An Open Letter to the ASU+GSV Summit Committee: Who Does Your North Star Truly Guide?
Dear Members of the ASU+GSV Summit Committee,
Every year, the education and technology communities eagerly await your summit—a beacon of innovation, collaboration, and ambition. For over a decade, ASU+GSV has positioned itself as a platform where ideas converge to “reimagine the future of learning and work.” Your stated mission, guided by a “North Star,” aims to ensure that all people have equal access to the future. But as the summit grows in scale and influence, a pressing question lingers: Who, exactly, does this North Star truly serve?
The Promise of Equity vs. The Reality of Priorities
The ASU+GSV Summit has undeniably amplified critical conversations about education technology, workforce development, and systemic inequities. Panels on closing achievement gaps, supporting underserved communities, and democratizing access to tools like AI and VR reflect a genuine desire to tackle global challenges. Yet, beneath the inspiring keynotes and flashy product demos, a troubling pattern emerges.
Consider the demographics of attendees: executives from venture capital firms, corporate giants, and well-funded edtech startups dominate the guest list. While these groups play a role in shaping education’s future, their presence overshadows grassroots educators, nonprofit leaders, and community advocates—the very people working on the frontlines of equity. When registration fees hover in the thousands and sponsorship packages reach six figures, it’s worth asking: Whose voices are missing from the table?
This disconnect becomes starker when examining where funding flows. Startups pitching at ASU+GSV often prioritize scalability and profit margins over pedagogical impact. A recent analysis of summit “pitch competition” winners revealed that fewer than 20% focused on solutions for low-income schools or marginalized learners. Meanwhile, tools designed for affluent districts or corporate training programs dominate the spotlight. If the North Star is meant to guide us toward equity, why does the summit’s energy so often align with market trends rather than human needs?
The Danger of “Innovation” Without Inclusion
Technology alone cannot solve systemic problems—a truth the summit occasionally acknowledges but rarely acts upon. Take AI, a recurring theme at ASU+GSV. While panels discuss its potential to personalize learning, little attention is paid to the risks of algorithmic bias, data exploitation, or the displacement of educators in under-resourced schools. When innovations are developed without involving the communities they’re meant to serve, they risk perpetuating the same inequities they claim to address.
For example, consider a hypothetical AI tutoring tool showcased at the summit. If its design team lacks input from teachers in rural or high-poverty areas, the product might overlook critical factors: unreliable internet access, multilingual needs, or cultural relevance. The result? Another “solution” that works for some but leaves others further behind. Without intentional inclusion, even the most well-meaning innovations risk becoming vehicles of exclusion.
A Call for Accountability and Redirection
This isn’t to dismiss the summit’s achievements. ASU+GSV has connected countless innovators, sparked partnerships, and elevated education as a global priority. But to honor its North Star, the committee must confront its blind spots. Here are three steps to realign the summit’s compass:
1. Center Marginalized Voices
Reduce financial barriers to participation. Offer scholarships, subsidized tickets, and free virtual access for educators, students, and nonprofit leaders. Create dedicated stages for community-led initiatives, not just corporate keynotes.
2. Rethink Success Metrics
Shift the focus from “unicorn startups” to measurable social impact. Celebrate ventures that prioritize learner outcomes over investor returns. Invite independent researchers to audit claims made by edtech companies.
3. Address Power Imbalances
Challenge the assumption that Silicon Valley holds all the answers. Partner with HBCUs, tribal colleges, and global grassroots organizations to co-design sessions. Ensure decision-makers at the summit reflect the diversity of the learners they aim to support.
Conclusion: Who Should the North Star Guide?
The ASU+GSV Summit’s influence is immense, and with that power comes responsibility. A North Star that guides only the privileged—whether intentionally or not—betrays the summit’s founding vision. True progress in education requires humility, accountability, and a willingness to redistribute power.
Imagine a future summit where a first-year teacher from a Title I school shares the stage with a tech CEO. Where funding flows to tools proven to bridge divides, not just generate returns. Where the metrics of success prioritize dignity over disruption. That is the North Star worth following.
The question isn’t whether the ASU+GSV Summit can achieve this—it’s whether the committee has the courage to try.
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