Educational reform is often driven by the belief that new tools or curricula can be the great equalizer, transforming outdated systems and mitigating inequality . Technology in education, for example, has long been seen as a means of reforming education , with hopes that it could force reconsideration of the structure of the basic curriculum. Similarly, international programs like the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) employ a centralized global discourse to promote progressive educational values .

But despite decades of optimism regarding these tools—from the printing press to computers —many persistent inequalities remain. Why do these well-intentioned reforms often fall short? The answer, according to critical policy analysis based on theories like Bourdieu’s Theory of Practise and Foucault’s concept of governmentality, lies in the sheer strength of enduring power structures and the entrenched culture of the existing educational system.

The Technology Trap: Reinforcing the Enduring Habitus

Educational inequality is not just about access to resources (the traditional digital divide) it also pertains to the inequality of methodology. Technology allows for advanced approaches, but these are often confined to current structures modeled on 19th-century industrialism.

The limiting factor is outlined in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practise . This theory posits that power structures regenerate an enduring habitus (a set of historical relations deposited in individuals as mental and corporeal schemata of perception and action maintained through mechanisms of symbolic violence.

When educational technology policy is embedded into current structures restrained by societal expectations and underlying power relations, there is a distinct risk that it will simply reinforce existing inequalities.

Here is how this mechanism manifests:

1. Unequal Usage Patterns: Even with widespread access to computers in schools [15, 16], the greatest inequities lie not in how often computers are used, but in how they are used [17]. Students from poorer, urban, and rural backgrounds are less likely to be exposed to higher-order uses of computers compared to their non-poor and suburban counterparts [18]. This differential experience deposits a slightly different habitus in students, impacting their final destination beyond education and contributing to inequality [19].
2. Cultural Capital Barrier: Technology acquisition (objectified cultural capital) [20] requires not only economic capital but also embodied cultural capital—the know-how and dispositions needed to recognize its importance and use it effectively [21, 22]. If technology policies focus solely on providing access, they overlook the quality of that access and the capacity of agents to appropriate the cultural capital needed to profit from the technology’s capabilities [12, 23].

Ultimately, regardless of the opportunities technology affords, a student must still pass through an education process biased towards the habitus of the dominant culture [9].

International Curricula: A Market-Driven Identity

International education models, particularly the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP), offer another promise of reform but face similar structural pressures.

While the IB’s heritage is rooted in progressive educationalist tradition [4], its rapid expansion in the last decade, particularly into national public school systems, suggests a significant political shift toward a more economic model of education [24]. The organization must navigate a crisis stemming from the conflict between its original ‘therapeutic identity’ (progressive values, character education) and a burgeoning ‘market-driven identity’ [25, 26].

This shift positions the IB as a credential objectified within the global marketplace [27, 28], where the focus moves toward providing the necessary credentials and soft skills (like intercultural awareness and empathy) for a twenty-first-century transnational elite [29, 30].

The IB enforces its centralized discourse through rigorous policy standards and practices (S&Ps) [31-33]. This exercise of power over authorized schools is a form of governmentality [25, 34]—a complex network of discourses designed to guide conduct [35]. This governmentality promotes the narratives of neoliberal knowledge economics, encouraging the worker (or student, rebranded as a ‘learner’ or ‘knower’ [36]) to be a compliant lifelong learner, willing to remain mobile and up-skill regularly for an elite that is largely stateless [37, 38].

If the IB is used as a tool to perpetuate an ideology that increases social inequality, it raises an ethical conflict with its mission [39]. The result is that a face-to-face education might become a privilege of the elite, while the majority are educated online [40].

Policy Evaluation Must Look Deeper

The failure of educational policies to achieve true equality is compounded by evaluative research that is too narrow in scope. In the Netherlands, for example, evaluative research guiding policy on the internationalization of secondary education focused narrowly on questions of how to attract more significant international businesses and talent [41, 42]. This goal-driven research, often influenced by policy-makers [43], aims to justify expansion for global elites [42].

This narrow focus fails to address the wider structural questions concerning inclusion and exclusion in education [41]. It ignores the fact that opening up international education often predominantly favors the children of professional middle-class parents who possess the necessary cultural capital [44, 45].

To counter this, researchers must adopt a realist methodology [46]. A realist perspective (like that developed by Bhaskar) is crucial because it allows for the possibility that while social structures may not be visible, they generate real effects [41, 47]. This approach demands research that:

• Has depth of explanatory power by exposing underlying structures and their generative mechanisms [48, 49].
• Has breadth of explanatory power by addressing broad implications for many people, particularly issues of inclusion, exclusion, and inequality [48, 50].

Ultimately, policy research should take into account the wider implications regarding inequality, recognizing that policies are not just for policy-making elites but for all citizens [51].

Moving Toward True Reform

The challenge for true educational reform lies in the legitimized power bestowed upon existing educational systems [52]. The current system has crafted a durable habitus and holds itself in high esteem, compounding structural inequalities [53].

Educational technology policies and international curriculum initiatives are often just “silver bullets” that provide equality only under the constraints of the current system [54, 55]. To achieve true equality, we must look beyond simply providing access [55] and focus on reform that questions the current structures and investigates the possibility of breaking down the policies and attitudes that permit inequality [56].

Any reform that seeks to overcome existing power structures and provide equality must start with an appreciation of the social, cultural, and symbolic capital attached to traditional education and a deep understanding of the strength of the habitus currently being reproduced [57].