In short
- A pitch fits on one page: the problem in your school's numbers, honest evidence, a pilot, the full cost and how you will judge success.
- Start with a problem your principal already recognises, not with the product's features.
- Promise modest results: research on reading technology finds small average effects, and a vendor's best study may not travel to your school.
- Ask for a time-limited pilot with a pass mark and a decision date, which is easier to approve than a purchase.
Principals are asked to approve many new things, and each one takes money and staff time. The Education Endowment Foundation's guide to implementation (Sharples, Albers, Fraser and Kime, 2019) argues that schools should probably make fewer, but more strategic, choices. A pitch for a reading platform has to show that it is one of those choices. This article is for the English coordinator who makes that case. It gives a one-page structure, honest wording for the evidence, answers to the usual objections, and the case for asking for a pilot first.
How do you pitch a reading platform to your principal?
Pitch a reading platform on one page, in five parts: the problem, the evidence, the pilot, the cost and the measure of success. Write each part in two or three sentences, with one number. End by asking for a pilot with one class and a decision date, not for a school-wide purchase.
- The problem. What is wrong now, in which classes, shown by a number from your own records.
- The evidence. What research says this kind of approach can do, stated modestly.
- The pilot. One class, four to six weeks, and a pass mark written in advance.
- The cost. The full cost per pupil per year and the staff hours, for the pilot and for a full rollout.
- The measure of success. The number that will decide whether to go on, and who will check it.
Keep it to one page. If the principal wants more, they will ask, and you will have the detail ready. If you have not chosen a product yet, run the Reading Platform Buyer's Checklist first.
Start with the problem, not the product
Lead with something the principal already worries about. 'This platform has games and audio' is a feature list. 'Last term, 31 of 78 Grade 7 pupils finished no English reader' is a problem. Those figures are invented; use your own.
The EEF guide puts this step first. Sharples et al. (2019) recommend that schools define the problem they want to solve before choosing programs, and identify a tight area for improvement through a robust diagnostic process. Schools often skip it. Morrison, Ross and Cheung (2019) found that needs assessments were rarely conducted when school districts bought ed-tech products.
The evidence for the problem is usually already in school. Look in these places:
- Reading records. How many texts each pupil finished last term, and who finished none.
- Library loans. Which classes borrow English books, and how often.
- A short reading check. The level each pupil can read at without help.
- Teachers' notes. Which pupils read at home, and which never do.
Say where your number came from and how many pupils it covers. Then try a pre-mortem, which Sharples et al. (2019) describe: imagine the plan has failed, and work backwards to find out why. Write down the two likeliest reasons, and say in the pitch how the pilot will check for them.
The evidence: what to claim, and what not to
Keep this part short and modest. A claim with a source and a small number is harder to knock down than a big promise.
Cheung and Slavin (2013) reviewed 20 studies of educational technology for struggling readers in grades 1 to 6, with about 7,000 pupils. The average effect on reading skills was positive but small (effect size 0.14). Small-group approaches tightly integrated with the reading curriculum did best (0.32).
Comprehensive programs in that review did not show meaningful positive effects. The authors warn that some of these results rest on few studies and need extreme caution. The pupils were struggling primary readers, so use the figures as a sense of scale.
Escueta, Nickow, Oreopoulos and Quan (2020) reviewed experimental research on education technology. They write that technology can help learning, or in some cases hinder it. For pupils in school, giving a child a computer may have limited impacts on learning. Your case should rest on what pupils will do with the platform, not on the technology.
Expect small numbers. Kraft (2020) found a median effect of 0.10 standard deviations across 747 randomised trials of education programs. He also notes that effects tend to shrink when small programs are taken to scale.
| Avoid | Say instead | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 'This platform will raise our results.' | 'Research on reading technology finds small average gains. A pilot will show whether we see any.' | Average effects are small (Cheung and Slavin, 2013; Kraft, 2020) |
| 'Pupils love it.' | 'In six weeks we will count how many pupils read three times a week without being chased.' | Enjoyment is not reading; a count can be checked |
| 'The vendor's study shows a big effect.' | 'The vendor's study had 80 pupils of another age. Ours may differ.' | Small studies tend to report larger effects than large ones (Kraft, 2020) |
| 'Other schools use it.' | 'Here is what it would cost us per pupil per year, and in staff hours.' | Buying decisions often rest on peer references more than rigorous evidence (Morrison et al., 2019) |
Ask for a pilot, not a purchase
A pilot is a smaller decision. It costs one class a few weeks, not the school a year's budget. The principal can say yes without betting on the result, and the school learns from its own pupils.
Make it a real test. Morrison et al. (2019) found that districts often decided on small-scale pilot tryouts. A tryout that cannot fail proves nothing. Write the pass mark before the pilot starts, and give it to the principal to hold.
How to Run a Pilot of a Reading Platform sets out the design: a typical class, a baseline, a comparison class and stop signals. The pitch needs only four lines from it: the class, the length, the pass mark and the decision date.
Say what happens after a pass, too. Sharples et al. (2019) advise treating scale-up as a new implementation process. A good result leads to a plan for the next stage, not to every class at once.
The cost and the measure of success
Give the cost in two units: cost per pupil per year, with every ingredient counted, and staff hours per week. Give both for the pilot and for a full rollout, so the second meeting holds no surprises. What Should a School Reading Program Cost? A Budgeting Guide shows how to build both figures.
