How might edtech market making of the sort that Bridge International Academies (BIA) advances impact the role of the teacher?

Introduction

Traditionally, teaching has been viewed as a profession that requires specialist knowledge and years of training, commanding high levels of autonomy in the classroom. The emergence of edtech market making is challenging this paradigm. Bridge International Academies (BIA) exemplifies the shift, offering low-cost private education in developing countries in Africa and Asia through a technology-driven approach that elevates the importance of technology while simultaneously de-emphasizing the importance of the teacher.

As Curtis Riep notes in “Making markets for low-cost schooling: the devices and investments behind Bridge International Academies,” BIA uses “a wide variety of devices… to construct mass markets for low-cost schooling, including GPS devices that map low-income communities, smartphones that automate administrative functions, and computer devices that perform the duties of a teacher,” (2017, p. 352). This approach demonstrates a notable departure from the traditional view of the teacher, and signifies a potential transformation in the role of the teacher on a worldwide scale.

Drawing on scholarship by Riep and Morgan Ames, this essay examines how BIA’s edtech market making impacts teachers through the centralization of pedagogy and decision-making, which reduces teacher autonomy and the need for any specialist skills or professionalism. We will also consider whether this impact is unique to BIA or reflective of broader trends in edtech and educational market making.

Reducing teacher autonomy

BIA’s teaching and learning decisions are made at corporate headquarters in Boston and Nairobi, which effectively shifts control away from teachers and staff who work on the front lines (Riep, 2017, p. 352). This reduction in teacher autonomy is evident in several aspects of BIA’s teaching, most notably in its highly scripted and standardized approach to instruction. As Riep (2017) describes, BIA employs the concept of ‘teacher-computers’: tablet e-readers that provide step-by-step instructions for teachers. These devices dictate not only what teachers should say, but also their actions and timing within the classroom. Riep quotes directly from BIA’s instructional model:

“They instruct teachers, for example, when to ‘Rub the board’ when to ‘Pause’ when to ‘Circulate for 30 seconds’ when to ‘Praise 2 pupils who are writing quickly’ when to tell pupils to ‘Close your textbooks’ as well as an infinite amount of other encrypted phrases and axioms that algorithmically configure every pedagogical interaction in the classroom through scripted instructions.” (Riep, 2017, pp. 356-357)

This approach essentially eliminates teachers’ ability to use any professional judgment, reducing them to deliverers of pre-packaged content.

The reduction of teacher autonomy is not unique to BIA. Ames’ research on the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative reveals a similar trend. Ames (2019, p. 35) notes that OLPC’s approach, influenced by Seymour Papert’s ideas, “supports the idea of casting teachers as co-learners.” This recasting of the teacher’s role as a “co-learner” alongside students—though disguised in a positive light—significantly reduces their status and responsibility in the classroom.

Ames (2019, p. 29) expands upon Papert’s view: “Papert argues… it is only with the rise of personal computers that personalized and playful learning became possible.” This perspective, shared by both OLPC and BIA, puts faith in technology, not people. As Riep (2017, p. 357) observes in BIA’s case, “Trust, therefore, is placed ‘ … in the artefacts and machines themselves…’ (Preda 2009, p. 13),” rather than in teachers, or, by extension, human beings.

However, it’s worth considering whether this reduced autonomy is a direct result of market making or specifically tied to these organizations’ technological approaches. As we’ll explore later in this blog post, some edtech ventures don’t seek to reduce teacher autonomy to this extent, even with similar market-making approaches. What is clear so far is that the impact on teacher autonomy by BIA is closely linked to its specific technological philosophy.

Deskilling and deprofessionalizing teaching

The deskilling and deprofessionalization of teaching is evident in how BIA conceptualizes education itself. According to Riep, BIA treats teaching and learning as “processes of data generation, storage, memorization, and systems of retrieval,” making education an “alienable and marketable object of trade” (2017, p. 359). This perspective reduces education to a commodified product that can be standardized, packaged, and uniformly delivered, further undermining the professional status of teachers.

Riep describes BIA’s teaching philosophy as a kind of “techagogy”—a commercial approach that seeks to automate and standardize teaching (2017, p.357). The emphasis on technology, and the morphing of ‘teaching’ from a once skilled, aspirational career to a low-skilled, low-wage job, could be effortlessly seen as a response to Papert’s earlier disdain for traditional schooling as the “worst kind of disembodied rote learning,” (Ames, 2019, p. 34). As Riep notes, BIA’s commercial interests led to “employing (predominantly) unqualified individuals and paying them severely low wages in exchange for their low-skilled labor,” (2017, p. 357) which may precipiate deprofessionalization of teaching well beyond the local markets where BIAs are based. As Dan Cohen argues in “Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling”:

“EdTech experiments are built upon an already stratified education system… where marginalized students in disempowered districts [especially in the U.S.]… may face a standardized educational future that deemphasizes creativity while the children of elites may continue to opt into face-to-face models of education” (2022, p. 283).

