In my coming posts, I will be exploring how different development organisations utilise information and communication technologies (ICTs). To achieve their ambitious targets, public actors and NGOs tend to favor partnerships with private companies. By looking at a number of different fields, I will also attempt to bring in conversation about the potential issues and consequences of such collaboration. My first post will be focusing on education and ICT.
COVID-19 is paving the way for Big Tech to gain a stronger position in education offering Internet access and devices to those in need. Many organisations such as UNESCO are welcoming their assistance in this time of crisis. But who in the end really benefits from such cooperation?
As people were told to stay at home and socially isolate, classrooms around the world suddenly emptied. School aged children were now at home, rolling their thumbs (or wreaking havoc) while parents were left with the additional responsibility of schooling their children. Teachers were forced to get creative in terms of holding classes.
Luckily for many students in places like Australia, these new changes were comparatively easy to facilitate. Many schools, in fact, are already distinguished Apple and Google schools enforcing exclusive use of iPads or Chromebooks as learning devices, making homeschooling relatively easy. It is often parents that are told to buy these expensive technologies in the name of education. But not everyone is lucky enough to afford a mandatory iPad let alone reliable Internet connection – And this is where tech companies such as Huawei have seen a Big Tech sized gap.
The neoliberal development paradigm that has shaped ICT4D since the 80’s favors private sector solutions to big issues. It is mentioned in various forms as part of both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
Millennium Development Goal no 8
Target 8.1 To avail benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications, in collaboration with the private sector.
– MDG Monitor
However, many remain skeptic to welcoming the private sector into solving global issues.
All too often, though, partnerships are seen as some kind of silver bullet that will solve all of the previous challenges in implementing development, and there has been far too little critical assessment of the interests underlying them and their real impact on the ground.
Tim Unwin
Equal access – at what cost?
Nevertheless, UNESCO recently joined forces with Huawei to address various issues worldwide. One of them is the unequal access to education, which they hope to alleviate with ‘technology-enabled open school systems’ in countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, and Ghana. Part of Huawei’s Tech4All campaign, the initiative intends to “leave no one behind” by expanding Internet services and digital devices to reach the most rural communities.
The recently celebrated UNESCO International Day for Universal Access to Information on Sep 28th champions such messages as Huawei’s. But at what cost?
As a ComDev student, I take private sector involvement in dealing with development issues with a grain of salt. There seems to be plenty of room for developing greater dependency between countries as well as inequalities within. As the UN pledges to respect and increase the adopting of the international human rights, partnering with companies that have been heavily criticised for breaching these same rights is a decision that deserves to be scrutinised.
Similarly, it will remain to be seen who the improved Internet access mainly benefits. While groups like girls/women and indigenous people are already disadvantaged in terms of access to education and access to it in one’s own language, will ICTs help narrow the gap? Certain private companies do have a reputation of ‘virtue signalling’ in the chase for higher profits. Will it be different with education?
From school to screen
Coming back to the topic of education during the times of covid-19, another ICT4D related question should be raised. Disintermediation refers to creating more direct channels between the supplier and the consumer. It is often seen as a positive development as it brings the suppliers more control in the market, often increases their share of the profit and promotes transparency. However, is all disintermediation truly desirable?
In an informational video, UNESCO praises teachers worldwide for their efforts to keep education going under the pandemic circumstances. They emphasize the importance of “preserv[ing] teachers’ employment and wages” after schools reopen. But what happens when the use of Google’s G Suite slowly starts to become mandatory and iPads are suddenly clenched in every pupil’s arms? Anna Krien, a mother and the author of the cleverly written essay The Screens that Ate School, writes about this issue. She questions the gamification of education and its impact on the education quality whilst the presence of and the relationship with teachers is transforming to something much less significant.
Likewise, talking to my friend, a teacher in Norway who recently started a new job, she tells me how shocked she was to see how much classroom teaching relies on tech devices. Are ICTs in education slowly disintermediating teachers? When the Big Tech offers online classes that are tailored to your child’s age and capabilities, what is the future of teachers?
The future of distance learning
Putting the issues of social justice and ethics aside, private tech companies are undoubtedly able to contribute to building infrastructure that enables ‘access to all’. But what if, encouraged by the sudden online learning experiments prompted by Covid-19 and now enabled by ICT, building schools in less populated areas isn’t a priority anymore?
I would question children’s ability to develop social skills, to learn empathy and teamwork skills, to learn about themselves through social interactions with their classmates and authorities when following a class from a rural Mongolian town. The joy of sharing what you have learnt is often also essential for one’s motivation to learn. Can uploading your work online truly substitute for that? Furthermore, an educated person is not just someone who has been taught the right answers (though as Krien points out, EdTech programs lack even in that regard) but rather a much more nuanced combination of critical, independent thinking, and emotional intelligence among other crucial life skills.
To me personally, the idea of vanishing physical schooling is deeply concerning. The long-term consequences of private tech companies’ role in education, which is only increasing thanks to the global pandemic, are yet unknown. In fact, Google’s CEO himself spoke of education as a “massive experiment.” In Krien’s article, she writes how a coalition of parent groups expressed their concerns to the New York governor earlier this year:
“We urge you instead to listen to parents and teachers rather than allow the Gates Foundation to implement their damaging education agenda once again. Since the schools were shut down in mid-March, our understanding of the profound deficiencies of screen-based instruction has only grown.”
Is private tech companies’ involvement in education progress or something to be wary of?
Tell us in the comments!
References
Graham, M. (ed.) 2019: Digital Economies at Global Margins. Ottawa, ON/Boston, MA: IDRC/MIT Press.
Heeks, R. 2017: Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). Abingdon: Routledge.
Krien, A 2020: The Screens That Ate School. The Monthly.
Unwin, T. 2017: Reclaiming Information & Communication Technologies for Development Oxford: Oxford University Press.
