Beyond Free Tools: Rethinking Partnership in Ed Tech

When I was in the classroom, my approach to ed tech was simple: find the best tool I could get my hands on, make sure it was free, and put it in front of students as quickly as possible. If it worked well, I talked about it. I shared it with colleagues. I presented on it. I advocated for it without hesitation.

And ed tech companies understood that dynamic long before I did.

They knew teachers were the entry point. If we loved something, we would champion it. If enough of us adopted a free version, that usage could later become a compelling story for district-level conversations. As I transitioned to a tech coordinator role, I began receiving the cold emails and introductory calls that followed a familiar pattern: “I’m your district representative for ___.” Then, almost predictably, “I could tell you how great our product is, but wouldn’t you rather hear what your teachers think?”

What followed was often a detailed report showing adoption numbers that exceeded what I would have guessed. Sometimes there were names. Sometimes quotes. It was presented as evidence of organic enthusiasm, and in many cases it probably was. But it was also data being strategically gathered and positioned.

For a long time, I simply assumed that was how ed tech worked.

The Shift From Tools to Trust

What I’ve come to understand over the last sixteen years, though, is that the tools themselves are only part of the story. The real differentiator is relationship.

Relationship is not a conference dinner or a branded backpack full of swag. It’s not a free webinar that was already on your company’s marketing calendar. It isn’t even early access to new features. Those things can be pleasant, but they aren’t partnership.

The kind of relationship that actually matters in this work shows up in quieter, more consistent ways. It’s the support representative who remembers the nuances of your district and follows up without being prompted. It’s the engineer who takes a recurring complaint seriously enough to explore a fix. It’s the trainer who understands your instructional goals instead of simply walking through a slide deck. It’s a salesperson who knows when to suggest something new and when to say, “This probably isn’t right for you right now.”

That kind of attentiveness doesn’t happen by accident. It reflects something deeper about the company’s identity and leadership. In those cases, partnership feels embedded in their culture. You can sense that they value long-term trust more than short-term wins. Those are the companies you find yourself wanting to work with, even when they aren’t the least expensive option on the market. Over time, the relationship becomes part of the value.

When Partnership Takes Work

There are also companies where that depth of connection is possible, but it takes effort. We’ve worked with vendors where turnover disrupted continuity, where customer success managers were stretched thin, or where internal shifts changed the tone of the partnership. Sometimes investing time in those relationships pays off. You build shared understanding. You navigate challenges together. Other times, despite best efforts on both sides, it never quite solidifies.

In those situations, the strength of the product has to justify the energy required to maintain the partnership. And when renewal conversations arise—especially when pricing increases in ways that feel abrupt or unclear—the absence of relational capital becomes very noticeable. What a company pours into you over time shapes how confidently you advocate for them in return.

The Transactional Reality

Then there are what I think of as “as-is” companies. They may offer a powerful product or operate at such scale that personalization isn’t realistic. You submit tickets. You wait your turn. You adapt to their roadmap rather than contributing to it. The exchange is transactional, and everyone understands that.

Sometimes that’s simply the nature of the product. Sometimes it’s a strategic choice. Sometimes you see companies you love shift to this model and you are acutely aware that there has been a shift in strategy by the leadership (this is hard to swallow). In either case, you approach those relationships differently. You don’t confuse access with partnership.

Advocacy for the vendor is rare in these situations. Unless the vendor cultivates some type of active user community and incentives for educators to actively participate, this becomes the type of company you kind of roll your eyes at as a customer. Yes, I’ll do business with you. Not because I want to, but because you are the only game in town for this particular product. It is similar to how most of us feel when we have to pay our utility bills.

A Broader Lens for Teachers and Leaders

If you’re a classroom teacher, I don’t share this to discourage exploration. Free tools can be transformative. Innovation often starts there. But I do think it’s worth recognizing that there’s a larger ecosystem at play beyond “free for me.” Adoption has ripple effects. Data has direction. And relationships—whether present or absent—matter more than we sometimes acknowledge.

If you’re in a district-level role, the reflection shifts slightly. What kinds of companies are we aligning ourselves with? Do they understand our context? Do they respond when things break? Do they grow with us? Or are we simply managing subscriptions and usage reports?

I don’t pretend to have a neat formula for evaluating all of this. What I have is sixteen years of watching patterns emerge. The longer I work in this space, the more convinced I am that technology decisions are rarely just about features or pricing. They are about people. They are about responsiveness. They are about trust.

And in education—where the stakes are always students—trust is not a small thing.