ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ Newsletter

School districts are under increasing pressure to do more with less. Budgets are tightening, academic recovery coming out of the pandemic remains unfinished in many communities, and educators, administrators and parents are rightly asking tough questions about which programs are making a measurable difference for students. 

For school districts, as in any industry, accountability can’t end when a contract is signed, it must begin there. 

That is why outcomes-based contracting has emerged as one of the most promising shifts in K–12 procurement in decades. Essentially, this approach ties a portion of an education technology provider’s payment to whether agreed-upon student outcomes are achieved when educators implement the program as recommended. Rather than paying solely for products or services, outcomes-based contracting aligns districts and providers around a shared goal: improving student outcomes. Done well, it transforms the relationship from a traditional vendor agreement into a true partnership centered on student success.

Early evidence suggests the model has real promise. A from WestEd found that districts implementing outcomes-based contracts saw positive impacts on student performance. Further, it improved implementation through more frequent communication between districts and technology providers, and led to better leveraging of data to help improve outcomes.

The has helped establish a national framework and brought together districts and providers committed to rethink how educational services are purchased and evaluated. Since 2024, my organization, Curriculum Associates, has grown its partnership with the center, and most recently engaged with its Provider Learning Series in the spring. 

But as more districts move this model from theory to implementation, we’re learning something important: The conversation is no longer just whether to adopt outcomes-based contracting, it’s how to implement it well. Based on our experience, there are several principles that can help make outcomes-based contracting more meaningful, practical, and ultimately, more beneficial for students.

First, districts and providers need to measure outcomes in ways that are both ambitious and realistic. Student growth depends on many factors, and accountability should reflect the portion of the instructional experience a provider can reasonably influence. Rather than expecting every enrolled student to achieve the same outcome, districts and providers should consider overall class or school-level growth, such as the median percentage of progress toward each growth target. This approach reflects the holistic picture of how much each student progresses, rather than reducing outcomes to a simple and incomplete yes/no of whether a student met a target.

Second, accountability is bolstered by robust discussions about implementation. One of our earliest partnerships with Fresno Unified School District reinforced this lesson. The strongest outcomes did not come from payment terms. They came from regular governance meetings, shared data reviews and continuous course correction throughout the school year. The contract created accountability, but the partnership created improvement.

Third, professional learning should be viewed as essential, not optional. Every district begins from a different place, with different priorities, staffing models, and levels of readiness. Successful implementation requires more than purchasing the product. It requires ongoing coaching, customized support, and a shared understanding of how instructional practices connect to student outcomes. Meeting the unique needs of a district is not something that can be baked into a one-sized fits all model. 

We have seen, first-hand, the benefits of this strategy. In Fresno, implementation extended well beyond the product itself to include professional learning, implementation support and alignment with the district’s broader literacy strategy. Like any major decision, the district leaders in Fresno thought through how to best apply these tools and work them into the district’s broader strategy before application.

Fourth, incentives should strengthen partnerships, not simply reward or punish performance. Outcomes-based contracting works best when both sides have something to gain from student success. Districts should have meaningful protections if agreed-upon outcomes are not achieved. At the same time, when partnerships exceed expectations, providers should look for ways to reinvest that success, whether through additional professional learning, implementation support, or future service credits. Accountability should encourage continuous improvement, not create winners and losers.

Finally, educators should evaluate instructional systems, not just software. Student outcomes are the product of multiple factors. They reflect the use of the tool, as well as systems and structures that ensure all resources work together.

Perhaps the most valuable lesson from Fresno was that the partnership improved both organizations. The district strengthened its approach to accountability, while as partners we new insights into what drives successful implementation in real classrooms. The results were significant. According to district data, 70% of Fresno Unified’s kindergarteners achieved mastery in foundational literacy skills, exceeding the 62.5% target the district set for June 2026. That’s exactly what a strong partnership should do: create learning on both sides all in service of students.

Outcomes-based contracting is still evolving, and that’s a good thing. As more districts gain implementation experience, the education community has an opportunity to refine what works, share best practices and build on the strong foundation the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting has established.

The future of education procurement shouldn’t be about shifting risk from one party to another. It should be about aligning everyone around the same goal: helping students succeed.

When districts and providers share responsibility, invest in implementation and continuously learn from one another, everyone benefits. Districts gain stronger partners, providers become more accountable, and most importantly, students receive the support they deserve.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.