A brief history of ICT4D in Education policy in Africa--a look at the AISI Framework
In my last post, I discussed the importance of approaching ICT4D in stages--and avoiding the "leapfrogging" we see so commonly in the literature surrounding African development. However, I failed to preempt this conversation with a historical review of how that "leapfrogging" literature came into place. While some countries in the region (such as South Africa) have had national ICT policies for a very long time, many countries throughout the continent developed such policies within the past 10-15 years.
In 1996, the United Nations Economic Commission of Africa launched the African Information Society Initiative (AISI) framework at its Conference of African Ministers. The AISI framework presented steps to build African ICT infrastructure to inform socio-economic development. Over the course of subsequent years, UNECA worked with many of its member countries to develop National Information Communication Infrastructure policies and plans under the AISI framework. While other organizations such as the World Bank, International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and others have played an important role in the development of national policy and plans as they regard ICT, the AISI framework has remained a cornerstone of the policy development process and foundational for many countries’ current NICI policies and plans. For the purpose of simplification, the AISI framework initially identified a wide berth of policy recommendations, and has evolved over time with adaptation for the Millennial Development Goals (MDGs).
The initial vision had aims to achieve the following by 2010:
Information and decision support systems are used to support decision making in all the major sectors of the economy in line with each country’s national development priorities
Every man and woman, school child, village, government office and business can access information and knowledge resources through computers and telecommunications;
Access is available to information, regional and national “information highways”, providing “off-ramps” in the villages and in the information area catering specifically to grass-roots society;
A vibrant business sector exhibits strong leadership capable of forging the build-up of the information society
African information resources are available which reflect the needs of government, business, culture, education, tourism, energy, health, transport and natural resource management;
Information and knowledge are disseminated and used by business, the public at large and disenfranchised groups such as women and the poor, in particular, to make the rational choices in the economy (free markets) and for all groups to exercise democratic and human rights (freedom of speech and freedom of cultural and religious expression).
This vision was extremely ambitious, and to-date we still see many parts of this vision have not been achieved. Although the AISI framework does “support decision making in all the major sectors of the economy in line with each country’s national development plan,” it goes on to declare the importance of “free markets,” and “freedom of speech and freedom of cultural and religious expression.” While one can argue that these are important aspects of development, and especially founded on the rights-based approach to development as discussed prior, there could be major differences in approach to “free markets” and the nature of freedoms as they relate to socio-cultural norms and extant forms of government among African nations. This creates a biased vision for Western development reforms in the forms of “freedoms” which may ignore models for whole systems used in "Eastern" or other development mindsets. Also, the role of ICT is largely considered neutral by the framework, and ignores the possibility of ICT to change power dynamics and social relationships within a community.
However, the adoption process continued, and through adaptation to the various local socio-economic and cultural factors, AISI and its corresponding framework has worked with various stakeholders within member countries to further develop NICI policies and plans. This iterative process incorporates feedback loops for implementation, monitoring & evaluation, and development of subsequent plans.
Over the course of subsequent years, member countries throughout the region ran through the process in a helter-skelter manner, with each country showing different levels of progress and iteration. In some cases, policy makers are still in the initial process, and have stalled at such. For other countries, some are in their 3rd or greater iteration of the process, and have made consistent progress in accordance with the framework. According to a report by UNECA at the 10-year mark, 34 out of the current 55 member countries had fully developed a NICI policies, with another 15 in the process of development of these policies and plans. Although the report did not detail the extent to which each member country had made progress in policy and implementation, it did make recommendations for development that it regarded as important for the future.
Many countries have struggled with various aspects of their education system(s), and have continued to do so recently after programs from the MDGs. However, in relation to policy and implementation, some of the ICT documents that advise on improvement for education (i.e. under the AISI framework) mis-conceptualize the underlying issues behind education in the region. Without an ‘update,’ this can misinform policy and plans for the future.
The AISI framework lists the following as the “main challenges”:
Africa has the world’s highest illiteracy rate, especially among women;
Low numbers of teachers and large numbers of students per class;
Few schools and universities;
Few libraries and very limited access to international journals;
Lack of educational materials;[4]
While many of the concerns listed here are challenges, they differ from country-to-country and region-to-region. For example, while some countries, such as Ethiopia, have very high illiteracy rates, South Africa has a literacy rate of ~94%, matching many OECD countries. Also, the number of schools and universities continent-wide have expanded rapidly. These are just a few of the resources, but concerns regarding facilities are also not addressed (i.e. nature of established schools). It is important to note that this document is meant to address the “information society” but does not address curriculum or training for teachers, or many of the other issues facing education in Africa.
From the list provided, the document also states the following as “opportunities” for improvement, which could be part of a NICI policy/plan:
Providing equitable remote access to resources in support of both distance education and the strengthening of local educational capacity;
Connecting schools, universities and research centres to national and international distance education facilities, national and international databases, libraries, research laboratories and computing facilities;
Reducing communications and administrative costs by building communications networks linking all educational establishments;
Promoting and supporting collaboration among teachers and researchers
Extending the reach of educational facilities in informal learning, especially to [the] community level.[6]
This addresses the importance of teacher collaboration and informal/community involvement (which may be surprising) but fails to address even more fundamental costs. Before establishing a communications network, the actual infrastructure must be put in place to support that network. This would include not only electricity, but lan cables, etc.
While the AISI framework makes a note of localizing and adapting their framework to the needs of the individual countries, it seems to generalize where it should not, and fail to generalize (in terms of needs assessment) when it should. Thus, the informal framework could leave gaps for policy makers and planners. Also, it assumes neutrality of technology as a means for providing access to content, but without consideration of power dynamics for educators or to the content that is being accessed. While this is a greater conversation that goes beyond the scope of the document, it is an important provision necessary for more detailed policy creation on the individual, national level.