The hiring of technology directors in school districts without formal education credentials or prior classroom experience is a phenomenon that has steadily grown over the last twenty-five years. Once an anomaly, it is now a widespread practice across the United States. The roots of this shift stretch back to the early years of school technology adoption in the 1980s and 1990s, when computers began appearing in classrooms and networks were first installed in schools. In those years, the “computer teacher” or “media specialist” often served as the de facto technology coordinator. They were educators who gradually learned to troubleshoot hardware, install software, and guide colleagues through early digital learning projects. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, as schools expanded into enterprise networks, large student information systems, and web-based applications, the technical demands outpaced what most educators could learn on the side. This marked the beginning of a professionalization process that pushed school technology leadership toward individuals with IT training, often outside education.
By 2015, data from the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) showed that a majority of K–12 technology leaders still came from educational backgrounds, with fifty-eight percent identifying as former teachers or administrators. The remainder came primarily from IT roles in the private sector or government (CoSN, 2015). But within a decade the pattern had flipped. By 2020, only forty-two percent of district technology leaders reported an education background, and by 2025 a majority—over fifty percent—came directly from information technology or related technical fields (CoSN, 2020; CoSN, 2025). An Education Week profile noted that while women in the field still more often emerged from instructional roles, the dominant profile of male chief technology officers was a career technologist from outside schools (Langreo, 2023). This demographic evidence confirms that the hiring of non-educators into these roles is not incidental but systemic.
The structural reasons for this change begin with policy. Unlike principals, superintendents, or special education directors, technology directors are not licensed educational administrators in most states. Only a few, such as Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New York, have developed certification or endorsement programs that require coursework in both technology and education (CoSN, 2021). Most states leave the role unregulated, classifying it as an operational or support staff position rather than as an instructional leader. This legal gap allows school boards wide latitude in hiring. Job postings frequently list IT skills—network administration, cybersecurity, systems integration—as requirements, while describing education credentials or classroom experience as “preferred.” Thus, while a board must by law hire a certified educator to serve as a principal, it faces no such constraint when hiring a technology director.
The rationale behind these hiring decisions is closely tied to the challenges schools face. The modern K–12 technology environment resembles a mid-sized corporate enterprise. Districts must maintain networks across multiple campuses, manage one-to-one laptop or tablet initiatives, ensure secure wireless access for thousands of users, and integrate learning management systems with state and federal data reporting. At the same time, school districts are among the most targeted institutions for ransomware and phishing attacks, precisely because they hold sensitive student data but often lack hardened defenses. The 2020 “State of K–12 Cybersecurity” report documented a sharp increase in ransomware attacks on schools, with incidents doubling between 2018 and 2020 (K12 Security Information Exchange, 2021). In such a climate, it is unsurprising that boards gravitate toward candidates with extensive IT credentials. CoSN’s 2025 survey explicitly noted that the growing number of leaders from outside education “reflects the role’s expanding focus on infrastructure, cybersecurity, and systems integration” (CoSN, 2025, p. 4).
Budgetary realities reinforce this pattern. In large districts, it is possible to split responsibilities between a director of infrastructure and operations and a director of instructional technology. The former may come from IT, the latter from education. But small and mid-sized districts typically cannot afford two such positions. When forced to choose, boards tend to select technical expertise over instructional experience, reasoning that without a secure and functioning infrastructure, instructional ambitions are irrelevant. A Reddit discussion among K–12 system administrators captured this logic bluntly: if a district can only afford one IT director, it will “prioritize a technical background over an educational one” (Reddit, 2022).
The consequences of hiring technology directors without education backgrounds play out across several domains, beginning with operations and cybersecurity. On the positive side, IT professionals often bring a level of rigor and preventative strategy that schools previously lacked. Practices such as regular penetration testing, incident response planning, multi-factor authentication, and robust backup protocols are more likely to be implemented under leaders with corporate IT backgrounds. Districts that once limped along with reactive support frequently report greater reliability and fewer outages once a seasoned IT professional is in charge. This in turn benefits students and teachers, who depend on uninterrupted access to digital resources.
Yet these operational strengths can produce unintended instructional challenges. School culture is not corporate culture. Directors new to education may not grasp how decisions ripple into classrooms. Locking down networks too tightly may inadvertently prevent teachers from accessing legitimate educational resources. Lengthy software approval processes, designed to minimize security risks, can delay the adoption of innovative instructional applications. A blog post from SchoolWebmasters observed that as recently as a few years ago, many technology directors “overshadowed instruction” by focusing too narrowly on locking down systems (Gonser, 2020). Directors without classroom experience may need to consciously learn how to balance security with instructional flexibility, a balance that requires input from educators.
The most significant impacts arise in the realm of instructional technology integration and teacher support. Research has consistently shown that technology by itself does not improve learning outcomes. What matters is how teachers use it. As Cuban (2001) argued in his classic study, computers in classrooms were often oversold and underused because teachers lacked support or saw little instructional value. A second-order meta-analysis by Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, and Schmid (2011) confirmed that the impact of technology on learning is mediated by instructional practices. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) further demonstrated that teachers’ beliefs, confidence, and cultural context strongly shape whether they adopt technology. Without intentional leadership that provides training and encouragement, devices remain underutilized.
Directors from teaching backgrounds tend to recognize this intuitively. They design professional development, empathize with teacher frustrations, and champion instructional innovation. Directors from IT backgrounds, however, may see their role more narrowly as keeping systems functional. Teachers under such leadership sometimes feel unsupported, describing technology as something “dumped on them” without adequate training. The West Virginia statewide technology project is instructive here. Evaluators found that student achievement gains were greatest not in classrooms with the most devices but in classrooms where teachers received consistent training (Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, & Kottkamp, 1999). This underscores the danger of treating infrastructure as the endpoint rather than the foundation.
