Edtech companies that operate in vulnerable environments

In many schools in vulnerable contexts, the incorporation of educational technology is decided based on its everyday viability. It must work with irregular connectivity, not require extensive training, and not add to the administrative burden on already overwhelmed teachers. Evidence accumulated over the last decade tells us that a significant proportion of digital initiatives fail not because of technical problems, but because they presuppose conditions that these schools do not have.

In this context, some edtech companies have begun to consolidate their position precisely because they adjust their ambitions to these limitations. Their focus is on specific and recurring tasks: supporting reading instruction, facilitating math practice, or sustaining the pedagogical link outside the classroom. Their impact is not measured in terms of disruption, but rather in terms of sustained use. And it is in this continuity, rather than in novelty, that evidence begins to emerge that something is working.

A common pattern: tools designed to stay

When we look closely at the edtech companies that manage to survive in vulnerable contexts, the first feature we see that they share is not technological, but functional. Platforms such as Seesaw or Freeed do not introduce new methodologies.

Nor do they promise profound transformations of the system. Their proposal is much more modest: to fit into existing practices and make them a little more sustainable. Seesaw, for example, has spread in primary education not because of its sophistication, but because it facilitates something that many teachers were already trying to do without the right tools: documenting student learning and sharing it with families in a simple way.

Freeed, for its part, does not function as a traditional training platform, but rather as a community of practice that allows teachers to access relevant content and the experiences of other colleagues, both locally and globally.

This type of design responds to a recurring finding in educational research: technologies that require profound changes in school routines tend to be abandoned before they become established. In contrast, those that reinforce existing practices such as communication with families, exchange between teachers, or learning monitoring are more likely to be used consistently.

Something similar occurs with tools geared toward specific learning, such as Tangible or Building Blocks. In both cases, technology is not presented as an end in itself, but as a support for solving very specific problems: how to develop mathematical thinking when resources are scarce or how to offer hands-on learning experiences without relying exclusively on digital technology.

What is relevant is not only what these applications do, but what they deliberately avoid. They do not overload teachers with endless options, they do not require permanent connectivity, and they do not uncritically shift the responsibility for learning to the student. They operate with limited objectives and realistic expectations. That is why they manage to stay where many other initiatives disappear.

The teacher as the linchpin

In the most fragile educational contexts, teachers have little room for maneuver. Classrooms are large, time is scarce, and opportunities for continuing education are limited. In this scenario, educational technology tends to fail when it assumes that teachers are available to explore, experiment, and redesign their practice. Edtech that works starts from a different diagnosis: it recognizes the centrality of the teacher and designs support systems that are designed to be integrated into their daily work.

The experience of Freeed is illustrative. This platform operates as a community of practice where teachers access relevant resources and connections with other colleagues, both locally and globally. The evidence on teacher professional development is consistent on this point: peer learning, situated in practice and linked to real classroom problems, has more impact than one-off, decontextualized training.

Something similar occurs with Tangible, a hybrid tool that combines an offline application with physical pieces to work on problem solving, computational thinking, and numbering. Its design not only responds to technical limitations such as irregular connectivity or a shortage of devices, but also pedagogical ones. Tangible incorporates practical training for teachers and ready-to-use resources, with a particular emphasis on support.

In these tools, technology does not seek to automate teaching or displace pedagogical decision-making. On the contrary, it reinforces a widely documented finding: educational interventions are more likely to be sustained when they reduce the cognitive and operational burden on teachers, rather than increasing it. Providing clear structures, concrete examples, and spaces for professional support does not guarantee immediate improvements in learning, but it does create the conditions for practices to be sustained over time.

Basic learning: reading and math as a foundation

When the conversation about educational innovation moves away from the classroom, it often turns to complex skills, critical thinking, or advanced personalization. In vulnerable contexts, however, the evidence tells us something else. The greatest learning losses are concentrated in basic skills such as reading and math, and once these gaps open up, they tend to widen over time.

That is why several of the edtech companies that manage to sustain themselves focus their efforts precisely on this core area. Programs such as Reading Eggs are based on a structured approach to early literacy. Their activities are organized into progressive sequences of phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and comprehension, with a strong component of repeated practice and immediate feedback.

This design is in line with a wide range of literature on learning to read, which emphasizes the importance of systematic instruction and frequent opportunities for practice, especially for children who do not have reading support at home.

In the field of mathematics, Building Blocks follows a similar logic. Through games and short activities, the application reinforces fundamental numerical concepts in primary and early secondary school. It does not introduce advanced content or experimental methodologies, but rather insists on consolidating skills that are often taken for granted, but which in many systems are not. Comparative assessments show that early deficits in numeracy condition later learning with the same force as reading difficulties.

