Deep knowledge tracing (DKT) models implicitly decide which students an adaptive system believes have mastered a skill, yet almost all evidence on their demographic fairness comes from Bayesian knowledge tracing; the deep models that power modern systems have received no comparable cross-architecture audit.
We close this gap: four architectures (DKT, DKVMN, SAKT, AKT) trained under three regimes (standard, reweighting, adversarial) on two public datasets with demographic metadata, Eedi (15.9M interactions) and OULAD (167k after preprocessing), evaluated with ABROCA, student-level bootstrap confidence intervals, and permutation tests addressing recent critiques of fairness-metric instability.
Three findings emerge.
- Bias is real but context-dependent: every architecture shows a significant socioeconomic ABROCA on Eedi (0.018-0.023, $p<0.005$), with per-group AUC lower for economically disadvantaged students, while gender bias is significant on OULAD for three of four architectures after multiplicity correction yet negligible on Eedi.
- The most accurate architecture is the most biased: AKT gains about 4 AUC points from item-level Rasch embeddings and shows the largest socioeconomic ABROCA, exceeding every other architecture under a paired bootstrap ($p\leq0.002$); ablating only the Rasch embeddings removes the accuracy gain and the excess bias together.
- Standard mitigation is unreliable: reweighting and adversarial debiasing leave ABROCA essentially unchanged in every configuration that preserves accuracy, even though the adversary is pinned at chance at full reversal strength and a weak-strength positive control rules out a dead probe.