An Open Letter to the ASU+GSV Summit Committee: Who Does Your North Star Truly Guide?
To the organizers, innovators, and decision-makers shaping the ASU+GSV Summit:
Every year, your event draws thousands of leaders who believe education and technology can transform lives. The summit’s stated mission—to ensure that all people have equal access to the future—is a noble North Star. But as the glow of this year’s conference fades, a pressing question lingers: Who, exactly, is included in “all people”?
For over a decade, the ASU+GSV Summit has celebrated breakthroughs in edtech, workforce development, and venture capital. Yet behind the polished keynotes and startup pitches, a troubling pattern emerges. The innovations showcased often cater to those already positioned to succeed: affluent students, corporate upskilling programs, and institutions with deep pockets. Meanwhile, marginalized communities—students in underfunded schools, refugees, incarcerated individuals, and learners with disabilities—remain footnotes in the “future of education” narrative. If your North Star prioritizes scale and profit over equity, are we truly guiding humanity toward collective progress—or just accelerating existing divides?
—
The Disconnect Between Vision and Reality
The summit’s stage routinely features founders who’ve secured millions in funding for AI tutors or gamified learning apps. These tools can be transformative, but their reach often depends on market viability. Venture-backed solutions naturally gravitate toward customers who can pay, leaving behind those who need support most. For example:
– Digital divide: Over 16 million U.S. students still lack adequate home internet. Yet many “revolutionary” edtech tools require high-speed connectivity, effectively excluding low-income households.
– Algorithmic bias: Adaptive learning platforms tout personalized education but frequently replicate racial and socioeconomic biases in their design. A 2022 Stanford study found that math apps recommended easier problems to students from marginalized groups, perpetuating achievement gaps.
– Cost barriers: Subscription-based models dominate the edtech landscape, pricing out public schools already stretched thin.
When these issues arise, the summit’s programming tends to frame them as challenges to solve rather than systemic failures to confront. Panels on “bridging the equity gap” often lack voices from the communities impacted by these technologies. Where are the teachers from Title I schools? The parents navigating special education systems? The students who’ve experienced algorithmic discrimination firsthand?
—
The Myth of Neutral Innovation
A common refrain at ASU+GSV is that technology itself is neutral—it’s how we use it that matters. This logic ignores a critical truth: Technology is built by humans, and humans carry biases. From facial recognition software that struggles with darker skin tones to language-learning apps that default to Eurocentric curricula, edtech often reflects the perspectives of its creators.
Consider Summit Learning, a platform developed with funding from Mark Zuckerberg’s Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Despite its goal of empowering student-driven learning, the program faced backlash for allegedly collecting sensitive student data and imposing rigid structures that ignored diverse learning styles. The lesson? Even well-intentioned tools can harm marginalized groups when designed without their input.
Yet the summit’s venture capital partnerships incentivize scaling solutions quickly, not iterating thoughtfully. Investors seek returns, not reparations. This misalignment raises ethical questions: Can a system driven by profit motives ever truly prioritize equity?
—
Reclaiming the North Star: A Call for Radical Inclusion
To realign with its mission, the ASU+GSV Summit must rethink what—and who—it amplifies. Here’s how:
1. Elevate community-driven solutions.
Spotlight initiatives co-created with marginalized populations, not just for them. For instance, Detroit’s Ruth Ellis Center uses tech to support LGBTQ+ youth in crafting their own mental health resources. Similarly, Prison Classroom connects incarcerated learners with free degree programs. These models prioritize agency over scalability.
2. Redefine “success” in edtech.
Instead of prioritizing user growth or revenue, measure impact by:
– Reduction in disparities (e.g., graduation rates for disabled students)
– Accessibility features built into product design
– Partnerships with grassroots organizations
3. Center excluded voices in programming.
Invite fewer CEOs and more classroom teachers, disability advocates, and students from underserved regions. Let them dictate the agenda.
4. Audit sponsor relationships.
Can the summit ethically accept funding from companies that profit from punitive student surveillance tools or exploitative for-profit colleges? Transparency about partnerships is nonnegotiable.
—
Conclusion: A Future Worth Building
The ASU+GSV Summit has the influence to shape education for generations. But with that power comes responsibility. A North Star that guides only the privileged few isn’t a compass—it’s a spotlight magnifying inequality.
This isn’t about abandoning innovation. It’s about demanding that innovation serves justice first. When the next summit convenes, let its stages echo with voices that have been silenced, technologies that heal rather than exclude, and a vision of progress that leaves no learner behind.
The question remains: Will you recalibrate your course, or continue orbiting the same broken system?
Sincerely,
A Concerned Advocate for Equitable Education
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » An Open Letter to the ASU+GSV Summit Committee: Who Does Your North Star Truly Guide