Higher education today operates under pressures that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Student populations are larger and more diverse. Costs are rising. Accountability demands are sharper. At the same time, universities are expected to prepare students for economies shaped by artificial intelligence, automation, and rapid technological change. In this context, educational technology—edtech—is no longer an optional enhancement or a temporary solution. It has become core infrastructure.
The question, therefore, is not whether higher education should use edtech. In the AI age, that question is effectively settled. The more difficult and important question is how edtech is designed, deployed, governed, and constrained, and what happens when market incentives, policy decisions, and educational goals fall out of alignment.
Edtech carries real promise. It also carries real risk. Understanding its business model is essential for students, educators, and policymakers alike—because the effects of these systems are not abstract. They shape learning experiences, academic outcomes, and institutional priorities in very real ways.
Also Read:
- Why the UGC Guidelines Risk Harming General Category Students
- When systems start standing in for learning
- The Real Harm of EdTech Isn’t Technology — It’s the Decisions We’ve Stopped Making
EdTech as Infrastructure, Not Innovation
Edtech is often discussed as innovation: new platforms, smarter software, adaptive tools. But for most universities, edtech functions less like innovation and more like infrastructure. Learning management systems, student information systems, digital assessment tools, analytics dashboards, and advising platforms form the backbone of daily academic life.
A large public university enrolling tens of thousands of students cannot function without these systems. Registration, grading, course delivery, compliance reporting, communication, and student support all rely on them. Even smaller institutions increasingly depend on edtech to manage complexity, reduce administrative burden, and demonstrate accountability to regulators and funders.
In the AI era, this reliance deepens. Governments and institutions alike see technology as a way to scale education, reskill workforces, and remain competitive globally. Countries are actively trying to leapfrog one another in AI literacy, digital skills, and research capacity. From that perspective, rejecting edtech outright is not a serious option. The real challenge lies elsewhere.
How the EdTech Business Model Works
To understand where tensions arise, it helps to be clear about how most edtech companies operate.
Edtech is predominantly a business-to-institution market. Vendors sell to universities, colleges, and education systems—not to individual students. Procurement decisions are made by administrators, committees, or boards. Contracts are often long-term, expensive, and deeply embedded into institutional workflows.
Once adopted, edtech systems integrate with other platforms and databases. Switching costs become high. Over time, what began as a tool becomes part of the institution’s operating logic. Policies, processes, and even teaching practices adapt to the software, rather than the other way around.
Students, meanwhile, are the primary users of these systems, but rarely have a meaningful voice in choosing them. This creates a three-way relationship: institutions as buyers, vendors as providers, and students as users without purchasing power. Many of the strengths and weaknesses of edtech flow directly from this structure.
The Genuine Upside: Why Institutions Rely on EdTech
It is important to acknowledge that edtech adoption is not driven by fantasy or hype alone. These systems solve real problems.
At scale, edtech can reduce administrative friction. Automated enrollment systems replace paperwork. Learning platforms centralize course materials. Digital assessment tools speed feedback. Analytics help institutions identify patterns that human staff might miss.
For students, when edtech works well, the benefits are tangible. Course materials are accessible anytime. Communication is clearer. Feedback can be faster. Early alert systems, when used responsibly, can flag disengagement and prompt timely outreach.
Consider a first-generation student juggling coursework with part-time work. An advising system that notices declining participation and triggers human support can prevent a silent failure. In such cases, technology acts as an enabler—not a replacement—for care.
These benefits are real, and dismissing them would be dishonest. The problem is not that edtech delivers no value. The problem is that value is uneven, conditional, and highly dependent on surrounding decisions.
Where the Model Begins to Strain
The tensions in edtech do not usually arise from bad intentions. They arise from structural incentives.
Misaligned Priorities
Because edtech companies sell to institutions, their products are often optimized for institutional needs: reporting, compliance, scalability, and administrative oversight. Student experience, while important, is not always the primary driver.
This can lead to platforms that are excellent at generating dashboards for accreditation reviews but confusing or unintuitive for daily student use. From the institution’s perspective, the system “works.” From the student’s perspective, it feels burdensome.
Lock-In and Standardization
Once a platform is embedded, replacing it is costly and disruptive. As a result, institutions often adapt their practices to fit the tool. Assessment formats, course structures, and even pedagogical approaches may be constrained by what the platform supports easily.