Then name the measure of success: one or two numbers, chosen now, that will settle the question. Kraft (2020) argues that effects should be weighed against their costs, so put the result and the cost side by side.
Agree now how the result will be reported. How to Write a Term Reading Report for Your Board gives a one-page format you can reuse for the pilot report.
A one-page case you can copy
Here is the whole case for an invented school. Every name and figure in it is invented. Replace them with your own.
Example one-page case (invented school and figures)
Problem. Last term, 31 of 78 Grade 7 pupils finished no English reader. Source: class reading records.
Evidence. Reviews of reading technology find small average gains (Cheung and Slavin, 2013). We expect no miracle. The pilot will show whether our pupils read more.
Pilot. Class 7B, 26 pupils, six weeks from 2 February. Pass mark: 18 of 26 pupils read three times a week in weeks 4 to 6.
Cost. Pilot: no licence fee, and about 20 minutes of teacher setup a week. Full rollout: the vendor's quote as a cost per pupil per year, plus about 2 staff hours a week.
Measure of success. The pass mark above, and teacher setup under 20 minutes a week by week 3. Decision meeting on 23 March, chaired by the deputy head.
How to answer the usual objections
Each objection has a reasonable worry behind it. Answer the worry, not the words.
| Objection | The worry behind it | An answer |
|---|---|---|
| 'We tried something like this before.' | Money and goodwill were wasted last time | 'This time there is a pass mark and a stop date. If it fails, we stop after six weeks.' |
| 'Teachers have no time.' | Another task lands on stretched staff | 'The pilot will log teacher minutes every week. Here is what we will stop doing to make room.' |
| 'We can't afford it.' | The full cost is unknown | 'Here is the cost per pupil per year, with staff time counted. The pilot costs one class six weeks.' |
| 'Where is the evidence?' | Vendors' claims are hard to trust | 'The research shows small average effects. That is why we want our own data before buying.' |
| 'What about pupils' data?' | Risk to pupils and to the school | 'The vendor has answered our data questions in writing, before any pupil logs in.' |
| 'They will lose interest after a few weeks.' | A new tool always looks good at first | 'We will compare use in the first two weeks with the last two.' |
Two answers need work before the meeting. For teacher time, Sharples et al. (2019) ask schools what they can stop doing to create the space, time and effort for something new. Name one thing. For data, send the vendor the questions in Student Data Privacy: Questions to Ask an EdTech Vendor, and bring the replies.
After the meeting
If the answer is yes, put the decision meeting in the diary before the pilot starts. A fixed date stops a pilot drifting into a purchase by default, or into a quiet end.
Bring the result back in the same five parts you pitched. If the pilot failed, say so in the first line. Stopping after six weeks is a cheap lesson.
If the answer is no, ask what evidence would change it, and write the answer down. Then decide whether you can collect that evidence, and come back when you have it.
How iRead handles this
A school can run a free iRead pilot with one class for 4 to 6 weeks, with full dashboards including attendance and retention, before any school-wide decision. Attendance at sessions is recorded automatically, and teachers see retention per word, per game and per class. School leaders see levels reached, words retained and stories completed, by class, grade and term. iRead is a paid platform, so the case after the pilot still needs a cost line.
The one-line ask: 'Can we pilot this with one class for six weeks, with a pass mark agreed today and a fixed decision date?' is far easier to approve than a purchase.
See it in iRead: A school can run a free pilot with one class for 4 to 6 weeks, with full dashboards for attendance and retention, before any school-wide decision.
For school leadersKey takeaway
Pitch a problem, not a product. State the evidence modestly, give the full cost, and ask for a pilot with a pass mark and a decision date.
Frequently asked questions
How do I get budget approved for a reading platform?
Bring a one-page case: the problem in your school's own numbers, modest evidence, a pilot plan, the full cost per pupil per year with staff hours, and the measure of success. Ask first for a pilot with one class and a decision date, not for a full purchase.
How do I pitch an edtech product to a principal?
Start with a problem the principal already recognises, backed by a number from your records. Then show what the research suggests, what a pilot would test, what it would cost and how you will judge it. Keep it to one page, and answer the workload question before it is asked.
Who should be in the pitch meeting?
The person who decides and the person who holds the budget, if they are different. A joint meeting stops your case being passed on second-hand. Bring the teacher who would run the pilot, so that questions about class time get a first-hand answer.
What if the principal says no?
Ask what evidence would change the answer, and write it down. If a pilot could produce that evidence, offer one with a pass mark agreed in advance. If the objection is cost or timing, ask when the budget is next set, and come back then.
What results should I promise?
Promise a test, not a result. Reviews of reading technology report small average effects, such as 0.14 for struggling primary readers in Cheung and Slavin (2013). Promise to measure use, teacher time and one narrow learning measure, and to stop if the pass mark is missed.
Sources
- Sharples, J., Albers, B., Fraser, S., & Kime, S. (2019). Putting Evidence to Work: A School's Guide to Implementation. Guidance Report (2nd ed.). Education Endowment Foundation, London. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/eef-guidance-reports/implementation/EEF_Implementation_Guidance_Report_2019.pdf
- Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2019). From the market to the classroom: How ed-tech products are procured by school districts interacting with vendors. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 389-421. doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09649-4
- Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277-299. doi.org/10.1002/rrq.50
- Escueta, M., Nickow, A. J., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897-996. doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507
- Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241-253. doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798