The Ministerial Symposium at Bett UK 2026 brought together representatives from over 60 countries, including ministers of education, international organizations, EdTech companies, and global technology providers. Participants from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas gathered around one shared concern:
why, after two decades of EdTech at scale, learning outcomes — especially for vulnerable learners — have not improved as promised.
The discussions went far beyond technology trends. Instead, they exposed structural weaknesses in how education systems adopt, fund, and govern digital tools — particularly AI-powered solutions. Below are the key insights that emerged from the symposium, with direct relevance for policymakers, EdTech developers, and international partners.
The Learning Crisis Is Not a Technology Problem
One of the opening reflections at the symposium set the tone:
despite massive investments in EdTech over the last 20 years, measurable learning outcomes have largely stagnated.
This is not due to a lack of innovation. AI, adaptive platforms, and data-driven tools already exist at scale. The problem lies elsewhere — in how decisions are made, who makes them, and what incentives shape those decisions.
Procurement: Where Good Intentions Break Down
A recurring theme across panels and workshops was the failure of current EdTech procurement models.
Several systemic risks were highlighted:
- Technology decisions are often led by Ministries of Digital, not Ministries of Education
- Procurement processes prioritize lowest cost over pedagogical value
- National curricula are frequently sidelined, making tools unusable for teachers
- Tender requirements are poorly defined, leading to misaligned or failed projects
One case discussed involved a public AI tutoring tender in Germany that prioritized academic research credentials over real-world implementation experience. The result was a prolonged legal dispute and the eventual cancellation of the project — with no benefit to schools or learners. The lesson was clear:
when procurement is disconnected from classroom realities, even well-funded initiatives fail.
The Hidden Risk of “Free” Tools in Classrooms
Another major concern raised was the widespread use of freemium, consumer-grade tools in schools.
While these tools appear cost-effective, they introduce significant risks:
- Lack of educational design or safeguards
- Misalignment with learning objectives
- Unclear data ownership and privacy practices
- Business models dependent on user data — including children’s data
Participants emphasized that “free” often shifts costs elsewhere — to privacy, equity, and long-term trust in digital education systems.
The Core Conflict: Profit vs. Conscience
For EdTech providers, the symposium surfaced a fundamental tension:
build inclusive, needs-based solutions for diverse learners —
or build scalable products optimized for mass markets and procurement metrics.
Inclusive education, particularly for students with special educational needs, requires deep contextual understanding, long development cycles, and close collaboration with schools. These realities often conflict with procurement models that reward rapid scaling and low per-user cost. Without changes to funding and evaluation frameworks, many socially impactful solutions remain commercially fragile.
AI Changes the Question — and the Responsibility
Several speakers noted a critical shift in the global conversation:
The era of AI experimentation in education is over.
AI is already embedded in classrooms, assessment systems, and teacher workflows.
The question is no longer “Can AI work in education?”
It is “Who is accountable for how it works — and for whom?”
AI systems demand high levels of judgment, yet judgment is one of the least taught skills in education systems. Delegating decisions to opaque algorithms without clear governance risks reinforcing inequality rather than reducing it.
Toward Ethical, Informed EdTech Procurement
As a response, workshop participants proposed moving toward ethically informed procurement frameworks, built on:
- Clear problem definitions from education authorities
- Transparency around data use, algorithms, and outcomes
- Alignment with national curricula and inclusion goals
- Standards that can be adapted across countries and contexts
- Ongoing feedback from real schools, not only research institutions
Rather than one-size-fits-all solutions, the emphasis was on system-level thinking — viewing education as an ecosystem of learners, teachers, families, policymakers, and developers.
Why This Matters Now
The pace of AI development means traditional multi-year research cycles can become obsolete before results are published. At the same time, education systems cannot afford reactive or poorly governed adoption.
As highlighted during the symposium, equity in education is not a feature that can be added later. It must be designed into systems from the start — legally, technically, pedagogically, and ethically.
Continuing the Conversation
UNOWA participated in the Ministerial Symposium and the UNICEF-led roundtable discussions, contributing practitioner experience and system-level perspectives on inclusive AI in education. A detailed reflection on the symposium discussions, including practitioner insights and implications for inclusive EdTech design, is available in our full article here.
As global education systems move from experimentation to implementation, the insights from Bett UK 2026 serve as a timely reminder: technology alone does not transform education — systems do.
About UNOWA
UNOWA is an innovative education technology company focused on inclusive, scalable solutions for modern learning systems. Its flagship product, MIKKO, is the world’s first full-cycle inclusive education system, already implemented in national programmes like Kazakhstan’s Project 8709-KZ. UNOWA also leads with Ulabs, a next-generation STEM platform using AI and sensor-based tools to deliver immersive, hands-on learning. With a strong focus on localisation and policy alignment, UNOWA supports governments in achieving measurable impact in education.
Article Submitted by:
Anastasiia Medianyk
Poland
