91�鶹������Ʒ����

This IdeasLAB blog is part of a series leading up to the launch of a publication on the theme of “renewing the social contract for education.” The theme of the series is based on the call from the report . See , and look for the full special issue in to be released in 2024. 

By Tel Amiel 

Major technology companies have catered to the education market for a very long time, offering hardware and software products schools and institutions could purchase and retain. But something significant has changed over the past decade. Many of these businesses have shape-shifted from software and hardware companies to media and advertising¹ behemoths. After contributing to significantly refashion work and social life, these corporations, now known as big tech, began offering, promoting, and selling – not products – but subscriptions to cloud-based platforms and services, many of which are not inspired by the needs of teachers, students and administrators in educational institutions. Today big tech businesses are, in many cases de facto mediators to fundamental rights such as access to information and the right to education. 

As the UNESCO 2023 GEM Report makes clear, during the COVID-19 pandemic, access to education globally was made possible only through emergency remote teaching. Governments and institutions around the world scrambled to provide access to education using legacy technologies but relied heavily on online services. Many of the favoured solutions were cloud-based, private, proprietary educational software platforms such as Microsoft 365 for Education and Google Workspace for Education. Often these were provided by big tech for “free” to state systems and institutions at all levels of education all over the world. 

Published data from the shows that nearly 80% of public higher education institutions (HEI) in South America make use of Alphabet/Google or Microsoft solutions. A new preliminary report by the Observatory, using the same methodology, gathered data for 1170 valid public HEI domains in Africa (55 countries) and 646 domains (20 countries) in all of Latin America. For the African continent 59%, and for Latin America 76% of surveyed public HEI domains were associated with Google or Microsoft, with an ample preponderance for Google, a comparatively new player in the education market². 

The massive amounts of data and/or metadata produced within these platforms by millions of students (many of which are children), faculty and staff flow freely to these private actors. These data are incredibly attractive to these corporations, if nothing else, for product improvement and evaluation, but particularly for how they contribute to the. Social network scandals have made us acutely aware of the possible consequences: individual profiling, inducing behaviour, and monumental threats to privacy. Though much evidence exists, it is difficult to ascertain what (meta)data generated in the context of education is actually used for the purposes of advertising, beyond claims to the contrary by these same corporations. Still, what matters is this: adoption of proprietary platforms centred on the massive collection and processing of behavioural data and works generated by educational actors by private, for-profit corporations is antithetical to the ethos of education and the common good. 

Far less acknowledged is that these platforms are not simply tools at the service of teachers and students; they play a far more pivotal role in educational governance. Platforms ingrain themselves, at a scale, into the fabric of educational systems and institutions, centralizing key services and processes: these include authentication, e-mail and communication tools, file sharing and hosting, and record keeping. Because they are not based on free software and do not use open standards, they predictably lead to technological lock-in and reduce data and infrastructural sovereignty and innovations, particularly for poorer nations in the Global South. 

We must build alternative futures. The field of Open Education, notably through open solutions,  can provide useful principles and mechanisms to guide the development of alternative technical infrastructures in education. Recent frameworks including Digital Public Goods and are increasingly part of the strategic governmental discussions, but still do not unequivocally address the unique challenges of the education sector and emphasize the stewardship of government³. Concrete examples exist of educational platforms and services that are wholly or partially public, or are at least diligently vetted by state actors. These include the public values-oriented programmes at in the Netherlands, and the initiative in Germany. Here, the role of the state is strategic and proactive and not one of a retroactive regulator of very powerful private actors. Observatory data also provides evidence that in many countries, such as Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uruguay, a substantial number of public HEIs have not officially adopted these platforms. More in-depth analysis is needed to fully understand these infrastructures and how they are supported and sustained locally. 

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed that every person has the right to education, and that at least its initial stages should be free. In 2019 the sounded the alarm on the increasing encroachment of private interests and profit-making, as a threat to the right to education. Beyond free, the Principles reaffirmed the essentiality of public education and the fundamental role of the state in its provision and regulation. Nowhere is the presence of private actors and their influence in education more salient today than in the realm of technology. The UNESCO 2021 report brings this to the forefront when it claims that it is “necessary to ensure that key decisions about digital technologies as they relate to education and knowledge are made in the public sphere and guided by the principle of education as a public and a common good.” (p. 110)⁴. 

In order to achieve sustainable educational infrastructures and guarantee the right to education, adopting educational services and platforms based simply on cost reduction and technical efficiency will not suffice. Other values must come to the forefront, such as transparency and democratic participation, which are aligned with the common good. In order to achieve this, the state – and the public – must have clear stewardship in how we envision and govern technical infrastructures in education.