Are EdTech companies building or breaking walls?

We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone
Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!

Paulo Freire could not have agreed with the sentiment of this song, as he also saw traditional education as a system that oppressed children. Ten years before this song was released, the Brazilian educator published his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed“, concerned about the negative effects of education among students in Latin America, he coined the concept of ‘banking education.’ He aimed to highlight that these educational systems were not fostering critical thinking but rather focused on memorization and repetition. Freire saw education as a system that constrained students and forced them to take a passive attitude towards learning. Since the knowledge received was the rhetoric of the dominant class, social injustices and inequalities were perpetuated. The teacher was the sole possessor of knowledge, and the student a passive recipient of it (Freire, 1969). Freire also defined these educational systems as ‘regimes of educational degradation organized around the demands of the market, instrumentalized knowledge, and the priority of training over the pursuit of imagination, critical thinking, and the teaching of freedom and social responsibility” (Giroux, pg. 715, 2010).

Conversely, Milton Friedman, better known as the father of neoliberalism, was also concerned about the educational system in the USA. In the mid-seventies, he proposed the system of educational vouchers, arguing that ‘the role of the government should be reduced as far as possible to nurture the freedom and efficiencies created by the market” (Kalantzis, Cope 2022). In an interview for the Edchoice Organization, Friedman said, “You know, our educational system is one of the most backward things in our society in the way we teach people as they did 200 years ago. There is a person at the front of the room, and there are children sitting at the bottom, and they are being talked to” (Friedman, 2003). Quoting the song ‘Another brick on the wall’, Friedman would have said “we don’t need tough control”, we need to allow the free market to regulated education.

Even though Freire and Friedman held opposing views, one could argue that they both recognized the need for educational system reform. On one hand, Freire advocated for a more equitable system that could challenge the status quo of a highly unequal society. On the other hand, Friedman sought a market-regulated system that, to some extent, relied on the economic power of parents. For Friedman, education was on par with water or electricity – the state provided them, but consumers paid for them. In contrast, Freire viewed education as a public good, and therefore, he believed the state should provide it for all its citizens. While it’s easy to agree with Freire, one might still question whether education should be fully subsidized by the state

The world has changed since Freire and Friedman were working to change the system but neither Freire nor Friedman could have envisioned the challenges that governments are currently facing regarding to Education. One may wonder if platformization could provide a solution aligned with the ideals of both Freire and Friedman. On one hand, platformization could transform the learning process, enabling students to develop critical thinking. On the other hand, considering the expense of education, platformization could potentially save money while providing fair and more equitable education.

However, the companies behind the platformization of the education want to be economically viable. Therefore, their ultimate goal is to make money, which, by default, creates a conflict of interest between companies and society. History has so far shown that we are facing an increasing sense of monopolies that prioritize profit over promoting a fairer society. These monopolies emphasize efficiency over fairness. In this moment, one could argue that these companies are building walls, trapping students/ costumers into a system that just see data and profit.

Platformization could be positive for education as long as the companies behind allow interoperability and are transparent regarding data use and storage. Moreover, we need politicians who are willing to look beyond big checks and the next coming elections. We need politicians who pass laws that prevent these companies from amassing more power and having less scrutiny. We need legislation that break the EdTech walls that they are building around us.

We don't need no edtech learning,
We don't need your data's hold,
No more tech giants shaping our brains,
Hey, big tech, respect our digital soul!
Hey! Big Tech! Give us back control!
(Generated in same parts by ChatBPT)

Bibliography

1. Chanenson, J. (Host). (2023, August 9). “The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation”. In New Books Network
2. Freire, P. “Pedagogia del Oprimido.” 1968. Siglo XXI Editores, Mexico.
3. Friedman, M. “Milton Friedman on Vouchers.” 2003. EdChoice Online Magazine.
4. Giroux, H. “Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy.” Policy Futures in Education Journal, Volume 8, Number 6, 2010.
5. Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. “Friedman on School Vouchers.” Newlearningonline.com.