An Open Letter to the ASU+GSV Summit Committee: Who Does Your North Star Truly Guide?
Dear ASU+GSV Summit Committee,
Every year, your summit brings together some of the brightest minds in education, technology, and venture capital to reimagine the future of learning. It’s a space where innovation thrives, partnerships form, and bold ideas take center stage. But as the event grows in scale and influence, a critical question lingers: Who does your North Star truly guide?
For those unfamiliar, the term “North Star” symbolizes a guiding principle—a mission that directs decisions and priorities. Over the years, the ASU+GSV Summit has championed themes like “learning and work transformation” and “democratizing access to education.” These are noble goals. Yet, as the gap between rhetoric and reality widens in many corners of the education ecosystem, it’s worth examining whether your North Star illuminates a path for all learners or only those already positioned to succeed.
The Promise of Innovation vs. the Reality of Exclusion
Let’s start by acknowledging the summit’s achievements. You’ve amplified groundbreaking tools, from AI-driven tutoring platforms to credentialing systems that challenge traditional degrees. You’ve given startups a platform to pitch solutions for underserved communities. But when the curtain falls each year, how many of these innovations reach the students who need them most?
Consider this: While panels discuss “scaling edtech,” over 1.2 billion children globally still lack internet access. While investors celebrate unicorn startups, public schools in low-income neighborhoods struggle to afford basic supplies. The disconnect isn’t accidental—it’s systemic. Innovation often follows funding, and funding follows profit potential. This creates a cycle where solutions cater to privileged markets while marginalized communities remain an afterthought.
Does your North Star challenge this cycle, or inadvertently reinforce it?
Whose Voices Shape the Conversation?
A summit’s agenda reflects its priorities. Skimming through recent panels, one might notice a pattern: speakers from Ivy League institutions, Silicon Valley executives, and founders backed by top-tier venture firms dominate the stage. Where are the teachers from Title I schools? The students navigating food insecurity while pursuing degrees? The leaders of grassroots nonprofits operating on shoestring budgets?
Inclusion isn’t just about checking diversity boxes. It’s about redistributing power. When decision-makers hear only from those who’ve already “succeeded” within a flawed system, they risk designing solutions that preserve the status quo. Imagine the impact of centering voices from historically excluded communities—not as token panelists, but as co-creators of the summit’s vision.
The Myth of Neutral Technology
Edtech is rarely neutral. Algorithms can perpetuate bias. Platforms designed for well-resourced schools often fail in underfunded classrooms. Even well-intentioned tools can widen inequities if their design ignores systemic barriers.
Take adaptive learning software, for example. It assumes consistent internet access, devices, and digital literacy—luxuries millions lack. Or consider AI-powered career guidance tools trained on data from affluent populations, which may steer low-income students toward lower-paying jobs. These aren’t mere oversights; they’re symptoms of a North Star that prioritizes market viability over equity.
The summit could spark a different conversation: How do we build technology that actively dismantles inequity? What if “innovation” meant rejecting shortcuts that harm vulnerable learners?
A Call for Accountability and Transparency
Accountability starts with transparency. Who funds the startups showcased at ASU+GSV? How many have measurable outcomes for marginalized groups? When a company claims its app “closes the achievement gap,” is there independent verification?
The committee could set a precedent by requiring participants to disclose:
– Demographic data on who benefits from their solutions.
– Partnerships with communities impacted by their work.
– Long-term commitments to equity beyond marketing slogans.
This wouldn’t stifle innovation—it would elevate it.
Redefining the North Star
What if the ASU+GSV Summit’s North Star shifted from “transforming learning and work” to “ensuring every learner thrives, regardless of circumstance”? This subtle rephrase carries radical implications. It means:
– Prioritizing solutions for students with disabilities, immigrant youth, incarcerated learners, and others sidelined by mainstream systems.
– Challenging investors to fund ideas that prioritize impact over returns.
– Creating spaces where policymakers are held accountable for equity gaps.
This isn’t idealism—it’s urgency. The pandemic exposed fractures in education that can no longer be plastered over with tech fixes. Learners need systemic change, and your summit holds the megaphone to amplify that demand.
Final Thoughts
The ASU+GSV Summit has the potential to be more than a networking hub for the elite. It could become a rallying cry for justice in education. But that requires interrogating who benefits from your current North Star—and who’s left wandering in the dark.
As you plan future summits, ask yourselves: Are we content with incremental progress, or will we dare to redefine success? The answer will determine whether your legacy is one of exclusion or transformation.
Sincerely,
A 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