Policy to Action--a Reminder of the Realities of Implementation
I've had the fortune of participating in the CIES 2017 Conference this week, which will be continuing for the next few days. Over the course of the sessions, I've learned a lot about the context of Education in Africa through special interest groups, as well as the practicality of certain aspects of ICT4D in the region.
As it relates to my own research, there has been a significant portion of discussion regarding the practicality of ICT4D in education throughout Africa. Before I start on the major topics of this post, I must bring attention to important and relevant research being done. Through the sessions I have attended, I have heard a lot of echoes of my research which has reinforced some of the potential ICT development in African schools. I will make an initial reference to a few of these sessions, and come back to them again later in the blog.
First, Anthony Ireri led a session analyzing teacher preparedness for the Digital Learning Programme in Kenya according to the Technology Acceptance Model. Through survey research, he noted that 20% of teachers had internet in their schools, 16% used the internet in their schools, and a mere 12% thought it was easy to even use the internet in their schools. On another relevant note, 37% of teachers surveyed claimed to have access to a laptop of computer. However, 71% of those surveyed had access to email, and over 53% of teachers claimed that the internet was their #1 source for lessons/lesson planning. This shows a huge inconsistency and hints at one very serious outside variable--the use of mobile internet and data.
Outside the continent, another survey analyzing cell phone users in Cambodia highlighted an important contextual issue that has been related to much of the findings for mobile technology and use in Africa. While quantitative data in the region shows low use of internet users and subscribers, as well as subscriptions--all statistics were for fixed line internet. Jayson Richardson, co-chair of the ICT4D Special Interest Group for CIES, showed that the actual users who had access to the internet was much higher than the data shown, which was implied by the number of mobile users. However, he also mentioned in his report that it is almost impossible to collect data and quantify the exact number of mobile data users in these countries--partially because of the nature of mobile networks and number of mobile providers in regions.
These very important findings relate back to a very important topic of discussion for national policies and plans for ICT in education: the true difficulty of identifying "reality," and the practicality of plans and implementations. Over the past few weeks, I have been doing a cross-national comparison of policies and plans for ICT in education. At the end of this semester, the conclusion of my research will be a published report with qualitative analysis of such policies in countries throughout South, West, and East Africa (hence the delay in publishing this blog post!). As I have started gathering research on ICT, Education, and ICT in Education national policies, I have noticed some preliminary and concerning trends.
First and foremost, I have already spoken at length regarding the amount of missing data sets and reports regarding ICT infrastructure in schools. Also, as mentioned already in this post, there are hints about why some of that data is missing and/or inconsistent (i.e. lack of collection of data regarding mobile use and actual internet access and use). In my last post, I mentioned a plan to do an analysis of multiple policies and plans for national ICT infrastructure in schools. These countries include (so far) Zambia, South Africa, Kenya, Swaziland, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Angola, and Ghana. Part of the reason for the selection of these countries for national policy analysis was the absence of data from UNESCO's UIS regarding ICT policies and plans, as well as infrastructure. While some data does exist for a few of these countries (as a standard for comparison), many of these countries were chosen based off of 1) Population 2) GDP per capita (this is used as a measure for the potential of ICT growth) and 3) ICT trends (trends in number of ICT companies, initiatives, etc. as identified in GSMA and USI reports.
Of primary concern for many of these countries is the age of ICT policies and plans (if they exist). While the majority of countries mentioned have some form of National ICT Policy, many do not have an ICT Implementation Plan. Policies regarding ICT in Education specifically are either referenced by a) the Ministry of Education b) some ICT Authority/Ministry as a (priority) concern c) by a specific ICT in Education Policy/Plan or d) not at all. Those that do have a disconnect from the actual usage statistics that may make policy more relevant for implementation (as noted int he previous paragraph). For example, Tanzania has an ICT policy from 2003, and Swaziland, which does have a specific ICT in Education Plan, dates from 2007.
For this aged policy, much of the concerns stated are still of concern today (even in Tanzania!) because of the nature of the policies and a lack of implementation of old programs. Priorities and concerns regarding important uses of ICT in Education are clear throughout all policies and plans. Many policies mention a need for focus and improvement on Education Management Information Systems (EMIS), ICT use for administration, ICT use in teacher training, ICT use in the classrooms, and infrastructure development. However, these concerns still have not changed! While "real" usage statistics may have changed, the national policies, despite their age, are still addressing many of the issues they addressed 10 and 15 years ago. If plans for policy have not been implemented, and honest policy focus has not been actualized, these issues stay "current," and a "new policy" or "new plan" may not need to be updated (from the eyes of policy makers). These conflicting states--"real usage" to inform policy and potentiate new improvements vs. lack of data/improvement and thus lack of policy change--leads to policy stagnation from a political and implementation standpoint. As highlighted at the Bantaba! session at CIES this week, much of the policy and further plans are then NATO--"No Action Talk Only." This leads to an implementation gap between the policy/plan and actual action.
