Edtech investors view the purpose of education primarily as a means to generate financial returns and transform learning into a lifelong, data-driven, and market-oriented process. This perspective fundamentally challenges long-held views about education, emphasizing scalability, personalization, and the creation of new revenue streams through digital platforms and data exploitation.
The investor’s vision of education
According to edtech investors, education should be a “pre-K to gray” endeavor (Davies et al., 2023, p. 82), encompassing an individual’s entire lifespan. This vision extends far beyond traditional schooling, positioning learning as a continuous, lifelong process integrated with private technology services and the entertainment industry (Davies et al., 2023). Investors promote a model of education that is increasingly detached from formal institutions, instead favoring direct-to-consumer (DTC) platforms that can bypass traditional gatekeepers (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2023; Komljenovic & Williamson, 2023).
However, some impact-focused investors present a more nuanced vision of education’s purpose. Rethink Education, while embracing the “Pre-K to gray” model characteristic of edtech investors, explicitly frames their mission around social impact rather than pure market opportunity. Their stated goal of “unlocking the full human potential of people who have been marginalized or underserved” suggests an alternative investor narrative that positions education as a tool for social mobility and equity. However, Rethink Education also characterizes its social mission as a “powerful business advantage”, demonstrating how even socially-conscious investors ultimately frame educational purpose through a market lens (Rethink Education Impact Report, 2023, p. 4).
The purpose of education, in this investor-driven paradigm, is closely tied to economic outcomes and employability. Investors like Owl Ventures demonstrate a strong focus on employability, workplace skills, and direct-to-consumer edtech (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2023; Komljenovic & Williamson, 2023). This approach aligns education more closely with labor market demands, promoting short courses, micro-credentials, and constant reskilling to “stay relevant in ever-evolving job markets” Davies et al., 2023, p. 85).
Personalization and data exploitation
A key aspect of the investor’s educational purpose is the emphasis on personalized learning through data-intensive platforms. Investors argue that personalization addresses individual learner needs more effectively than traditional, standardized education (Komljenovic & Williamson, 2023). However, this personalization is predicated on continuous data extraction and analysis, with investors claiming they need “as much biographical and behavioral data as possible” to address educational inequalities (Davies et al., 2023, p. 88).
This data-centric approach serves a dual purpose: it ostensibly improves educational outcomes while simultaneously creating valuable data assets for companies. Investors view user data as a source of “data rent” (Williamson, 2022, p. 160), which can be monetized through improved products, new services, or data-based intelligence (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2023). This perspective transmutes the purpose of education into a data-generating activity, where learning becomes secondary to the accumulation of valuable user information.
The tension between data utilization and educational equity is particularly evident in how investors approach the relatively new trend in generative AI (ChatGPT having launched in 2022). Rethink Education’s stance on AI reveals this complexity. On one hand, they explicitly warn against creating a two-tiered system where wealthy students receive human instruction while low-income students are relegated to AI-based teaching. This acknowledgment of potential harm demonstrates an awareness that technological solutions could worsen existing educational inequalities rather than solve them. Yet simultaneously, Rethink Education actively invests in AI-driven companies, suggesting they believe thoughtfully implemented AI can democratize access to quality education. Their portfolio company, “MagicSchool.AI”, develops tools to help teachers automate administrative tasks and create personalized learning materials, while “AllHere” uses AI to provide personalized support to students and families.
Rethink Education’s investments reflect a mindful positioning of AI as an enhancer of human capabilities rather than a replacement for human educators. This nuanced approach demonstrates how equity-focused investors may attempt to balance the benefits of data-driven personalization with the risks of technological exploitation. Though whether this balance is truly achievable within market constraints remains an open question. Indeed, Rethink Education may be using the discursive strategy of “AI as enhancer of human capability” in order to assuages concerns of key stakeholders who fear technological displacement.
Scaling and monetization
For edtech investors, the purpose of education increasingly aligns with opportunities for scaling and monetization. They view education as a “largely untapped trillion-dollar source of revenue” (Davies et al., 2023, p. 88), driving investments in technologies and markets that promise rapid scale and revenue growth (Williamson, 2022). This scaling often involves creating interoperable platform ecosystems that are both “lifelong” and “life-wide” (Davies et al., 2023, p. 89), aiming to capture as much of an individual’s learning journey as possible.
The imperative to scale creates particular tensions for investors who claim to prioritize social impact. Rethink Education’s portfolio illustrates how market logic shapes even ostensibly equity-focused investments. For instance, their investment in Wonderschool, a platform that helps individuals start home-based childcare businesses, frames the childcare crisis as a market opportunity. While Wonderschool’s mission includes making childcare more accessible, its business model depends on creating a profitable platform that can scale rapidly across markets. Similarly, Guild Education partners with large employers to provide education benefits to frontline workers, but its success relies on securing contracts with major corporations rather than serving the most economically marginalized populations directly. This venture capital approach creates systematic blind spots: those without stable employment cannot access Guild’s corporate-sponsored programs; those in areas with limited internet connectivity cannot utilize online learning platforms; those unable to afford the upfront costs cannot start Wonderschool businesses. The most vulnerable populations—including the unemployed, those in extreme poverty, or those in rural areas with limited infrastructure—often fall outside the reach of venture-backed solutions that require certain baseline conditions for profitability and scale.
Critiques and concerns
Critics argue that the investor-driven model of education undermines “foundational educational dignity and professionalism” (Regan & Khwaja, 2019, p. 1001). The emphasis on technology-driven solutions often lacks a coherent educational philosophy, relying instead on “uncritical faith” in the transformative power of digital tools (Regan & Khwaja, 2019, p. 1001). This approach risks reducing learning to a purely economic activity, focused on efficiency gains and individual advancement rather than broader societal benefits (Davies et al., 2023).
