The markets of edtech certifications

Why We Need to Rethink EdTech Certification

Schools are under growing pressure to choose digital technologies that are safe, effective and trustworthy. To help them, a growing number of organisations now offer certification programmes, trustmarks, badges and curated lists of “approved” educational technology (EdTech) products. These certifications promise to simplify decision-making by signalling which products schools can trust.

But what do these certifications actually tell us?

Our latest research examined five of the most influential EdTech certification initiatives operating internationally, including frameworks developed by UNICEF, 1EdTech, Common Sense Media, ICEIE and Child Rights Assessments among others. Rather than evaluating the technologies themselves, we asked a different question: how are the certifiers being evaluated?

The findings suggest that today’s certification landscape is far more complicated than it first appears.

The same product can receive very different ratings

One of the first things we noticed was that the same educational product can receive completely different assessments depending on which certification framework is used.

For example, a platform may be recognised as privacy-compliant by one organisation while another highlights significant concerns about data collection or children’s rights. A product may receive an evidence badge from one framework while another finds little evidence of educational benefit.

These differences are not necessarily because one organisation is right and another is wrong. They reflect the fact that each framework measures different things, uses different methods and operates under different assumptions about what “quality” means. 

Certification often relies on paperwork

Most certification systems describe themselves as evidence-based and rigorous. However, our analysis found that many assessments rely primarily on documentation supplied by technology companies themselves.

Privacy policies, technical documents, research summaries and company declarations form much of the evidence used during certification. Independent testing of software, continuous monitoring or inspection of how systems actually behave in schools is much less common.

In other words, many certification systems evaluate what companies say about their products rather than how those products perform in real educational settings over time. 

Strong promises, limited enforcement

Many certification frameworks contain impressive statements about children’s rights, privacy, ethics, inclusion and responsible AI. However, we found a consistent gap between these principles and the mechanisms available to enforce them.

Unlike sectors such as medicine, aviation or engineering, EdTech certification bodies generally cannot compel companies to fix problems, impose penalties, withdraw products from schools or hold organisations legally accountable. Most rely on voluntary participation and reputational incentives rather than regulatory authority. 

Certification also shapes the market

Certification does more than reassure schools. A certification badge can increase a company’s visibility, strengthen its reputation and improve its chances of being shortlisted during procurement. In this sense, certification acts not only as an evaluation tool but also as market infrastructure that helps determine which companies succeed. This makes the quality of certification itself critically important. If certification signals are based on limited evidence or weak oversight, they may generate confidence that exceeds what has actually been independently verified. 

A better way forward

Certification remains valuable. Schools need independent guidance when choosing increasingly complex digital technologies. But stronger governance is needed. Future certification should move beyond document reviews towards independent technical audits, transparent evidence standards, ongoing monitoring and meaningful accountability. It should consider not only privacy and security, but also educational purpose, child development, wellbeing, environmental sustainability and long-term public value. Most importantly, certification should support the public interest—not simply the efficient functioning of the EdTech marketplace.