edtech is failing, where education failed first.

is history repeating itself?

Chapter 1: Education and Dignity

“I am young, scrappy, and hungry and I am not throwing away my shot”

Alexander Hamilton in Hamilton: The Musical

Regardless of whether Hamilton said this verbatim or not, it does a decent job of capturing the emotions of many Indians post-independence. They were young, forcibly scrappy, and their hunger drove them towards a better life. Education was their only shot.

Education in India never had the luxury of being driven by curiosity, critical thinking, or creativity. A few outliers emerged as world-class scientists, artists, and public intellectuals. We celebrated them precisely because they weren't products of the system, but its antithesis. Some escaped the system through privileged opportunities and made exceptional use of them.

Most education was driven by fear—fear of hunger, poverty, and more critically, fear of losing dignity. Families would do anything to help their children escape socioeconomic constraints and move up the social ladder. Abhijit Banerjee notes in "Poor Economics" that education consumed a significant portion of household budgets because parents wanted their children to have comfortable lives and, more importantly, dignified work. More than coldly calculated investments, these were heartfelt hopes—a generation lifting their children through the only path they knew. Economic returns and escaping the poverty trap were important, but not the sole motivating factor.

The top-down central planning of early India, particularly the Nehruvian policies, focused on establishing premier institutes like the IITs and AIIMS. This approach came at the cost of developing primary education. We continue to pay the price of this decision today. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) data from 2023 reveals that 25% of learners aged 14-18 still cannot fluently read a second-grade level text in their regional language.

Education became inextricably linked to employment. Learning was secondary; placements were primary. Institutions were not just tasked with equipping students with employable skills but were expected to guarantee job placements. This mentality has persisted across generations. Even today, the primary validation of an institute's credibility is a single question:

“What is your placement rate?”

Chapter 2: Two steps forward, how many steps backward?

“We are all solutionists now. When our lives are at stake, abstract promises of political emancipation are less reassuring than the promise of an app that tells you when it’s safe to leave your house. The real question is whether we will still be solutionists tomorrow.”

Evgeny Morozov, The Guardian, 15th April 2020

Post-1991 liberalization brought India's economic golden run and increased educational enrollment rates, driven by government spending and rising national ambition. It brought opportunities but also highlighted the inadequacies of an education system unprepared to meet the demands of a competitive, globalized workforce.

While the mid-day meal schemes solved the problem of the student's physical presence in schools, they hardly ensured meaningful educational outcomes. Students attended as instructed, but the promises of educational transformation rarely materialized. ASER provides comprehensive data on these systemic challenges.

India had a significant tech moment and was able to what economists would call “leapfrogging”. Be it social security through AADHAR or financial ease through UPI, the world took notice of the India stack and replicated it elsewhere.

Technology made its way into the ruptured education system in rich private schools through smartboards and projectors making incremental progress in teaching methodology. Public schools didn’t see much of this.

India's EdTech journey began with affordable data rates in 2016 and YouTube, which became a remarkable educational equalizer. A learner in a small town like Haldwani could now access Harvard's computer science lectures online. This phenomenon needs more academic attention because enterprising young Indians have leveraged this into economic opportunity. Many coders who worked on Mauka’s technology stack are testimony to this.

The pandemic presented EdTech with a seminal moment. As schools and colleges shifted online, venture capitalists and founders were excited. In 2021, EdTech became India's most funded startup segment, attracting US$4.73 billion in investment, according to Inc 42.

However, this came at a significant societal cost, dramatically increasing educational inequalities. UNESCO's 2023, An EdTech Tragedy report articulates this well. Technology was used as a superficial band-aid solution while being marketed as a revolutionary savior.

In-person learning was replaced by technology-driven solutions from well-funded EdTech companies, with little regard for educational outcomes or standards. Zoom classrooms could be conducted with zero student engagement, submissions became exercises in malicious compliance, and online exams became demonstrations of students' ingenuity to find ways to cheat the system.

Education always had the additional moral obligation of creating dignified futures for the country’s youth. Nothing less was expected. EdTechs failed to account for these expectations while entering the space. Nothing less was expected of them either.

Chapter 3: Scale — At whose cost?

A startup’s conventional life journey would be to find product market fit, get funded, scale, and get funded further to sustain the growth trajectory. This money was given to these companies not because they had strong fundamentals but because of a hypothesis that EdTech is having a “leap-frog” moment thanks to the pandemic. They were wrong.