What is relevant in both cases is not only the content, but the type of learning experience they offer. Technology makes it possible to multiply opportunities for practice without relying exclusively on teacher time, which is especially critical in classrooms with high student-teacher ratios. At the same time, these tools maintain clear and limited paths, avoiding excessive personalization, which, according to the evidence, can be counterproductive when there is no solid pedagogical mediation.

This insistence on the basics is not a lack of ambition, but rather a pragmatic reading of the context. In environments where many students advance through school with significant gaps in their knowledge, innovation means, above all, ensuring that the foundations are solid. Edtech companies that understand this priority do not seek to accelerate learning, but rather to sustain it. And it is in this less visible role, but one more aligned with the evidence, that their impact is most tangible.

Outside the classroom: families, languages, and continuity of learning

In vulnerable contexts, a substantial part of learning occurs (or is lost) outside of school. Intermittent absences, temporary closures, family mobility, or lack of support at home often interrupt pedagogical continuity. The evidence is consistent: when learning cannot be extended beyond the classroom, gaps widen rapidly, even when classroom teaching is solid.

Some edtech companies have incorporated this problem into the core of their design. Seesaw, for example, facilitates communication between schools and families without requiring advanced digital skills. It allows teachers to document students’ work and share it in an understandable way, while offering families a concrete and manageable window into their children’s learning. Research on family involvement indicates that these types of interactions, when clear and frequent, help sustain learning routines, even in homes with little cultural capital.

BookSmart approaches continuity from another angle. By offering free access to quality books in multiple languages, along with comprehension activities and simple guidance for parents, the platform reduces one of the most well-documented barriers to early literacy: the lack of appropriate materials in the home. Studies on early reading show that regular exposure to texts, in the mother tongue when possible, has positive effects on both language development and motivation to learn.

In both cases, the design avoids placing complex educational responsibilities on families. They are not expected to replace teachers or follow structured programs. Rather, they are offered specific entry points: reading together, observing progress, accompanying without interfering. This distinction is key. Evidence indicates that interventions that overload families tend to fail, especially in vulnerable contexts.

Here, too, technology shows its limits. Access to devices and connectivity remains unequal, and no platform can fully compensate for this. Therefore, solutions that work tend to operate with minimal technical requirements and simple interfaces. They do not eliminate learning discontinuity, but they cushion it. And in systems where every interruption counts, this ability to sustain the educational thread makes a significant difference.

What these edtech solutions do not solve

Reviewing these experiences allows us to identify consistent patterns, but also forces us to point out their limitations. None of these edtech solutions can replace a sustained education policy, nor can they alone compensate for the lack of investment, the shortage of teachers, or the structural inequalities that plague many education systems. The evidence is clear: the improvements associated with the use of educational technology tend to be modest and highly context-dependent.

Nor do they solve underlying problems such as curriculum fragmentation, job insecurity among teachers, or the lack of institutional support. In the absence of clear frameworks, even the best-designed tools run the risk of becoming isolated solutions, disconnected from a broader educational strategy. Research on implementation is particularly compelling on this point: without alignment with the system, the impact is diluted.

Recognizing these limitations does not weaken the argument, but rather reinforces it. In contrast to techno-utopian narratives that promise immediate qualitative leaps, these edtech companies operate with realistic expectations. They do not aspire to transform the education system, but rather to reduce specific frictions where systems show the greatest weaknesses: sustained reading practice, math reinforcement, teacher collaboration, or continuity of learning outside the classroom.

This approach explains, in part, why they manage to survive. By not promising more than they can deliver, they avoid the frustration that accompanies many short-lived digital initiatives. They function as support infrastructures. And in vulnerable contexts, where the margins for error are narrow, this modesty is not a renunciation, but a condition of possibility.

Less epic and more sustainable

Edtech companies that operate in vulnerable environments share a limited ambition: they do not seek to redefine education or accelerate processes that are already progressing with difficulty. They focus on sustaining what is often interrupted: daily learning, constant practice, the link between school and environment. Their contribution lies not in novelty, but in continuity.

This form of innovation is less visible than others, but it fits better with what the evidence has been pointing to for years. In education systems marked by inequality, impact depends less on incorporating new tools than on creating conditions for existing ones to be used in a sustained manner. Technology can contribute to this goal, provided it is designed from within the limits and not from unrealistic expectations.

Accumulated experience suggests that educational technology has a narrower scope of action than is often assumed. When aligned with sound pedagogical practices and the real conditions in schools, it can reinforce learning and sustain processes over time. When it attempts to replace them, it tends to disappear. The difference, as these experiences show, is not in the tool, but in the place it occupies within the education system.