By Priten Kadakia Soundararajan-Shah
In the last few years, we have seen an increase in the number of technology solutions being proposed for challenges in education. But, beneath the question of what technologies are good for our students lies the more urgent question of which students stand to benefit? Despite the post-pandemic investment in school technology, there continues to be a significant gap in who is benefitting from the innovations, and who is not only left out, but actively hurt.
There are three key reasons that we are still struggling to overcome these challenges despite massive interest and investment in education technology.
1. Infrastructure Illusion
Much of the effort that schools have put into narrowing the digital divide in education has focused on ensuring device access for students. Even as schools adopt and support one-to-one programs, the lack of significant progress towards increasing broadband access for all communities, especially rural ones, creates a persistent gap in what students can access outside the school building.
Beyond the hardware, schools also need to consider the training provided to staff in order to effectively use the technology. If teachers are not supported in making pedagogically driven decisions about when the technology is helping student needs versus when it is harming them, we risk either overrelying on technology or abandoning it altogether. Schools should track not just how many devices go home, but how seamlessly students and staff can use them when needed.
2. Beyond Basics
As we continue to see the proliferation of technology in society and our classrooms, we need to be mindful of ensuring that our students are not only adept at using it, but also at thinking critically about it. Programs that advance technical literacy without building critical media literacy risk disempowering students from cognitive and civic agency.
Real literacy in 2026 requires knowing when to use technology and when not to, understanding when AI output is trustworthy and when it’s fabricated, recognizing a deepfake next to a real image, and being able to participate in civic life without being manipulated by algorithmic content. When we scaffold these skills deliberately, we equip students not just to use technology, but to question it, and in doing so, to remain the owners of their own thinking.
3. Philosophy and Policy
In the rush to take some action, we often start at policy (write the rules) without doing the philosophy work first (what do we value?). This leaves us with policies that look good on paper, but without shared reasoning, teachers are left guessing and students are left exposed.
Thus, schools need cross-discipline conversations about values before they write policies. This also requires bringing together teachers, families, students, and community members to lead the effort. The districts making progress are the ones with shared vocabulary, student surveys, and guidelines that treat teachers as professionals capable of making contextual judgments.
Equity in education technology cannot be dealt with solely as a distribution problem. We have to also confront that it is an infrastructure problem, a literacy problem, and a values problem. What would change if we stopped asking “Does everyone have this tool?” and started asking “Does this tool reflect what we value?” That is where equity can begin.
Priten Kadakia Soundararajan-Shah is a Harvard Scholar in Education Management Policy and entrepreneur working at the intersection of technology and education. His new book is Ethical Ed Tech: How Educators Can Lead on AI and Digital Safety in K–12.
