<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Earlier this year, a room full of people in Brussels was asked if they wanted more control over the educational technologies they use. Almost everyone stood up.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second question was whether they currently have that control.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most people sat down.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The meeting had been organised by the European Digital Education Hub (EDEH)<\/strong><\/a> to discuss digital sovereignty in education. Everyone seemed in favour of it. That part was easy. The harder part began when people tried to explain what they meant and what they thought was important. This was perhaps not surprising. Earlier that morning, a European Commission representative had outlined some of the challenges in digital education. Educators need training and professional development, particularly in areas such as AI and data-driven tools. Member States face issues in maintaining digital education infrastructure, data protection requirements, algorithmic transparency, integrating AI into learning environments. Geopolitical developments have also increased attention on dependence on non-European providers. Digital sovereignty had arrived carrying quite a lot of baggage. The participants unpacked it in different ways. One talked about the European EdTech market; another talked about trust and high-stakes procurement decisions. Standards, interoperability and AI applications entered the conversation. So did a series of familiar questions. What technology solutions do we need? Are there any alternatives? Can we compare them? Who decides what counts as trustworthy? After a while, digital sovereignty appeared less like a policy challenge and more like the questions that might end up on someone’s desk before a decision on the adoption of a new tool is made. By the end of the meeting, there were seven prototypes and enough flipcharts covered in sticky notes to insulate an OEB session room on a cold December day. Since Brussels, an international EDEH squad has been revisiting these conversations. Their first step was to define key terms, as it quickly became apparent that people were using the same words to mean slightly different things. The next step was to identify case studies and initiatives already tackling some if these issues. More recently, the focus has shifted back to the prototypes developed in the Brussels workshop, with a more practical questions: which of these ideas could actually be useful? These discussions will continue at OEB 2026 during the session ‘EU EdTech for Sovereign Education Futures: From Abstraction to Action’. That seems like a natural next step for the conversation to go next. What participants agreed on in Brussels was that schools, universities, and policymakers will continue to face situations like these. A contract comes up for renewal, a new tool is being considered, and somebody has to decide what happens next. The question is not simply which technology to choose, but how much choice they really have. Are there viable alternatives? Can they be compared? What would it mean to switch? These decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are shaped by local needs, budgets, strategies, and sometimes by the convenience of staying with what already works. It is in these everyday decisions that questions of control, dependency and choice become tangible. This is where digital sovereignty can move from an abstract concept into action. You can find more information about the OEB session\u00a0and its speakers, including Lezel Roddeck<\/a> and Peter Gillis<\/a>,\u00a0Hasan Abu-Rasheed, Elchin Jafarov, Albena Spasova via this link<\/a>.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Written for OEB 2026<\/a> by Channa van der Brug<\/a>, programme manager European Digital Education Hub for Stifterverband
<\/p>\n\n\n\n