How to Evaluate EdTech Without Getting Burned
You've been burned before.
The platform that looked perfect in the demo but frustrated teachers within weeks. The tool that solved one problem while creating three others. The expensive subscription that sits unused because adoption never happened.
EdTech purchasing decisions carry real risk. And the conventional evaluation process—feature checklists, vendor presentations, reference calls—often fails to surface the problems that matter most.
Why Standard Evaluations Miss the Mark
Feature lists tell you what a tool can do. They don't tell you whether teachers will actually use it.
Demos show ideal conditions. They don't show what happens at 7:30am when a teacher has 47 things competing for attention.
Reference calls connect you with satisfied customers. They don't connect you with the schools that quietly stopped using the product.
The gap between "can do" and "will use" is where most EdTech investments die.
Your teachers don't need more features. They need less friction.
Better Questions to Ask
What does this tool replace—and what does it add?
Many EdTech solutions add capability without removing complexity. Teachers end up with another tab to manage, another login to remember, another system to check. Net burden increases even when the tool "works." The best tools replace more than they add.
How does this integrate with what we already use?
Integration isn't a nice-to-have. It's a requirement. A brilliant tool that doesn't connect to your existing systems creates data silos and manual workarounds. Ask specifically: does this talk to Google Classroom? To our SIS? Can information flow, or does someone have to move it manually?
What happens when things go wrong?
Every tool breaks sometimes. What matters is recovery. What's the support model? How quickly do issues get resolved? What's the communication like when there's a problem? A vendor's response to difficulty reveals more than their response to success.
Who built this, and do they understand my context?
Tools built by people who've never taught often miss essential nuances. They optimize for the wrong things. They solve imagined problems while ignoring real ones. Ask about the team's background. Ask how they gather feedback from actual educators.
The Real Test
Before committing, ask yourself: would I want to use this daily?
Not "could I use this"—would I want to? If the honest answer is no, teachers will feel the same way. Adoption will stall. Investment will waste.
The tools that succeed are the ones that make teachers' lives genuinely easier. Not theoretically easier. Actually easier.
That's the bar. Everything else is noise.
We built Lamppost with these questions in mind. Integration with Google Classroom. AI trained on actual BC curriculum. Designed by educators who use it themselves.
Because the best EdTech isn't impressive in demos. It's invisible in daily use—because it just works.
Onward and upward,
—JBJL