Case studies illustrate the divergent paths districts can take. In El Paso, Texas, the Canutillo Independent School District hired a former principal, Oscar Rico, as director of technology in 2020. Though he had little technical background, he leveraged his instructional knowledge to implement bold solutions during the pandemic, prioritizing teacher and student needs (EdTech Magazine, 2021). In contrast, a Pennsylvania district in 2025 hired a new director with an associate’s degree in information technology and years as a network administrator, but with no mention of prior school experience (Altoona Mirror, 2025). Each hire reflects a different priority—one emphasizing instructional alignment, the other technical capacity. The risks and benefits of each approach mirror the broader debate.
Students feel the downstream effects of these leadership decisions. Reliable networks, well-managed devices, and robust cybersecurity clearly benefit students by ensuring access and protecting learning time. But access alone is insufficient. As Tamim et al. (2011) emphasized, technology integration only produces significant learning gains when paired with effective pedagogy. Without directors who value and support teacher training, students may use devices superficially rather than deeply, limiting educational impact. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this reality became starkly visible. Districts with directors attuned to instructional needs pivoted more effectively to remote learning, often because they had invested in teacher preparation beforehand. Districts where directors had focused primarily on infrastructure sometimes found that while devices were distributed, teachers and students struggled to use them effectively for learning.
Equity concerns further complicate the picture. Students from low-income households often lack reliable home internet. Students with disabilities require assistive technologies and accommodations. Directors with education backgrounds are often quicker to perceive and address these needs. However, directors from IT backgrounds can and do embrace equity once oriented to its importance. CoSN’s 2025 report highlighted that more districts are now prioritizing off-campus access and digital inclusion, often at the urging of technology leaders who recognize the systemic gaps (CoSN, 2025). The pandemic accelerated this recognition, as directors scrambled to provide hotspots and digital access for students learning from home. Whether directors came from IT or education, those who internalized the equity mission demonstrated the most effective leadership.
Professional organizations have stepped in to bridge the gap. CoSN’s Certified Education Technology Leader (CETL) credential requires leaders to demonstrate competence in three domains: leadership and vision, understanding the education environment, and managing technology resources (CoSN, 2021). The inclusion of “understanding the education environment” is particularly significant. It signals that even IT veterans must develop a grasp of curriculum, instruction, and assessment if they are to succeed as school leaders. ISTE’s Standards for Education Leaders make a similar point, emphasizing visionary leadership, empowerment of teachers, alignment with learning goals, and equity (ISTE, 2018). These frameworks provide roadmaps for blending technical and educational expertise.
Policy discussions suggest that states may eventually formalize the role more rigorously. Just as principals are required to hold administrative credentials, advocates argue that technology directors should demonstrate both IT competence and educational leadership. Illinois and Pennsylvania’s endorsement programs represent early moves in this direction. Until such standards are widespread, however, districts must rely on their own hiring processes to ensure balance. Boards can require CETL certification, include teachers on hiring committees, or establish dual leadership structures. CoSN and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) even provide a model job description that specifies both technical and educational responsibilities, recommending CETL certification within a year of hire (CoSN, 2019).
The long-term implications of these hiring patterns are profound. On one hand, districts gain operational stability and protection against cybersecurity threats by hiring from IT. On the other, they risk underemphasizing instructional innovation. The solution is not to reject IT professionals but to embed them more deeply in the educational mission. This can be achieved through certification, mentorship, and collaboration with instructional leaders. As Keith Krueger, CEO of CoSN, has observed, those from education must learn technology, while those from technology must learn education (EdTech Magazine, 2021). The goal is convergence, not replacement.
In sum, the hiring of technology directors without formal education backgrounds is common and growing. It reflects structural policy gaps, pragmatic responses to technical threats, and a broader reconceptualization of technology as an enterprise function in schools. The practice yields clear benefits in operations and cybersecurity but carries risks for instructional integration. Students benefit most when districts recognize the need for balance and deliberately cultivate leaders who can marry IT expertise with educational vision. Professional organizations and state policies are beginning to provide frameworks for such balanced leadership, but much work remains. The trend will likely continue, but its success will depend on how effectively schools ensure that their technology directors serve not just as system managers but as partners in learning.
References
Altoona Mirror. (2025, September). Bellwood-Antis School District hires technology director. Altoona Mirror.
Consortium for School Networking. (2015). 2015 IT leadership survey report. CoSN.
Consortium for School Networking. (2019). Job description for a chief technology officer or technology director. CoSN EmpowerED Superintendent Toolkit.
Consortium for School Networking. (2020). 2020 state of edtech leadership survey. CoSN.
Consortium for School Networking. (2021). Certified education technology leader (CETL) framework. CoSN.
Consortium for School Networking. (2025). 2025 state of edtech district leadership. CoSN.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
EdTech Magazine. (2021, June). New K–12 technology leaders rise up from educator and administrator ranks. EdTech Magazine.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Gonser, S. (2020). The changing role of the school IT director. SchoolWebmasters Blog.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2018). ISTE standards for education leaders. ISTE.
K12 Security Information Exchange. (2021). The state of K–12 cybersecurity: 2020 year in review.
Langreo, L. (2023, August). Who are K–12 technology leaders? Education Week.
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia statewide educational technology implementation: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Milken Family Foundation.
Reddit. (2022). Former educators as IT directors? r/k12sysadmin.
Tamim, R., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P., & Schmid, R. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.
