Table of Contents
Last week, TIME and Statista released their list of America's Top EdTech Companies of 2026, and within hours, LinkedIn filled up with the responses. A good example is Subject's post on LinkedIn, as is this post from Infobase. Press releases went out. Posts celebrated the recognition with the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for something that actually happened in a classroom.
In fact, one company including the following in its post: "This recognition means a lot, not just as a milestone for our team, but as a signal that the work we're doing in K-12 districts matters."
I don't agree, but I want to be careful here, because I am not interested in dismissing each of the companies on the list, many of whom are doing legitimate and oftentimes meaningful work. And, I do have respect for the legacy that TIME brings to its work, including the influence it can have as a global media brand. I just can't help thinking that the timing of this award and the noise that awardees are generating should be examined. What the list measures and what it implies are two different things; the gap between them is where a lot of the unnecessary noise in this industry lives.
The methodology behind the ranking is straightforward: financial strength accounts for 70 percent of the final score, and industry impact accounts for the remaining 30 percent. The 250 companies with the highest combined score were named to the list. That is a reasonable framework for identifying financially healthy companies that have established some presence in the EdTech market. It is not a framework for identifying companies that are improving outcomes for students. Those are related things, sometimes, but they are not the same thing, and presenting one as evidence of the other is where the list starts to lose me.
Consider what 70 percent financial weighting actually tells us. It tells us that a company is growing, that it has revenue, that it has web traffic, that it is commercially viable. Those are real things that matter to investors, and to the companies themselves. What they do not tell you is whether the product works, whether students are learning more because of it, or whether the teachers implementing it find it worth the time it takes to deploy.
Meantime, what does industry impact actually mean? According to TIME, the definition is as follows,
"For the evaluation of the industry impact, Statista cooperated with The Upright Project 1 and LexisNexis® Intellectual Property Solutions 2 to assess companies in different impact dimensions, encompassing factors such as:
- holistic impact of a company’s product and service portfolio, including its alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
- quantity and value of a company’s IP (intellectual property) portfolio."
So, on the one hand it measures alignment to goals. And on the other, it measures how much stuff they have.
The list's top ranked company, Duolingo, reported 50 million daily active users. As a past user, I can confirm that they have a lot of intellectual property in there. And, they generated more than a billion dollars in bookings. Yet, TIME itself acknowledged something noteworthy, when it wrote: "Despite its ability to grab attention with gamified design, studies are split on whether an app can be effective for long-term language learning and retention." That is a stunning thing to include in the same article that calls a company the top EdTech company in America.
This is not an argument against awards. Some of the recognition structures in this industry do meaningful work. We've even named a few. Awards that center educator voice, that require evidence of learning outcomes, that ask hard questions about equity and access before handing someone a badge are the ones that we think can serve the dual purpose that most companies are working towards, namely the ability to do well by doing good. You can't be a Top EdTech if you prioritize revenue as the benchmark against which you are measured. I'm not declaring it unimportant or irrelevant, but I am voicing that it is not the sole measure that educators prioritize.
Lists like TIME's, and others cast in a similar mold that center on growth metrics, revenue rankings, and investor signals, are producing a specific kind of noise. They give companies something to tout in marketing materials and something to celebrate internally, and both of those things feel good. I should know, I've been at the helm of many winning award submissions over the years. The problem is that the audience companies most want to reach, including curriculum directors, superintendents, and instructional coaches, are the people who actually decide what gets purchased and deployed. Those folks are not particularly moved by these lists. In fact, when a company leads with this kind of recognition in a sales conversation or a conference presentation, it can signal something unintended, which is that the company is more interested in talking to investors and peers than in demonstrating what the product does for kids.
The educators I know are not unsophisticated. They understand that a list built on 70 percent financial criteria is telling them something about a company's business, not about its product. They are also paying attention to which companies lead with outcomes and which companies lead with accolades, and they draw their own conclusions from that distinction.
When 250 companies are declared the top EdTech companies in America, the phrase loses its meaning almost immediately. A list of 250 financially sound companies that have a lot of IP is not a ranking of the best. It's simply an indicator that certain companies applied for the award, and certain others opted in for the paid media package. That is different from showcasing companies that are making a measurable difference in how students learn. Conflating the two does a disservice to the buyers trying to make sense of an already crowded market.
It's time to reconsider what we celebrate in this industry. There are more important celebrations than financial scorecards, starting with how they impact student report cards.
