Why has education struggled to achieve the kind of digital transformation seen in other industries, and what would it take for K-12 education to move forward in a more unified and sustainable way?
After more than a decade working in higher education, I came to believe there were several reasons education had not experienced the same level of digital transformation as other sectors. Some of those reasons were financial, while others involved workload, leadership, planning, and the difficulty of changing systems that appeared to work “well enough.”
Money drives technology decisions
The first reality was simple: money influenced nearly every decision involving technology implementation.
Institutions could identify useful tools, but purchasing the technology was only the beginning. They also had to account for licensing, training, integration, maintenance, accessibility, security, technical support, and eventual replacement.
Educational institutions often operated with limited budgets and competing priorities. Even when a technology had clear potential, leaders still had to decide whether the benefit justified the cost and whether the institution had enough staff to support it properly.
As a result, transformation could become a series of isolated purchases rather than a coordinated strategy.
Faculty and staff were already overwhelmed
Another major challenge was workload.
Many faculty and staff members already had an abundance of responsibilities related to teaching, grading, advising, course preparation, student communication, and institutional service. Asking them to learn another technology, especially when their existing process “worked well enough,” could feel like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
I witnessed this firsthand during a training session involving Microsoft Teams and classroom technology. Our lead information technology staff member invited employees who regularly taught or presented to students to learn how to use Teams alongside motion-sensing cameras, microphones, and virtual desktops.
The classroom setup was designed so that the standard Teams camera could be disabled and replaced by a camera feed developed by our information technology staff. The motion-sensing camera could follow the speaker, while different applications remained available across virtual desktops.
The goal was to make the experience smoother for students and easier for instructors. The training itself was excellent, and I left feeling confident about our use of the technology.
Then reality arrived.
When good training met the classroom
Only a short time after the training, I entered a classroom to speak with students about the Student Support Services program and quickly realized there were technical problems.
The motion-sensing camera was not sensing. The microphone was not capturing audio. Much of the training we had recently received had already been disregarded or forgotten.
As a result, I was relegated to sitting behind a computer and speaking into a quickly arranged microphone. After my presentation, the professor had to teach in the same uncomfortable manner.
The technology was available. The training had occurred. The intended process had been explained.
Yet the actual classroom experience did not match the plan.
This example demonstrated that digital transformation is not achieved by purchasing equipment or holding one training session. The technology must become part of a dependable process that users understand, practice, and receive support for over time.
A “clumsy” transition
In another class, I asked a professor whether he had received a Microsoft Teams message containing a link I had sent. He responded with a mixture of a shrug and a shake of the head.
I opened Teams on his computer to paste the link into the chat and noticed that he had several unanswered messages and emails that had not been checked.
Part of his expanded responsibility involved keeping up with these digital communication channels. However, when those responsibilities were added to teaching, grading, managing a classroom, and adapting course content, the technology became another source of pressure.
When I asked what he thought of the transition to online teaching, he gave one word:
“Clumsy.”
That description felt appropriate.
The problem was not that faculty members were unwilling or incapable. In many cases, the transition had added new expectations without removing older ones or providing enough time for people to develop confidence.
Why education had not transformed
I could only speak directly about the institution where I worked, but I felt confident that similar experiences were occurring elsewhere.
Several barriers appeared repeatedly:
- Limited funding
- Heavy faculty and staff workloads
- Insufficient training and continued support
- A lack of clear leadership
- Poorly defined goals
- Uncertainty about which tools would work together
- Resistance to changing processes that appeared functional
- Rapid technological change that made long-term planning difficult
Educational institutions were often expected to modernize while continuing every existing operation without interruption. That created a situation in which transformation became an additional project rather than a rethinking of how the institution functioned.
What would true digital transformation require?
Higher education institutions have been pressured to adapt to cultural and social changes while responding to the rapid development of digital technologies. The speed of that change can create a kind of institutional freeze.
Leaders may recognize that change is necessary but still struggle to determine which technologies to adopt, how much to invest, and what the next development will make obsolete.
The result is often a familiar argument:
“What we have has worked so far.”
That statement may reduce immediate risk, but it can also postpone necessary change.
The conditions for generating knowledge, processing information, and communicating have changed significantly. Education exists to help people understand the world and prepare for participation in it. If educational systems remain disconnected from the technologies shaping society, they risk preparing students for conditions that no longer exist.
Start with purpose, not products
True digital transformation should not begin with purchasing software or hardware. It should begin with the needs of students, faculty, staff, and the institution.
Leaders should first determine:
- What problem are we trying to solve?
- What should the student experience look like?
- Which processes are unnecessarily complicated?
- What work can technology improve or eliminate?
- What training and support will users require?
- How will success be measured?
- How will the systems integrate?
- What should be discontinued when the new process begins?
Without clear answers, institutions may purchase impressive tools that create more work without improving learning or performance.
Digital transformation requires changes in culture, workflow, expectations, and decision-making, not merely a collection of new technologies.
Should transformation be mandated?
At the time, I believed that meaningful digital transformation would likely require stronger direction and funding from state or federal authorities.
Local school districts, independent school districts, and higher education institutions could debate funding for years. Wealthier institutions would move ahead, while those with fewer resources would fall further behind.
A coordinated effort could establish common expectations for infrastructure, internet access, accessibility, cybersecurity, student data protection, faculty development, and technical support. Full or substantial public funding would also reduce the likelihood that digital opportunity depended almost entirely on local wealth.
However, a mandate alone would not guarantee success. Requirements would need to be accompanied by funding, realistic timelines, professional development, and enough flexibility for institutions to address local needs.
Otherwise, a top-down requirement could become another unfunded responsibility placed on already overwhelmed employees.
Ripping off the bandage
There would inevitably be discomfort.
Faculty, staff, students, and leaders would experience frustration. Some people would long for the “good old days.” New systems would fail. Training would need to be repeated. Processes would have to be revised.
Still, we had become too heavily invested in technology to retreat from it.
The more responsible choice was not to pretend that technology could be avoided. It was to manage the transition deliberately, provide people with support, and move forward with a shared direction.
In that sense, digital transformation resembled ripping off a bandage. The initial change could be uncomfortable, but delaying it indefinitely would not solve the underlying problem.
Final thought
Education had not digitally transformed at the same pace as other sectors because it was attempting to modernize within systems constrained by limited funding, heavy workloads, fragmented leadership, uneven infrastructure, and unclear goals.
The answer was not simply more technology.
It required purposeful leadership, coordinated investment, sustained training, integrated systems, measurable outcomes, and a willingness to reconsider processes that no longer served students or employees well.
Simple enough, right? 😊