This tension becomes evident even among impact investors who explicitly prioritize social good. Rethink Education’s mission statements emphasize educational equity and social transformation, however, their investment criteria reveal inherent constraints, such as the need for rapid growth potential and sustainable revenue models. This typically leads them to work with established institutions that can afford new technologies, rather than the most under-resourced communities. Even when pursuing social impact, the venture capital model’s demand for commercial returns inevitably influences which educational problems get solved and which communities receive solutions.
Beyond these market tensions, the edtech investment model raises broader structural concerns. The push towards personalization and data collection creates significant privacy challenges, with unresolved moral tensions between using data for social good and exploiting it for profit (Davies et al., 2023). Furthermore, the increasing monopolization of the edtech sector by mega-corporations and vast platform ecosystems concentrates power among a few large companies and their investors (Williamson, 2022; Regan & Khwaja, 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, edtech investors view the purpose of education primarily through a lens of financial opportunity and technological transformation. Their vision reframes education as a lifelong, data-driven process aimed at producing economically valuable skills and generating profitable data streams. While this approach promises personalization and efficiency, it also risks reducing education to a purely economic activity, neglecting its broader social and cultural purposes. The case of Rethink Education demonstrates that even when investors explicitly prioritize social impact, the fundamental tensions between market imperatives and educational values remain unresolved. As the influence of edtech investors grows, it will become increasingly more important to critically examine their impact on educational values, practices, and outcomes.
References
Davies, H., Eynon, R., Komljenovic, J. & Williamson, B. (2023) ‘Investigating the financial power brokers behind EdTech’, Education Data Futures: Competing Interests in Data Education, pp. 80-92.
Komljenovic, J. & Williamson, B. (2023) ‘When public policy “fails” and venture capital “saves” education: Edtech investors as economic and political actors’, Globalisation, Societies and Education. doi:10.1080/14767724.2023.2272134.
Regan, P. M. & Khwaja, E. T. (2019) ‘Mapping the political economy of education technology: A networks perspective’, Policy Futures in Education, 17(8), pp. 1000-1023.
Rethink Education (2023) Impact Report 2023. Available at: https://impactreport.rteducation.com/
Williamson, B. (2022) ‘Big EdTech’, Learning, Media and Technology, 47(2), pp. 157-162.
Williamson, B. & Komljenovic, J. (2023) ‘Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-financial “futuring” of edtech investors in higher education’, Critical Studies in Education, 64(3), pp. 234-249.
Good work Melissa.
I found myself appreciating the strong lead-in: ‘Edtech investors view the purpose of education primarily as a means to generate financial returns and transform learning into a lifelong, data-driven, and market-oriented process. This perspective fundamentally challenges long-held views about education, emphasizing scalability, personalization, and the creation of new revenue streams through digital platforms and data exploitation.’ This is a direct and assertive response to the question, yet it maintains a nuance (suggested by ‘primarily’ ‘challenges’ etc.) that I think is right in line with sound academic critique. Good work with that. It is challenging to be assertive while still maintaining flexibility; or in the opposite to provide relative dimensions to your statement without devolving into ‘it’s all relative’ sorts of positions. Ultimately, when discussing education and technology, in many instances things can be both good and bad simultaneously (good at the macro level, bad at the micro one) so how we frame and discuss that becomes is a real challenge.
Literature: good use of the literature to support your argument and hopefully my comments on your previous week’s post (on evaluating individual sources) help a bit towards this end.
Discursive strategy: interesting that you note the Rethink Education example there, especially the ‘unlocking the full human potential of people who have been marginalized or underserved’ part. Clearly, and as you note, they are trying to do both things: accelerate social mobility through education and being profitable. This is a discursive strategy that was used quite commonly in the MOOC boom of the last decade. It is easy to succumb to some sort of cynicism here around this discursive strategy but there is where criticality helps in fending off that cynicism: our job is to see how their discursive strategies align (or not) with their activity, design, and impact. I am generally of the opinion that edtech entities are generally good faith actors, ie there is belief that their products might improve education. I don’t doubt that (or perhaps better put, I don’t see any critical advantage in doubting that at the onset of my research).
I like that you framed a good deal of this discussion around Rethink Education as it really helped the larger argument along. And indeed their candour in recognising the complexity of this issue is rare:
‘Rethink Education’s stance on AI reveals this complexity. On one hand, they explicitly warn against creating a two-tiered system where wealthy students receive human instruction while low-income students are relegated to AI-based teaching. This acknowledgment of potential harm demonstrates an awareness that technological solutions could worsen existing educational inequalities rather than solve them.’
Indeed and this is the worry of many, this two-tiered system. Some might argue this two-tiered system already exists and that our developments around AI are merely exploiting what was already there. But Rethink Education’s caution here, on the surface of it, is to be commended. Can I ask how they couched the warning? Either way, good work here Melissa in linking concepts to an interrogation of discursive strategy.
That caution on the part of Rethink Education also raises a bit the ontological argument as to what their overriding imperatives are (which again, the candour is refreshing so they are to be commended): commercial or educational. That is really simplistic I know, but companies like people (and like the field of education!) contain multitudes and contradictions and all sorts of contestations. Always interesting to note what elements are vying for control of a decision or a strategy.
‘The case of Rethink Education demonstrates that even when investors explicitly prioritize social impact, the fundamental tensions between market imperatives and educational values remain unresolved. As the influence of edtech investors grows, it will become increasingly more important to critically examine their impact on educational values, practices, and outcomes.’
As a reader of many of these blogs, you are to be commended for bookending the discussion with a reminder to the reader as to the purpose of the post in the first instance and its core takeaways! Surprisingly an overlooked writing strategy! Keep up the good work Melissa!