This practice certainly existed. Within french colonialism:
French colonial officials, influenced by the revolutionary ideal of
equality, standardized schools, curricula, and teaching methods as
much as possible. They did not establish colonial school systems with
the idea of furthering the ambitions of the local people, but rather
simply exported the systems and methods in vogue in the mother
nation. Having a moderately trained lower bureaucracy was of great
use to colonial officials. The emerging French-educated indigenous
elite saw little value in educating rural peoples. [...]
In South Vietnam from 1955 to 1975 there were two competing colonial powers in education, as the French continued their work and the Americans moved in. They sharply disagreed on goals. The French educators sought to preserving French culture among the Vietnamese elites and relied on the Mission Culturelle – the heir of the colonial Direction of Education – and its prestigious high schools. The Americans looked at the great mass of people and sought to make South Vietnam a nation strong enough to stop communism. The Americans had far more money, as USAID coordinated and funded the activities of expert teams, and particularly of academic missions. The French deeply resented the American invasion of their historical zone of cultural imperialism.
The boundary between "events that occured naturally" and "known practice" is blurry. If the french believe their ideas of equality (in a capitalist interpretation: everyone has the equal right to form a company, or sleep under a bridge) etc. are basically correct - as long as these ideas don't get into the way of exploiting colonial labor - it would be natural to teach the native bureaucrats these ideas. What else should they teach?
It's been ages since I read Fanon, but my guess would be that he describes the effect of the training, not the more-or-less conscious intent.