A founder market fit is more important in education than in any other field. I’d argue even over product market fit. You can be relatively dispassionate about consumer brands or building a fintech company that lets you do banking with better UI. You can’t do that with education.

Education demands trust, care, and a deep commitment to learner outcomes. When EdTech tried to scale using the startup playbook, it overlooked the slower, deliberate work that builds lasting impact in this field.

John Dewey, an important voice in progressive education and a pre-eminent educational theorist in Experience and Education (1938) wrote:

“The educator more than the member of any other profession is concerned to have a long look ahead.”

Unfortunately, numerous technologists entered this space because it was trending, treating education dispassionately and implementing subpar—often harmful—technological interventions without considering long-term learner outcomes. Venture capitalists then stepped in with a singular focus: scaling at any cost.

The incentives didn’t lie in long-term thinking. They existed in scaling at all costs. The incentives were to mis-sell or oversell to unsuspecting parents and learners. “Hopium” is what Kunal Shah called it once.

If you pick up any startup book, the conventional startup wisdom will often emphasize:

• Rapid scaling

• High growth metrics

• Quick monetization

• Venture capital funding model

• Disruption through technology

But education, by contrast, tends to require:

• Slower, more deliberate development

• Deep understanding of pedagogical effectiveness

• Measurable learning outcomes over pure financial metrics

• Trust-building with educators, institutions, and students

• Nuanced, human-centered design

For (genuine) educators, education is an intricate process of designing experiences that consider existing conditions, subject matter, and how these will help learners confidently navigate future situations.

Dewey wrote:

“ The central problem of an education based upon the experience is to select the kind of present experiences that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences”

Most EdTech founders treated education as a content and delivery problem instead of building educational experiences that set up learners for success in the long term.

Chapter 4: Inevitable downfall

The pandemic subsided. Learners returned to classrooms and social settings to learn. VCs ditched EdTech companies for the next big thing. Founders shut shop because their incentives to continue dried up. The math didn’t math.

While EdTech encompasses a broad spectrum—from K-12 education to adult learning and test preparation—most ventures encountered similar fates. This widespread failure stemmed from an overestimation of market potential and an inability to scale efficiently.

Parents with disposable income opted for in-person coaching be it for K-12 or test preparation because they realized a fundamental truth that EdTech companies seemed oblivious to: Kids need a teacher and an educational experience. Not more screens.

The kids who aren’t as privileged went back to YouTube and other free resources. They’d hustle their way through. An internet connection and a phone are all they ever needed. Not fancy apps designed by product managers in Koramangala optimizing for monetization.

Adult learners who looked at EdTech with a lot of promise of shaking things up and fixing education now look at these EdTech companies and ask a very familiar question:

“What’s your placement rate?”

EdTech essentially became old wine in a new, and some would argue worse bottle. It failed where traditional education had failed before.

Chapter 5: What's Next?

EdTech requires fresh, slower, and more deliberate thinking about its future trajectory. The term "EdTech" inherently carries implicit pressure to forcefully retrofit technology into solutions that might be better served without technological intervention.

If you are passionate about education, calling yourself an education company instead of EdTech might be a good start. Semantics matter.

Education needs more long-term thinkers who won’t be tempted to respond to short-term incentives because of their operating principles on education and what education needs. Many of these movements will have to be local before they can think about carefully expanding their reach.

We also need more sophisticated economic models that:

• Incorporate market realities

• Avoid placing undue strain on students

• Do not compromise the development of high-quality educational experiences

These models will require close partnerships with institutions and corporations that can be strategically incentivized to sponsor such programs.

I won’t pretend to know all the solutions. Truth be told, I am still figuring that out through my own company, Mauka. However, I felt compelled to articulate what went fundamentally wrong in an industry I believe holds immense potential for long-term societal impact—more so than perhaps any other professional domain.

For EdTech to succeed, it must redefine its principles—placing pedagogy and equity above growth metrics. Solutions must start small, stay learner-focused, and grow only as they prove meaningful, measurable impact.

Education is not just another market. It comes with moral and social responsibilities, demanding trust and long-term care. Anything less will fail, as we’ve seen before.

P.S: Throughout this commentary, I intentionally avoided specific company examples. We have witnessed the very public downfall of numerous EdTech ventures, and they do not require re-introduction. The goal was to provide a broader commentary on EdTech's failure in India and the inherent conflict between building a startup and an education company.

If you liked this article - motivate me to write more by dropping a comment! Thanks. Cheers.