EdTech Colonization: A Critical Policy Analysis of Venture Capital's Impact on Curriculum Sovereignty and Teacher Agency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58329/criss.v4i3.193Abstract
Abstract Views: 2
platforms are reorganizing the public education governance, undermining curriculum sovereignty and undermining teacher agency. This paper will analyse how data colonialism functions in educational technology markets using critical discourse analysis of 75 procurement documents, analysis of 12 investment theses and synthesis of 7 published ethnographies, which contain teacher narratives. The results indicate that two-thirds of district contracts have perpetual data licenses, three-quarters of them do not include audit rights of an algorithm, and algorithmic governance replaces teacher professional judgment in a systematic way. Using the concept of data colonialism and the Critical Race Digital Studies approach, this article suggests a Curriculum Sovereignty Impact Assessment framework to EdTech procurement, whereby the absence of federal requirements to disclose algorithms and enable teacher override ability results in AI-enhanced learning continuing to mine advantage out of public institutions and centralizing curricular authority to proprietary systems.
Keywords:
digital divide, AI in education, curriculum sovereignty, educational equity, venture capital, teacher agency
References
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Open University Press.
Bulathwela, S., Pérez-Ortiz, M., Shawe-Taylor, J., & Riedel, S. (2024). AI alone will not democratize education: A systematic review of bias in adaptive learning systems. AI & Society, 39(2), 545-562.
Center for Democracy & Technology. (2021). Protecting student privacy and ensuring equitable algorithmic systems in education. https://cdt.org/insights/protecting-student-privacy-and-ensuring-equitable-algorithmic-systems-in-education/
Chiu, T. K., Lin, T. J., & Lonka, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence in adaptive education: A systematic review. Springer. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00908-6
De Laet, R., van Dijk, L., & van den Berg, S. (2020). Teacher agency in the age of datafication. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 301-316.
Digital Promise. (2021). What do edtech and AI have to do with racial bias? https://digitalpromise.org/2021/10/28/what-do-edtech-and-ai-have-to-do-with-race-bias/
Flyer One Ventures. (2024). F1V report: All you need to know about edtech in 2024. https://flyerone.vc/post/f1v-report-all-you-need-to-know-about-edtech-in-2024-infographics
Grand View Research. (2025). Education technology market size, share & trends analysis report. www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/education-technology-market
Growth Equity Interview Guide. (2025). Ed tech venture capital: Trends, exits, and hotspots. https://www.growthequityinterviewguide.com/venture-capital/sector-focused-venture-capital/ed-tech-venture-capital
Herodotou, C., Hlosta, M., Boroowa, A., Rienties, B., & Zdrahal, Z. (2019). Predictive modeling of student success and retention using machine learning. Computers & Education, 142, 103608.
HolonIQ. (2025). EdTech VC reached $2.4B for 2024, representing the lowest level of investment in a decade. www.holoniq.com/notes/edtech-vc-reached-2-4b-for-2024-representing-the-lowest-level-of-investment-in-a-decade
Khan Academy. (2024). Khan Academy efficacy results, November 2024. blog.khanacademy.org/khan-academy-efficacy-results-november-2024/
Market Growth Reports. (2025). Education technology (Ed Tech) market size, share & growth report. www.marketgrowthreports.com/market-reports/education-technology-ed-tech-market-114977
Minnesota Department of Education. (2024). Guiding principles for artificial intelligence in education. education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/tech/AI/AIEd/
Mullan, J., & Taddese, A. (2020). EdTech in Sierra Leone: A rapid scan. EdTech Hub. https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/C5MWWQI2
Noble, S. U., & Roberts, S. T. (2023). The end of trust: How Big Tech monetizes inequality. UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry.
O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
Penn State University. (2022). AI language models show bias against people with disabilities. www.psu.edu/news/information-sciences-and-technology/story/ai-language-models-show-bias-against-people-disabilities
Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
ScienceDirect. (2024). Investigating algorithmic bias in student progress monitoring. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X24000705
Stanford Law School. (2024). How will AI impact racial disparities in education? law.stanford.edu/2024/06/29/how-will-ai-impact-racial-disparities-in-education/
Thatcher, J., O'Sullivan, D., & Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), 990-1006.
U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning. www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) guidance. www2.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/artificial-intelligence-ai-guidance
U.S. Department of Education. (2025). U.S. Department of Education issues guidance on artificial intelligence use in schools. www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-issues-guidance-artificial-intelligence-use-schools-proposes-additional-supplemental-priority
Visible.vc. (2025). The VCs fueling the future of education in 2025. www.visible.vc/blog/edtech-investors/
Williamson, B. (2019). Policy networks, performance metrics, and platform markets in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794-2809.
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missed connections, and future directions in digital education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223-235.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
