What I know about Edtech. #2 – Lead or Follow

This post is the second in a series, giving tips for your next edtech endeavour.

(Update: Thanks to Dai Barnes for his feedback on this post)

It is possible to follow the majority of professionals or to lead (with the support of inspiring teachers) towards new practice.

But it is (all but) impossible to do both.

Photo by Cristian Bortes

As I wrote in my first post, The 5xWhys, far too much edtech is created without clear reasoning behind it. One of the hardest conversations to have with a client or programme lead, once the 5xWhys have been worked through, is: Where do you want to be; leading or following?

Let’s say you’ve cleared up ‘Why?’ you want to create edtech and are set on your path. You’ve probably also told yourselves :

• You want to create something that has the ‘Wow’ factor.
• You want to be associated with innovation and creativity.
• You want to be connected to (and with) those award-winning teachers and inspire more.

Except, these statements are also true:

• You also want mass adoption / sales
• You’d like resubscriptions / regular visits
• You want to offer easy integration with current practice
• You’d hope for support from policy makers
• You’re secretly dreaming of awards and recognition from key stakeholders

Can you see the problem? The dream of aligning both these goals misunderstands the nature of the education sector. Being part of the formal institutions of learning, most teachers work in places that move very slowly. Innovation struggles at the edges, only breaking through to the mainstream despite (not because of) the ‘wisdom’ of that crowd.

The children might need and want more exciting edtech – but they do not get to select or pay for it. And highly innovative teachers rarely make it into SLT/Administrative roles.

Of course, notable exceptions exist, in terms of people (Dawn Hallybone, Dan Roberts, Nick Dennis, for example), and organisations (NightZooKeeper).

So – here are some hard truths for those creating edtech:

• If you aim at the cutting edge, then you’ll likely only draw the very brave early adopters.
• If you go for mass market, then you’ll not be cool or exciting.

• If you are fresh and using the newest tech, you put off the majority of teachers who struggle with change and who do not have control over the tech they use.
• If you create more of the same, then it’ll be harder to stand out from your competition.

• If you try to match to current practice in classrooms, you will end up confined by static objectives, data driven activities, and .
• If you try to share new pedagogies, assessment practices or try to change the culture in schools, as brilliant as it might be, it will be be pulled back by the inertia endemic in a fear filled profession, crushed by policy (*NB I make no apologies for polemic or broad brush strokes).

Of course, there are other compromises that can be made, and although you cannot lead and  follow at the same time, you can find other ways to reach a mass market without creating lumpen, but nutritious stodge; or open new doors in learning without scaring the horses. How might that be possible?

You need to be really clear about why you doing this (see the previous post), decide whether you want to lead or follow, read the rest of my posts in this series, and…get talking to those you want to create for.