don't just intervene in broken processes, they redesign the systems that gave rise to them in the first place. That line, written a year before this issue, is the argument behind everything above. If this week's piece resonated, the book goes deeper into how coherent districts are built, one connected decision at a time.

Read more about Thought Leadership in Education →

Your numbers live in dashboards nobody opens. SureThing pulls them from the tools you already run and drops one plain-English report in Slack every morning.

See It in Slack