Q: Much of the conversation around student technology use focuses on screen time. What should educators and district leaders be asking instead?
Alyson Deutsch, Senior Vice President of Product, Lexia: Rather than focusing solely on screen time, leaders should really probe to understand the efficacy of digital tools and programs. Does the program improve learning outcomes and meaningfully impact student growth? The majority of research citing concerns about screen time stems from passive, entertainment-driven experiences—not structured instructional tools designed to support specific learning goals. Schools should evaluate whether technology delivers measurable academic benefits, strengthens instructional practice by helping teachers use their time more effectively, and expands equitable access to high-quality, evidence-based instruction. The most important question is not simply how much time students spend using a tool, but whether that tool is accomplishing something valuable that would otherwise be difficult to achieve.
Q: How does the Science of Reading help shift the conversation from technology use to literacy outcomes?
Deutsch: The Science of Reading gives educators a research base on which strong rubrics can be built to evaluate a specific category of EdTech—tools designed to deliver literacy curriculum and instruction. For more than 40 years, Lexia has seen firsthand how research-based instruction—not technology alone—drives lasting literacy gains. The important question is not whether technology is involved, but whether the instructional design aligns with what we know about how students learn to read. Educators have access to trusted resources from organizations such as The Reading League and EdReports to assess instructional quality and alignment. The focus should be on what the instruction accomplishes—not the bells and whistles tied to technology. Using these kinds of resources helps ensure that conversations and decisions remain centered on the impact a tool can have on literacy outcomes, which should be the shared goal of educators and solution providers alike.
Q: Some critics worry technology is replacing teachers. How do you see that relationship evolving?
Deutsch: At Lexia, our model has always put teachers at the center of instruction. We design our programs around the belief that technology should enhance their practice, not replace it. Educators have enormous amounts of information to process about students, curriculum, and learning. Technology can synthesize information, surface patterns, and provide actionable insights. The goal is not to make decisions for teachers, but to support judgment. Technology is most powerful when teachers remain in control and use those insights to personalize learning.
Q: In a moment when AI tools are flooding classrooms, how can educators tell the difference between innovation and distraction?
Deutsch: Not all AI is created equal. Schools should ask whether a tool is grounded in learning science, solves an instructional challenge, and strengthens—rather than replaces—the teacher’s role. The right AI helps educators personalize instruction, identify student needs earlier, and improve outcomes responsibly, with clear evidence, strong safeguards, and human connection at the center.
Q: As schools evaluate educational technology, what role do privacy, security, and efficacy play in building trust?
Deutsch: Trust starts with clarity. Schools should define the challenge, how technology supports instruction, and what success looks like. Privacy, security, and efficacy build trust. Districts want partners that meet FERPA and COPPA requirements, use validated security practices like iKeepSafe Certification, and maintain industry-standard safeguards. Just as important, schools should focus on evidence—prioritizing research-based tools with measurable outcomes that support student growth and responsible innovation.
