Dell Technologies Senior Vice President Leslie Harlien on AI, governance, shrinking margins for error, and what districts now demand from partners.
INTERVIEW | by Victor Rivero
The easy era of education technology is over. District leaders are no longer asking whether technology belongs in schools. They are asking harder questions: Will this improve outcomes? Will it hold up financially? Will it protect student data? Will it still make sense two years from now?
Those conversations dominated CoSN 2026 in Chicago, where Dell Technologies spent their time listening closely to district technology leaders navigating a rapidly shifting landscape. During the conference, I spoke with Leslie Harlien, Senior Vice President at Dell Technologies, and more recently, we spoke again for this EdTech Digest interview where she shares her perspective on AI governance, infrastructure strain, device debates, and why the future of K–12 technology will belong to districts that lead with clarity, discipline, and accountability.
You’ve spent almost three decades in K–12 education technology. What keeps you in this work, and has your sense of why it matters changed over time?
My career has always been rooted in public sector work: State and local government, education, and the institutions that serve communities directly. But K–12 kept pulling me back, and eventually it became clear why. The students sitting in those seats are the next generation of leaders, citizens, and our future workforce. The technology they have access to shapes what becomes possible for them. That is a mission worth staying close to.
‘The students sitting in those seats are the next generation of leaders, citizens, and our future workforce. The technology they have access to shapes what becomes possible for them.’
What has evolved over time is how I think about impact. Early on, the focus was on access and innovation: getting the right tools into districts, expanding what was possible in the classroom. That work is still important, but over time it has evolved. What matters most now is what technology actually enables: better outcomes for students. Technology has to support better learning, give educators more room to do the work only they can do and create greater opportunity for students to build the skills they need in communities that have not always had the same levels of access.
That is still what drives me. The challenges are greater now, but the stakes are clearer. When technology works the way it should in a school, you can see it in what students are able to do and what teachers are able to focus on.
You’ve watched school technology move through several waves. What feels fundamentally different about the pressures districts are under right now compared with earlier cycles?
Earlier cycles of K-12 technology were largely about access and infrastructure. The dominant question was whether students had devices, whether schools had connectivity, whether the basic conditions for digital learning were in place. Those were real and important problems, and a lot of progress was made.
What feels fundamentally different now is that technology is integrated into nearly every part of school operations and learning. Districts are not managing one isolated technology challenge. They are proving instructional impact, protecting student data, integrating AI responsibly, supporting educators through significant change, and doing all of it within budgets that have not grown to match the complexity. In earlier cycles, districts could often sequence those challenges. Right now, leaders are managing them simultaneously, and the margin for error is smaller.
The shift I have noticed is that district leaders are asking harder questions earlier and asking them with real urgency. They want to know whether a decision will hold up over time, how it drives better outcomes for students and teachers, and whether it will still make sense two budget cycles from now. That is not just a technology conversation. It is an accountability conversation. It reflects how much the stakes have changed.
‘That is not just a technology conversation. It is an accountability conversation. It reflects how much the stakes have changed.’
Dell has been making significant investments in how it shows up for K–12 districts: dedicated teams, industry experts who came from education, a sharper focus on outcomes. What does that look like in practice for a district technology leader trying to get something done?
The practical question for a district technology leader is often simple: who understands what I am trying to get done, and who can help me move it forward? When a district leader is working through AI governance, a data center refresh, or a budget decision with real consequences for classrooms, they need someone across the table who understands the education environment.
That is why our K-12 work starts with education context. Our K-12 strategy team includes former teachers, district CTOs, curriculum leaders and change management veterans. They understand budget cycles, board accountability and the political realities that shape every technology decision a district makes. That experience matters because district leaders need a partner who has been in their shoes.
In practice, it means we start with the district’s pressure points. We look at how the pieces connect, from the device in a student’s hands to the infrastructure, policies and support models that keep learning moving. Districts are looking for partners who understand the whole environment, can provide end-to-end solutions, and help decisions hold up through implementation, sustained use and long-term change.
Every company has an AI story right now. What questions are the smartest district leaders asking that quickly separate a real use case from a marketing claim?
