Presumably that would _hurt_. Have you ever seen how much agony a teething baby is in?
I'm a math/physics professor at a teaching intensive university, and I'm _way_ up the bell curve for tech adoption in my classes among my colleagues -- I try out lots of stuff, partly because I think part of my job is to curate potential resources for my students, showing them tools that they might choose to use themselves. Some of those things I try stick, many don't. And I have sympathy for my colleagues, who are a little overwhelmed by all the possibilities and their regular work-loads -- any new thing they try will necessarily slow things down at first, so for many of them it has to get over the activation potential very quickly to be worth the effort, or the long-term payoff has to be very big.
I see a couple of issues:
1. Admittedly, many of my colleagues are just hesitant to try new things
2. Often, old tech solutions are just as good or better, especially when the goal is _learning_. I bring slide rules to my lessons about logarithms. Nothing better than physically moving them around and understanding what "adding logs" means, and why it is more convenient than multiplying enormous numbers. Of course, I dump them as soon as the students understand "what" they are doing and go back to using their phones or laptops with R installed when we care about efficiency.
3. Many of the tech solutions are passed down from above (we are politely "asked" to use Blackboard, for example), and their adoption has more to do with IT budgets and gimmickry than any real learning goals. How many ed tech products have actually gone to the effort of demonstrating real learning gains in real classrooms? I care about what my students _know_ and what they can _do_ -- I don't give a damn what tech it takes to get them there, and my colleagues are, I think, understandably weary/wary of all the pressure to try new things _because they're new_.
4. How many ed tech companies understand pedagogy? Admittedly, many professors don't understand it either, but I care about it, and frankly, a lot of potential technologies aren't compatible with all the learning goals a professor might have, or their use takes time away from some other goal.
At my high school in California a couple of years ago we developed a unit based on _Flatland_ that involved all four core academic subjects -- in the english class they actually read the book and discussed literary and stylistic aspects. In the history class they discussed the allegory being made about social class and gender. In the math class they talked about the geometry, and in my science class we talked about the role of geometry in understanding physics and chemistry, and did exercises and problems that drove home that point. It helped that this high school had a strong core teacher team that collaborated daily on coordinating lessons and sharing notes on struggles our students were having -- so we were already focused on interdisciplinary work and helping the students make connections between different subjects.
I applaud what you are trying to do, and reccomend that whatever materials you choose, you try to coordinate some of them with the other teachers at your level -- it works!