This article develops a framework for understanding and analyzing the intermediary work of platform technologies and their owners as an emerging form of platform governance in educational systems. The authors explore how platform technologies shape policy by brokering relations among commercial, technical, and educational actors, and how these relations contribute to or compromise educational equity as they are folded into existing governance regimes. They combine critical policy analysis and critical platform studies to examine the power and politics of platformization in education. Platform technologies, such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple, have become deeply embedded in public education, influencing administrative, instructional, and learning activities. The "platformization of education" has significant policy implications, offering potential for improving efficiency, efficacy, and equality through data-driven governance. However, it also raises concerns about the influence of private technology companies on public education and the potential for discriminatory design and exploitative data practices. The article argues that platforms are not neutral tools but powerful de facto policy actors, shaping educational activities through their commercial interests, technical architectures, and governance logics. It introduces the concept of "platform governance" to analyze how platforms and their owners influence educational systems, considering four spheres of governance: administrative, professional, market, and empowerment. The article highlights the role of platforms in educational policy, noting their absence in U.S. educational policy studies. It discusses the shift from focusing on "accessibility" to "interoperability" in federal guidance, emphasizing the need to coordinate technologies across educational systems. The article also examines the ecological nature of platforms, their multi-sided design, and their impact on data-driven administration and instruction. The article explores the implications of platform governance for educational equity, noting the risks of discriminatory design and predatory inclusion. It argues that platforms are not neutral but actively shape data processes and practices, influencing educational outcomes. The article calls for critical inquiry into how platform and policy environments shape one another in education, emphasizing the need to consider the social, technical, and political-economic dimensions of platform governance. The article theorizes platform governance as a form of control that extends beyond traditional disciplinary power, using visibility and data to shape behavior in real time. It discusses how platform governance affects different educational regimes, including the administrative, professional, and market regimes, and highlights the tensions between distributed participation and consolidated control. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for critical analysis of platform governance in education, highlighting the complex interplay between platforms, policy, and educational equity. It calls for a diffractive approach to understanding platform governance, considering the interactions and differences between texts and bodies of literature to clarify how insights from one are reinforced or complicated by those of the other.This article develops a framework for understanding and analyzing the intermediary work of platform technologies and their owners as an emerging form of platform governance in educational systems. The authors explore how platform technologies shape policy by brokering relations among commercial, technical, and educational actors, and how these relations contribute to or compromise educational equity as they are folded into existing governance regimes. They combine critical policy analysis and critical platform studies to examine the power and politics of platformization in education. Platform technologies, such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple, have become deeply embedded in public education, influencing administrative, instructional, and learning activities. The "platformization of education" has significant policy implications, offering potential for improving efficiency, efficacy, and equality through data-driven governance. However, it also raises concerns about the influence of private technology companies on public education and the potential for discriminatory design and exploitative data practices. The article argues that platforms are not neutral tools but powerful de facto policy actors, shaping educational activities through their commercial interests, technical architectures, and governance logics. It introduces the concept of "platform governance" to analyze how platforms and their owners influence educational systems, considering four spheres of governance: administrative, professional, market, and empowerment. The article highlights the role of platforms in educational policy, noting their absence in U.S. educational policy studies. It discusses the shift from focusing on "accessibility" to "interoperability" in federal guidance, emphasizing the need to coordinate technologies across educational systems. The article also examines the ecological nature of platforms, their multi-sided design, and their impact on data-driven administration and instruction. The article explores the implications of platform governance for educational equity, noting the risks of discriminatory design and predatory inclusion. It argues that platforms are not neutral but actively shape data processes and practices, influencing educational outcomes. The article calls for critical inquiry into how platform and policy environments shape one another in education, emphasizing the need to consider the social, technical, and political-economic dimensions of platform governance. The article theorizes platform governance as a form of control that extends beyond traditional disciplinary power, using visibility and data to shape behavior in real time. It discusses how platform governance affects different educational regimes, including the administrative, professional, and market regimes, and highlights the tensions between distributed participation and consolidated control. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for critical analysis of platform governance in education, highlighting the complex interplay between platforms, policy, and educational equity. It calls for a diffractive approach to understanding platform governance, considering the interactions and differences between texts and bodies of literature to clarify how insights from one are reinforced or complicated by those of the other.