The Three Biggest Mistakes Schools Make When Implementing New Technology

Why Smart Schools Still Get It Wrong and How Instructional Design Can Fix It

Walk into any school today and you’ll find devices in backpacks, apps on every screen and digital platforms woven into the daily rhythms of teaching. Technology is no longer an add on, it’s infrastructure. Yet even as investment in educational technology continues to climb, many schools still struggle to implement new tools in ways that genuinely improve learning. It’s not because leaders lack vision. It’s because adopting technology without an instructional design backbone guarantees missteps. In fact, across independent schools, public districts and charter networks, I’ve seen the same three mistakes appear again and again.

These mistakes don’t stem from carelessness; they’re the predictable result of moving fast, reacting to trends and trying to solve instructional problems with technical solutions. But each one can be avoided with lasting benefits for students and teachers alike.When schools fail to redesign the surrounding structures, the technology becomes a burden rather than a catalyst. Examples of this that you have probably seen a version of before:

Scenario 1:

A new LMS falls flat because departments keep their old grading spreadsheets. Teachers are concerned about losing data online and what would happen if the system crashed and they no longer have a record of grades. The one teacher who did use the new LMS was overwhelmed with the immediate contacts by phone and email from students and parents with questions about grades, retakes and extra credit options.

Scenario 2:

A digital assessment platform, advertised as a powerful tool for tracking mastery across the year, ends up sitting untouched. Teachers never adopt it because converting their existing tests into the platform’s required format takes far more time than their schedules allow. Administrators grow frustrated when no data appears for analysis, and the gap between expectation and reality widens. Feeling pressured and wary of increased scrutiny, teachers become even more resistant to using the platform, and the initiative stalls before it ever truly begins.

Scenario 3:

At a conference, a school principal learned about an idea for an “observation calendar” where teachers could post exciting or innovative things happening in their classrooms that they wanted administrators to see. Administrators conducting drop-in observations were encouraged to check the calendar first and visit those activities if the teachers were still on their observation rotation. The presenter claimed this approach boosted morale and strengthened relationships between teachers and administrators. When the principal brought this back to her school, the system worked well…but only for the first two weeks. After that, teachers stopped posting. When administrators continued their regular observations, some teachers complained that it wasn’t fair because they hadn’t added anything to the calendar and still received unannounced visits.

Scenario 4:

A school launches an AI literacy initiative with great enthusiasm, announcing that students will learn to use AI responsibly and creatively. Teachers are encouraged to experiment with AI tools, and students are told they will be using AI for research, brainstorming and writing support. But because there is no shared policy, no consistent classroom routines and no agreed-upon verification strategies, the excitement quickly fades. Each teacher interprets AI use differently: some allow it freely, others ban it entirely and many feel unsure how to integrate it at all. Students become confused about expectations from class to class. Assignments involving AI turn into inconsistent experiments rather than structured learning, and concerns about plagiarism and accuracy increase. Within a month, the initiative loses momentum. Teachers eventually stop trying to implement it altogether.

1. Mistake One: Treating Technology Problems as Technology Problems

Here’s the truth no one likes to say out loud:
Most tech problems are actually learning problems in disguise.

When a new tool frustrates teachers, slows workflow, generates student confusion or leads to inconsistent use across divisions, it’s rarely because teachers are resistant or the device is inadequate. It’s because the tool was selected or rolled out without understanding its role in the instructional ecosystem. Instructional design principles tell us that any tool must serve a clear purpose tied to learning outcomes, cognitive load and accessibility. Without that alignment, even brilliant technology becomes another tab, another password, another headache.The real issue isn’t the tool, it’s the absence of intentional design.

Successful schools do one thing differently: they begin with the learning experience, then identify the technology that supports it. They put pedagogy first. They consider UDL, workflow, assessment goals and student variability before anything is purchased or deployed. In other words, they solve instructional problems with instructional thinking, not with shiny new platforms.

2. Mistake Two: Assuming Training Equals Implementation

Every school has had this moment: A new platform launches, teachers attend a mandatory PD session, the consultant hands out a laminated guide and leadership checks training off the list. Instructional designers know that this is the beginning, not the end. Training is exposure. Implementation is transformation.

The gap between the two is filled with practice, feedback, coaching, user testing and ongoing refinement. Without these supports, new tools are guaranteed to be used superficially or inconsistently, especially across grade levels or departments.

The reason is simple: changing teacher practice requires a change in habit which is something no single workshop can accomplish.The best schools treat technology adoption like they treat curriculum adoption:

1) They create phased rollouts.

2) They pilot with small groups before scaling.

3) They gather real classroom feedback.

4) They adjust expectations and pacing.

5) They align PD to what teachers actually need, not what vendors promise.

These are classic instructional design sprints: iterate, test, refine, support. It’s the difference between installing a tool and integrating it.

3. Mistake Three: Forgetting to Redesign Systems Around the Tool

Schools often plug new technology into old systems and expect magic.

But instructional designers and experienced school leaders know that every new tool disrupts something. It can change classroom routines, communication patterns, assessment strategies, workflow timings, student expectations, teacher collaboration, data access, parent engagement and so much more.

A tool is never just a tool. It’s a system-level actor that everyone must adjust to.

Strong implementation requires systems thinking:
What must change around the tool for the tool to succeed?

This is where leadership and instructional design meet. ID thinking brings clarity to workflow. Leadership ensures the structures, expectations and culture shift accordingly. Schools that combine both see the highest return on investment and the deepest gains in student learning.

What Schools Can Do Instead

To avoid the three most common pitfalls, schools should shift from a “tool-first” mindset to a “design-driven” model of implementation.

1. Start with the learning experience.

Define goals, outcomes and accessibility needs before beginning the search. Use a search team that consists of educators, administrators, students and even parents. Send the goals and needs to each company being considered and ask them to show the team how their product would meet these requirements.

2. Pilot, iterate, refine.

Once a program or technology is chosen, use instructional design cycles, not one-time PD events, for implementation training. Using the SAM (Successive Approximation Model), create a training program for any parties using the new initiative (For an LMS, this would mean teachers, administrators, students and parents). SAM is iterative, rapid and prototype-driven. Instead of building the whole course before testing, you create quick prototypes, gather feedback, revise and repeat. The SAM is ideal for fast-moving environments when you need stakeholder input early and often.

3. Redesign systems to support the tool.

Make the following aspects clear: how communication will occur (email, regular meetings, shared documents, etc.) , scheduling and attendance expectations, assessment (surveys, data collected, etc.) and leadership expectations.

The Bottom Line

Schools don’t fail at technology because they lack the right devices or platforms.
They fail because they deploy those tools without the instructional design and leadership structures that make them meaningful.

Avoiding the three biggest mistakes of treating tech issues as tech issues, confusing training with implementation and failing to redesign systems can turn any technology initiative into a powerful catalyst for student learning. When technology is chosen intentionally, supported thoughtfully and embedded strategically, it stops being a challenge and becomes something much more exciting:

A pathway to better teaching, deeper learning and a future where tools amplify what great educators already do best.