Before I continue, I must state a reminder that this generalization does not apply to all countries, policies, plans, or symptoms in this research. As is shown by much of the research thus far in terms of mobile technology growth, reduction of broadband costs and subscription increase, etc.--the government, local NGOs, and various other stakeholders have taken important strides to solve issues regarding access and infrastructure to make this possible. Implementation of things such as an increase in infrastructure can be both timely and costly, and longer time-frames may be a necessary evil to ensure quality for those with access. Also, if CIES 2017 has shown anything to me over the past few days, it is that there are a lot of great people and researchers devoting their time, money, and effort to make ICT in schools a practical and significant reality. Through proper methodology, they have shown significant gains in achievement and performance within the geographic areas of their research, and hope does exist for the future.
However, it must also be noted that the frequent "elephant in the room" stated in many of the African development and ICT development sessions is the sustainability of such projects. With the evidence of achievement and gains for many of these projects throughout the region (i.e. ICT use in classrooms, ICT use for teacher training, administration, etc.), many of the project leaders and coordinators at CIES have shown hopes looking to the future to take such projects to the district/national/regional level. As is the case in many projects funded by NGOs and aid organizations, upon readiness to scale projects, local and/or national governments are expected to take responsibility for the funding and implementation of these projects on a national level. This involves not just a mere budgeting adjustment, but the hiring and training of workers for project implementation, the provision of hard (i.e. not just financial) resources, and time to scale. Many such projects have "fizzled out" over time. Some ICT Implementation Plans do have details for timeframes, budgeting, and expected turnaround for project scaling at the national level, and yet the projects no longer exist or are not mentioned in later policy/plan documents.
For another example already mentioned, the "Digital Learning Programme" is considered one of the "key flagship Programmes"* from Kenya's Ministry of Education. This flagship programme aims to improve ICT infrastructure, ICT training for teachers, and the alignment of curriculum and ICT resources for education. For his research, Anthony Ireri noted that initially the programme was supposed to be implemented starting in 2013, but actually did not start until 2016. This initial timeline is corroborated by the National ICT Masterplan 2014-2017 by Kenya's ICT Authority. In his research, he analyzes the Kenya's "readiness" for the Digital Learning Programme, and notes some fundamental issues. His primary recommendations were 1) proper teacher training on specific use of ICT in education--target lesson plans, lesson resources, etc. and 2) broadband internet infrastructure and laptops/computers.
I have noticed a cyclical incident of the following: infrastructure (internet access and computers) as necessary for ICT use, a recognition of alternatives (mobile devices/tablets) to still use ICTs in classrooms, an underestimation of use for alternatives (mobile internet access data), a lack of resources (lesson plans, teacher training, and coaching for ICTs on a local level) for the use of said alternatives, which then leads back to a lack of strong infrastructure for the transfer of said resources (internet use to provide access to online resources in compensation for the lack of local resources). In this cycle, there are a couple clear gaps and potentials for targeted policy reforms, residing especially on local implementation. It is supremely important that the "groundwork" be laid before classroom level implementation. Teachers should have the resources necessary to be effective in the classroom prior to ICT implementation. Without access to proper resources, training, and knowledge, there is ineffective use in the classroom. While supports for such use can be provided, it also becomes necessary to provide administrative help on a local level to ensure quality. These age-old norms for educational efficacy are of primary importance even for new and groundbreaking ICTs in education. Thus, instead of focusing on EMIS improvement (for example), it may be more beneficial to focus on infrastructure development and "last-mile connectivity" before EMIS can be used effectively. It is important to not put the "cart before the horse," and recognize that ICTs should be use as an addendum to fundamental practices, resources, and infrastructure, not the replacement.
While these preliminary recommendations are based off of the information I have gathered from CIES 2017 and my review of policy documents in the stated countries above, there is still much work to be done on policy analysis and filling in the data gaps. With that, I look forward to the remainder of CIES 2017, and future investigation of policy vs. reality.
*Source: Ministry of Education website: http://www.education.go.ke/index.php/programmes/digital-learning-programme