The strongest conversations start with the problem a district is trying to solve, then move to whether AI is the right tool for it. The next set of questions are even more important, and many of them are operational and cultural rather than purely technical. Who in the district can use this tool? What data can be entered into it? How do we integrate and clean all the data we have? How do we protect student privacy as the technology changes? How does it fit into the learning students are doing, and what skills do we want them to build as part of that experience? How are teachers being supported and enabled? These are governance, instructional and operational questions, and they determine whether AI becomes a meaningful tool rather than another layer of complexity.
The partners working with districts should come prepared to answer with specifics: clear use cases, realistic implementation timelines, privacy and security expectations, and evidence of measurable impact in comparable environments. Responsible AI adoption in K–12 will have intentionality, discipline, and shared commitment that districts and partners bring to its use.
‘Responsible AI adoption in K–12 will have intentionality, discipline, and shared commitment that districts and partners bring to its use.’
You mentioned districts starting to pool infrastructure as AI demands grow. What problem does that actually solve, and what governance or accountability issues does it create?
The problem it solves is scale. AI workloads, compute, storage and the platforms that support them require a level of investment that some individual districts cannot sustain on their own. We are starting to see districts explore shared models: regional hubs, state backbones or consortia where multiple school systems draw from a common infrastructure instead of each one standing up its own full stack. For smaller districts especially, that kind of shared model can be the difference between meaningful AI access and potentially being left behind.
The governance questions that come with it are real. Who owns and controls the data? Who decides which use cases are approved and what guardrails apply across districts with different communities and priorities? How does workflow change when multiple districts depend on shared infrastructure? How do you protect the voice of smaller districts so they are not simply absorbing the priorities of larger ones in the consortium?
These are not reasons to avoid shared models. They are the work that has to happen before districts build them. The shared infrastructure models that succeed will be the ones designed with governance, workflow, accountability and local voice in place from the beginning.
There’s a lot of conversation right now around devices, distraction, and screen time in schools. What’s your take, and what do you think the debate is missing?
Devices should be used purposefully and intentionally. When devices enter a learning environment without purpose or structure, they can pull students away from learning. Teachers and families understand this challenge. The answer is to get much clearer about use and have data to support it.
What the broader debate misses is the difference between passive use and active learning. A student consuming content without direction is in a very different place from a student using a device to write, research, collaborate, or solve a problem. The districts making the most progress pair access with instructional goals, teacher support, and real accountability for how technology supports learning.
That distinction matters most for students who rely on school as their most consistent point of access to devices and connectivity. Pulling back without a plan can widen the very gaps districts have worked hard to close. The goal is better-designed learning time, where technology has a clear purpose and helps students do work they could not do as well without it. That is how we prepare our future workforce for the skills and jobs of the future.
‘The goal is better-designed learning time, where technology has a clear purpose and helps students do work they could not do as well without it.’
What does success look like for K–12 technology in three to five years, and how does Dell’s role need to evolve to help districts get there?
Success in three to five years should feel like steady confidence. Fewer crises. Fewer surprises. Fewer decisions that have to be revisited a year later. The best version of K–12 technology is intentional, works reliably and gives leaders more room to focus on students, teachers and learning outcomes.
That means districts have to move from reactive to strategic. They are making decisions under real pressure: cyber risk, aging device fleets, funding deadlines, workforce constraints, and fast-moving expectations around AI. The districts that will be strongest in five years are building accountability into procurement now, weighing lifecycle value, instructional fit, cyber resilience and internal AI governance as part of their process.
That also changes what districts should expect from partners. They should expect education context, clear implementation support, measurable outcomes and transparent guidance about long-term value to achieve their mission.
The future of K-12 technology will belong to districts that invest with clarity, govern with discipline, and keep learning flowing to best prepare our future workforce and the next generation of leaders.
—
Victor Rivero is the Editor-in-Chief of EdTech Digest and Executive Producer of EdTech Digest’s Future Focus Forums (F3), bringing together edtech companies with top U.S. school district technology leaders for the most effective way to get feedback on new and existing products. Write to: victor@edtechdigest.com
0 Comments