Purpose of education in former British African colonies: From contestation to bureaucratization

Abstract

This paper examines how colonial policies, and the contestation of such policies, shaped African education provisions, specifically in British colonies. As a case in point, it examines policy borrowing via a process that might be called “policy imposition,” albeit with considerable contestation. The paper examines the complex evolution of African education policies during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, highlighting indigenous Africans’ early demands for inclusive, context-specific education during the colonial era. Much of the contestation was around differences in understandings of the purpose of education: The vision of colonial officials and colonial policy, on the one hand, contrasts with the vision of indigenous Africans, on the other. The paper then traces how stated purposes of education underwent a transformation in the years following independence. This was a transformation from a vision of education as a driver of national unity (or part of a nation project) to a default vision where education is a narrowly instrumental tool for development. To a significant degree, this transformation occurred under the influence of international agencies. This involved a process that was less imposed than colonial policies but also not quite a creative contestation of metropolitan ideas. This occurred in a manner that often diverged from visionary statements by independence leaders. Indeed, these leaders’ visions were mostly centered around nation-building. This contrasts with the technocratic or instrumental purposes international agencies tended to assume and (to a significant degree) impose. The pursuit of international funds for education thus resulted in independent African countries suffering a significant loss of internal purpose as they came under the influence of international priorities and preferred methods for attaining them, which were largely focused on individualistic rather than collective goals, and on centralist, blue-print types of technocratic planning mechanisms. The paper critiques these approaches and instead advocates for an adaptive, iterative system design. This involves emphasizing the importance of a shared, deeply felt purpose when fostering genuine educational progress.