EdTech’s Explosive Growth: Are We Building Solutions or Selling Slogans?
The Australian EdTech market is surging, with forecasts placing its value at USD 3.9 billion and climbing. Platforms are scaling, investment is flowing, and the sector is awash with buzzwords like “personalisation” and “adaptive learning.” On paper, the ecosystem seems primed to revolutionise education. But beneath the glossy product sheets and investor optimism lies a critical question: who is this technology actually serving?
The LinkedIn post quoted above touches on a fundamental tension in EdTech. While 60% of Australian educators reportedly prioritise personalisation, the term itself has become a catch-all marketing pitch for features that often fail to address the realities of everyday teaching. In practice, “personalisation” frequently translates into algorithm-driven dashboards and automated assessments—tools that may look impressive in demos but struggle to deliver meaningful support in the chaos of a real school day.
This disconnect isn’t new. It’s a feature of the EdTech landscape, not a bug. For decades, tech vendors have touted solutions that promise to “save teachers time” while simultaneously offloading administrative burden onto educators in the form of data entry, troubleshooting, and content management. What’s often missing is an honest discussion about whether these tools genuinely reduce cognitive load or simply add to it under the guise of innovation.
The Hidden Costs of “Solutions”
The core issue here isn’t just poor interface design or a lack of understanding about the rhythm of a school day (though those are critical flaws). The problem is structural. EdTech companies are incentivised to sell features that align with funding priorities—buzzwords like “AI-driven personalisation” or “adaptive learning pathways”—rather than tools that address the less glamorous, but far more impactful, needs of teachers and students.
For example, consider the vast investment in adaptive learning systems. These platforms often promise to tailor content to individual learners based on algorithmic assessments. But what happens when the “personalised” pathways don’t align with curriculum requirements or the teacher’s broader learning objectives? What happens when a glitch compromises the integrity of the data—or worse, when a lack of transparency means educators can’t even verify how those pathways are being calculated? These systems often shift responsibility for learning outcomes away from educators and toward opaque algorithms, which raises serious questions about accountability.
Moreover, the promise of saving time is undermined by the reality of implementation. Teachers are often expected to integrate these tools into their workflows with minimal support, leading to what can only be described as a second job: troubleshooting technology. This is particularly acute in under-resourced schools, where the gap between the promise and the reality of EdTech becomes even starker.
Power Dynamics and Vendor Priorities
The EdTech market’s growth isn’t just a story of innovation; it’s also a story of consolidation. As platforms scale, the power dynamics between vendors and institutions shift. Schools and universities increasingly find themselves locked into proprietary ecosystems that dictate not only how learning is delivered but also how data is managed. And herein lies another critical blind spot: the privacy and security implications of this trend.
When platforms claim to “personalise” learning, what they’re really doing is collecting vast amounts of data—on students, teachers, and even institutional practices. This data is often sold as a pathway to better outcomes, but it’s just as likely to be used for purposes that fall outside the scope of education, such as marketing or behavioural profiling. Australian regulators have been slow to catch up with these practices, leaving schools vulnerable to both breaches and exploitation.
It’s worth asking: how many educators truly understand where their data—let alone their students’ data—is going? Are schools equipped to audit their EdTech vendors for compliance with Australian privacy laws? Or are they simply taking these companies at their word, trusting that the promises of “security by design” and “GDPR compliance” mean something more than a checkbox on a sales pitch?
What Should EdTech Be Asking?
To be clear, this isn’t an argument against technology in education. Done well, EdTech can transform classrooms, empower educators, and open up new pathways for students. But the industry needs to start asking better questions—not just about what teachers need today, but about the long-term implications of its tools.
Here are a few questions that vendors and institutions alike should be asking:
Who benefits most from this technology? Is the primary beneficiary the teacher, the student, or the vendor’s bottom line?
What happens when the technology fails? Does the classroom grind to a halt, or are there robust contingencies in place?
How transparent is the data pipeline? Can educators easily understand and audit what the platform is doing with their information?
What’s the real cost of integration? Beyond the upfront price, what are the hidden costs in terms of training, maintenance, and long-term vendor lock-in?
The Risk of Noise Without Insight
EdTech’s promise has always been to make learning more accessible, engaging, and effective. But if the industry continues to prioritise sales pitches over substance, it risks becoming little more than noise—a cacophony of dashboards and adaptive pathways that look impressive but fail to resonate where it matters most: in the classroom.
Educators are right to demand more. They’re right to challenge platforms to prove their worth—not just in terms of feature lists, but in terms of outcomes, usability, and trust. And they’re right to insist that technology should serve the realities of teaching, not the ambitions of venture capitalists. Until EdTech truly centres teachers and students in its design and strategy, its growth will remain a hollow victory.
Leave a Reply