Finding #1: We need to address challenges in education if we want to address the challenges with tech.

Often, education technologies recreate existing (and inequitable) practices. There aren’t particularly strong incentives for designers to create products that don’t fit into current systems.

Finding #2: We need to translate research into practice.

Education researchers and edtech designers rarely work together. Research findings are not available in accessible formats for designers, which means many edtech products don’t incorporate research-backed pedagogies.

Specifically, edtech developers often have a software engineering background, not a background in education. They sometimes base products on their own experiences, which are often not representative of the experiences of students with historically marginalized identities.

As a result, many edtech products reinforce ineffective and inequitable practices like rote learning.

Finding #3: We need to address and acknowledge the “Invisible Labor Market.”

Implementing new EdTech products requires teachers to invest time in familiarizing themselves with the product and planning how to implement it in their classrooms. Teachers are not compensated for this additional work. They are also rarely given adequate professional development or support.

Finding #4: We need better metrics to evaluate education technologies.

Any product can brand itself as “equitable”—much like food and body products can say “natural”—without any real evidence or meaning. The field lacks a single, cohesive set of metrics outlining what makes a product equitable. At the same time, districts are bombarded with edtech providers. They have neither the tools nor the time to distinguish one product from another, particularly when it comes to equity.

Finding #5: We need to acknowledge that technology is political and profit-driven.

Education technology, like all tech, holds the biases of the creator. That means that if edtech designers are with men with relatively little background in education or equity, products are likely to reflect that. In addition, education technology designed for the market is focused on profit (not on equity). Without incentives to prioritize equity, edtech companies are likely to choose the cheapest and most efficient design strategies.

Finding #6: Equity or Equity? There’s no shared vocabulary between funders and designers.

Many funders have one or more dominant identities (white, male, high socioeconomic status, etc) and many don’t have a background in DEI. Some of them are therefore not entirely comfortable talking about nuanced issues of equity and may not be well-equipped to work with edtech companies focused on equity issues. Additionally, funders and equity-focused edtech designers have different north stars — funders are interested in making returns on their investments, while equity-focused designers are most committed to making an impact.