Over time, this leads to standardization—not necessarily because it is educationally superior, but because it is technically convenient. For students whose learning styles or circumstances fall outside the assumed norm, this rigidity can be harmful.
Data as an Asset
Modern edtech systems collect vast amounts of data: logins, clicks, time spent, submission patterns, and engagement metrics. In isolation, this data can support learning. Aggregated and interpreted, it becomes powerful.
The concern is not merely privacy in the narrow legal sense, but control and interpretation. Students are rarely told how long their data persists, how it is used in decision-making, or how automated conclusions can be challenged. When data becomes currency, transparency becomes essential—and is often lacking.
EdTech in the AI Age: Amplifier, Not Neutral Tool
Artificial intelligence intensifies these dynamics. AI-driven systems promise personalization, prediction, and efficiency. Used carefully, they can support adaptive learning, tailor feedback, and help educators focus attention where it is most needed.
But AI does not simply make neutral decisions faster. It amplifies existing assumptions and priorities.
An algorithm trained to identify “at-risk” students may help advisors intervene early. It may also misclassify students who deviate from expected patterns due to work, caregiving, disability, or language barriers. Once a student is flagged, that label can quietly shape how they are treated.
The risk is not that AI exists in education. The risk is that its outputs are treated as objective truth rather than probabilistic signals requiring human judgment.
Profit Is Not the Enemy—Unconstrained Profit Is
Edtech companies are private enterprises. They are expected to grow, scale, and generate returns. This is not inherently wrong. In fact, without profit incentives, many useful technologies would not exist.
The tension arises because education is not a typical market. It serves public, social, and developmental goals that do not always align neatly with revenue optimization. When profit becomes the dominant or unchecked driver, predictable problems emerge: excessive data collection, feature expansion without consent, and prioritization of scalable solutions over context-sensitive ones.
This is not a moral accusation. It is an economic reality. Markets allocate resources efficiently, but they do not automatically protect vulnerable users or long-term public interests. That is why counterweights matter.
The Often-Ignored Variable: Policy and Governance Quality
Even well-designed technology can fail under poor governance. In fact, edtech is particularly sensitive to policy quality because of its scale and permanence.
When policymakers or administrators lack understanding of pedagogy, data ethics, or system complexity, decisions can have lasting negative effects. Mandating tools without adequate training, rushing implementation to meet political timelines, or favoring vendors without rigorous evaluation all carry consequences.
For example, remote proctoring software introduced without safeguards has, in some contexts, led to student distress, accessibility issues, and legal challenges. The technology did not invent these harms; policy decisions amplified them.
Edtech magnifies decision-making. Competent, informed, ethical leadership can scale benefits. Poorly informed or biased decisions can scale harm just as efficiently.
This is why the quality of decision-makers matters. Not their ideology, but their competence, integrity, and willingness to consult educators and students. In edtech, governance failures are rarely visible immediately—but their effects linger.
Guardrails as Enablers, Not Obstacles
The solution is not rejection, nor blind adoption. It is guardrails.
Guardrails are not anti-innovation. They are risk management tools. In the context of edtech, they can include transparency about data use, meaningful student recourse against automated decisions, human oversight of AI outputs, and periodic review of systems rather than permanent lock-in.
Good guardrails ensure that analytics inform support rather than trigger punishment, that efficiency does not override fairness, and that technology remains a tool rather than an authority.
Importantly, guardrails apply not only to companies, but also to institutions and policymakers. Evidence-based decision-making, pilot programs with evaluation, sunset clauses, and student representation are all part of responsible governance.
Conclusion: Shaping the Tool That Will Shape Education
Edtech is here to stay. In an AI-driven world, higher education cannot retreat to pre-digital models without sacrificing access, relevance, and global competitiveness. The real choice is not whether edtech belongs in education, but under what conditions it operates.
Markets alone cannot govern systems that shape human development at scale. Policy without competence can be just as damaging. Students, who bear the consequences of these choices, deserve transparency, accountability, and care.
In the end, edtech reflects the system that deploys it. It can widen access or entrench inequality, support learning or reduce it to metrics. The difference lies less in code than in the decisions that surround it. In the AI age, shaping those decisions responsibly is not optional—it is the work.