The EdTech Graveyard: Why Companies That Stand Still Outlast Those That Sprint
- Michael Bates
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
The EdTech graveyard is full of companies that innovated themselves to death.
Not because their technology failed. Not because their ideas were bad. But because they changed direction, which changed their value proposition.
I've seen it happen over and over. Founders with solid products—chasing trends, rebranding during funding cycles, and pivoting before districts can implement. And eventually, they disappear.
The pattern is predictable. The lesson is hard to learn.
The Superintendent Who Didn't Renew
A few years ago, I met a superintendent during one of the national conferences. The conversation was about companies that are ever pivoting, and this is what she shared:
"We once bought a reading intervention tool. Then the company became a 'comprehensive literacy platform.' Then a 'competency-based learning system.' At the end of the day, we just need a reading intervention program."
Bottom line: she didn't renew.
The new product didn't meet her needs and solve her problem. Every time the vendor repositioned, it created doubt:
Was the reading intervention still being supported?
Would the training her teachers received still be relevant?
Would the company even be around in three years?
The vendor thought they were showing innovation and growth. The district experienced it as instability and risk.
Two Incompatible Timelines
Here's the fundamental tension that kills EdTech companies: venture capital and district procurement operate on completely incompatible timelines.
Investors want to see quarterly results and pivots every 12-18 months. They want proof you're capturing emerging trends.
Your pitch deck needs to show you're moving toward AI, personalization, competency-based learning—whatever's getting funded in the current cycle.
But districts operate on 3-5 year timelines. Long procurement processes that involve committees, pilot programs, board approvals, and budget cycles. Multi-year implementation plans that include professional development, rollout phases, and integration with existing systems.
Stakeholder consensus that requires buy-in from teachers, administrators, curriculum directors, and technology coordinators.
By the time a district has finally approved your product, trained its staff, and started seeing results, you've already rebranded twice.
You can serve one timeline or the other. You can't serve both.
What Innovation Looks Like to Districts
From our side of the table, pivoting feels strategic. We're responding to market demands. We're staying competitive. We're capturing new opportunities.
From the district's side, it looks completely different.
Every rebrand raises questions:
Will they still support the features we bought?
Will the roadmap shift away from our needs?
Are they financially stable?
Or are they unfocused, chasing trends?
Districts have long-term memories. They remember the vendors who promised the world and disappeared. They remember the companies that pivoted into trendy markets and stopped returning calls. They remember being left with unsupported software and having to explain to their boards why they chose a company that no longer exists.
So when you show up talking about your latest innovation, they're not thinking about your technology. They're thinking about their risk exposure.
And in a risk-averse market, perceived instability is the kiss of death.
The Real Cost of Trend-Chasing
I've watched companies chase gamification when that was hot. Then pivot to adaptive learning. Then AI. Then social-emotional learning. Then competency-based models.
Each pivot came with new messaging, new sales decks, and new positioning. Each time, the founders convinced themselves they were staying current and relevant to the market.
What they were actually doing was training their customers not to trust them.
Because here's what happens: a district implements your reading intervention tool. Teachers get trained. Students start using it. Data starts coming in. The district sees improvement and wants to expand.
But when they come back to you, you're no longer a reading intervention company. You're now a "personalized learning ecosystem" or an "AI-powered engagement platform."
Same core technology, maybe. But completely different language. Different target audience. Different value proposition.
The district doesn't see growth. They see retreat.
The Question That Changes Everything
Before making any significant change to your positioning or product direction now, ask yourself one question:
Are you doing this because your customers are asking for it, or because you're trying to fit into whatever trend is getting the most attention?
If the honest answer is the latter, then don't do it.
This doesn't mean you don't evolve. Your product should be better than it was three years ago. You should add features, improve performance, and refine the experience based on customer feedback.
But the problem you solve for hasn't changed. The way you describe what you do hasn't changed. A district that bought from you three years ago would still recognize you today.
That consistency has become your competitive advantage.
What Actually Wins in K-12
The companies that win long-term K-12 contracts aren't always the most innovative. They're the most reliable.
They show up the same way every time. They solve one problem exceptionally well. They answer the phone three years later. They're still there when the district is ready to expand from a pilot to district-wide implementation.
In a market where everyone else is pivoting every 18 months, consistency is disruptive.
Think about it: when every vendor at a conference is talking about their AI-powered, personalized, adaptive, social-emotional learning platform, the company that says "we do reading intervention, we've done it for seven years, and we do it better than anyone" stands out.
Not because they're flashy. Because they're clear.
Districts don't have time to decode your latest repositioning. They need to know what you do, whether you do it well, and whether you'll still be doing it in three years.
If you can answer those three questions consistently, you win.
The Hard Truth About Growth
Here's what I wish someone had told me earlier: you can build a venture-backed company or you can build a district-focused company, but the playbooks are different.
Venture capital wants exponential growth and total market expansion. However, district sales require long-term relationships and multi-year implementation partnerships.
Both are valid business models. But you have to choose.
If you choose districts, that means saying no to pivots that would make your pitch deck more exciting but your customer relationships more fragile. It means staying focused on one problem even when adjacent markets look more lucrative. It means being boring in your consistency while competitors chase every trend.
It also means building a business that lasts.
What Stability Actually Looks Like
Stability doesn't mean stagnation. It doesn't mean never improving your product or adding features or responding to customer needs.
It means your core promise stays the same.
If you solve reading intervention, you're still solving reading intervention three years from now—even if the technology underneath has evolved significantly. If you help districts track student engagement, that's still what you do—even if you've added analytics capabilities and integration features.
Your customers should never have to relearn what you do or re-justify why they chose you.
That's the difference between evolution and pivot. Evolution builds on your foundation. Pivots abandon it.
Districts can tell the difference. And they're betting their limited budgets on companies that know the difference, too.
The Choice
If you're an EdTech founder, you're facing this choice right now:
You can chase trends and hope to stay ahead of the market. You can rebrand every funding cycle to match whatever's getting investment. You can pivot toward AI or personalization or whatever's next.
Or you can pick one problem, commit to solving it exceptionally well, and be boringly consistent about it for years.
The first path might get you VC interest. The second path gets you district renewals.
I've tried both. The second one builds a real business.
The EdTech graveyard is full of companies that chose speed over stability. The companies still standing chose differently.
In K-12, stability isn't boring. It's your foundation for growth.
It's the reason districts answer your calls. It's why they expand from one school to ten. It's why they renew year after year.
And it's why, in a market full of pivoting startups, you'll still be here when they're gone.
What's helped you stay focused when the market pulls you toward the next trend? I'm genuinely curious how other founders navigate this tension.
Comments