The long-term implications of deskilling and deprofessionalization are deeply concerning. If this model becomes widespread, it could lead to a stark two-tier education system (or arguably exacerbate existing ones), where wealthy communities would likely retain access to highly qualified, autonomous teachers who can provide personalized, improvised instruction. Poor communities, particularly in developing countries where BIA operates, might increasingly rely on less skilled facilitators following scripted lessons delivered via technology.

The diversity in edtech market making

While BIA’s approach to edtech market making raises significant concerns, it’s important to note that not all edtech initiatives follow the same model. Some approaches aim to enhance teacher skills and professionalism through technology rather than diminish the role of teachers. Shaffer et al. (2015), for example, present a more optimistic view of educational technology’s potential, describing the concept of “digital internships” which aim to simulate real-world practices and help students learn problem-solving skills in authentic contexts. In this model, teachers act as coordinators in a technology-rich environment, guiding students through various digital learning experiences rather than following scripted lessons.

In contrast, even seemingly progressive edtech approaches seek to contribute to the reduction in autonomy of teachers. Ideland (2020) highlights how Google’s vision for education, while purportedly empowering teachers, actually positions them more as facilitators or coaches rather than as central figures in education. This emphasizes the need for a clear examination of edtech initiatives, as even those that claim to support teacher professionalism may still contribute to the broader trend of diminishing teacher authority, creativity, and agency.

Market making independent of edtech

The impact of market forces on teaching predates the rise of edtech. For decades, various forms of marketization have been reshaping the teaching profession. In many countries, including the U.S., the introduction of charter schools and other market-based reforms has already altered the working conditions and professional status of teachers, often leading to weakened unions, increased job insecurity, and more standardized curricula.

Additionally, the rigidity observed in BIA’s teaching model is not without precedent in global educational practices. Similar approaches can be found in ESL (English as a Second Language) teaching contexts, particularly in Asia, where BIAs can also be found. In many East Asian countries, including China, there is a long-standing tradition of teacher-centered, highly structured educational approaches. As Jin and Cortazzi (1998, p. 740) note: “The Chinese conception of teaching is one of knowledge transmission… The teacher is viewed as a model, both in terms of knowledge and morality.” Where there is already very strict pedagogy and standardized exams, such as in China, the introduction of edtech doesn’t significantly alter the lack of teacher agency. This suggests that the reduction of teacher autonomy associated with some edtech initiatives may be replicating or amplifying existing pedagogical approaches in certain cultural contexts, rather than introducing entirely new dynamics.

Conclusion

BIA’s market-making presents a double-edged sword for education in developing countries. It promises to expand access to schooling, aiming to “educate 10,000,000 children across a dozen countries by 2025” (Riep, 2017, p. 352), but at the cost of teacher autonomy and professionalism. Essentially, BIA’s approach, which relies heavily on technology and standardized instruction, has led to a deskilling and deprofessionalization of teaching, where teachers are increasingly seen as facilitators rather than experts, and their role is reduced to delivering pre-packaged content.

BIA is not the only organization that advances a technology-first market making strategy, but is reflective of broader shifts in edtech and educational market making. As discussed, Google and the OLPC initiative also lean heavily towards solutionism, among plenty of other edtech organizations and venture capitalists. Furthermore, market making of the past where the role of the teacher was resultantly diminished—such as U.S. state charter schools in the 1990s—predates edtech. This suggests that BIA’s market making does not advance the devaluation of teaching independently, but is rather a manifestation of an educational philosophy which seeks to erode the status of the traditional teacher.

While BIA positions its students as recipients of a “life-changing education” that promises to unlock future success, its deep reliance on technology may have broader implications for young minds. By prioritizing technology over human expertise, BIA risks reshaping children’s worldview, cultivating a reliance on machines as primary sources of knowledge. This approach inadvertently promotes a form of anti-intellectualism, where technology—not human insight—is seen as the ultimate authority. Although BIA may not have set out to affect the teaching profession directly, its focus on students’ lives and revenue generation has perhaps overlooked the gravity of these broader implications.

References

Ames, M.G. (2019). The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child. MIT Press.

Cohen, D. (2022). Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling. EPA: Economy and Space, 56(1), 270-287.

Ideland, M. (2020). Google and the end of the teacher? How a figuration of the teacher is produced through an ed-tech discourse. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(1), 33-46.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 739-761.

Riep, C.B. (2017). Making markets for low-cost schooling: the devices and investments behind Bridge International Academies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(3), 352-366.

Shaffer, D.W., Nash, P., & Ruis, A.R. (2015). Technology and the new professionalization of teaching. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1-30.

Tessitore, M. (2019). Bridge International Academies: A critical analysis of the privatization of public education in Africa. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 41(3), 193-209.

Oct 6, 2024