School leaders are asked to evaluate technology programmes without necessarily being technologists, usually from a presentation, often against a deadline. The following questions are the ones we would ask in that position. We have included the ones that are uncomfortable for a vendor to answer, including for us.
On the curriculum
1. Show me the progression from Grade 1 to Grade 12 on one page. If it does not exist, or if it is a list of topics rather than a sequence of capabilities, the programme is a set of modules. That may still be worth buying — but you should know that is what you are buying.
2. What can a student do at the end of each year that they could not do at the start? Ask for it as a capability, not a topic. “Understands AI” is not an answer. “Can train a classifier on their own data and describe two ways it fails” is.
3. Where does text-based programming start, and why there? The answer reveals whether the sequencing is considered or inherited. There is no single correct grade; there is a correct reasoning.
4. What happens to a student who joins in Grade 8? Every school has mid-entry students. Programmes designed only for a clean Grade 1 start handle them badly.
On the teachers
5. Who delivers this — my teachers, or yours? Both models can work. They have completely different implications for cost, continuity and what remains if the contract ends.
6. What does a teacher receive for a single session? Ask to see one, in full. A lesson plan with timings, prompts, a worked solution and a note on common misconceptions is a different product from a slide deck.
7. What is the plan for a teacher who is not confident? The honest programmes have a specific answer. The rest describe training days.
On evidence
8. What does a completed student project look like at Grade 5, Grade 8 and Grade 11? Ask to see real examples. This single question separates programmes that produce work from programmes that produce coverage.
9. How is a student assessed, and can I see a rubric? If assessment is a multiple-choice test at the end of a unit, the programme is not project-based regardless of how it is described.
10. What will I be able to see as a principal? Then ask what a parent will see, and what a student will keep after they leave.
The three uncomfortable ones
11. What does this programme not cover? Every honest curriculum has boundaries. A vendor who cannot name theirs has either not thought about it or is not telling you.
12. Which schools have stopped using this, and why? Nobody enjoys this question. The answer tells you more than any reference call, and a considered response to it is a strong signal.
And one more, for any programme claiming to work in your language of instruction: show me the teacher material in that language. Student-facing translation is common. Teacher-facing translation is where the real investment shows.
What to weight
Two things predict whether a programme is still running well in year three, more than any feature comparison.
The first is teacher load. A programme that requires two hours of unsupported preparation per session will be quietly hollowed out by the end of the second term. Not through resistance — through arithmetic.
The second is whether students produce things. Programmes that generate visible student work create their own momentum. Parents see it, students want to be in it, and teachers get the reinforcement that makes the effort sustainable. Programmes that generate completion percentages have to be pushed every year.
Ask to see the work. If there is none to show, that is the answer.