Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta MDG. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta MDG. Mostrar todas las entradas

Reaching the Unreached: Non-Formal Approaches and Universal Primary Education


Rosa María Torres
and Manzoor Ahmed

Photos: BRAC, Bangladesh


Photo: CONAFE indigenous school, Mexico

This text is part of a dossier prepared by Manzoor Ahmed and myself in 1993, while both of us worked at UNICEF/HQ Programme Division in New York. The dossier was one of many UNICEF/ Education Cluster contributions to the policy-making process following the World Conference on Education for All - EFA (Jomtien-Thailand, 1990). The dossier included this conceptual text and a selection of twelve innovative primary education programmes from all over the world. Some of them are now over forty years old, such as BRAC in Bangladesh, Cursos Comunitarios - CONAFE in Mexico or Escuela Nueva in Colombia (BRAC and Escuela Nueva won recent WISE Awards). The term "non-formal" - adopted mainly from the South Asian experience - refers to the innovative, flexible and alternative nature of these programmes.
There was no Internet back in 1993. The dossier was printed and distributed by mail to all UNICEF offices. Two decades later, many of the ideas contained here remain valid. Many things have changed in the world, for good and for bad, and opportunities for education and for lifelong learning have widened, but many of the key educational problems addressed by the six EFA goals are still unsolved. Universal Primary Education - UPE (EFA Goal 2) remains a major challenge - not only universal access and retention but, most importantly, universal learning.
In 1990, at the launch of the global Education for All initiative (World Conference on Education for All, Jomtien), according to UNESCO there were 106 million children out of school. The year 2000 was established as the deadline for achieving UPE. In 2000 (World Education Forum, Dakar), the promise was postponed until 2015. However, in 2013 (data from 2001-2012):

- "More than 57 million children continue to be denied the right to primary education, almost half of whom will never enter a classroom."
- "Progress in reducing the number of children out of school has come to a virtual standstill just as international aid to basic education falls for the first time since 2002." (EFA Global Monitoring Report/UNESCO-UIS, Policy Paper 09, June 2013).
- Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, India, the Philippines, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Niger, Yemen, and Mali are the 10 countries with the largest number of out of school children.
- About 25% of children who enroll in school drop out before completing primary education.
- 120 million of those who complete four years of primary education are not able to read, write, and calculate.
“We are at a critical juncture. The world must move beyond helping children enter school to also ensure that they actually learn the basics when they are there. Our twin challenge is to get every child in school by understanding and acting on the multiple causes of exclusion, and to ensure they learn with qualified teachers in healthy and safe environments. Now is not the time for aid donors to back out. Quite the reverse: to reach these children and our ambition to end the learning crisis, donors must renew their commitments so that no child is left out of school due to lack of resources, as they pledged at the turn of this century.” Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s Director General, June 2013.

The proximity of the 2015 deadline - both for Education for All (EFA) and for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) - has revived old concerns, discussions and ideas with a long history. Governments and international agencies have weak institutional memories; documents that are not on the web are invisible today. These are some of the reasons why we resuscitate this text and make it available in digital format, as a contribution to current reflections and analyses on primary schooling, educational innovation and education reform worldwide. 
Reaching the Unreached:
Non-Formal Approaches and Universal Primary Education

Dossier Prepared for the Second EFA Forum by UNICEF,  New York, 1993
This paper is the product of a collaborative effort. A draft prepared at UNICEF by Rosa-María Torres and Manzoor Ahmed was circulated to the international EFA Forum Steering Committee and others. Comments received were taken into account in preparing a longer draft that was reviewed in a meeting held at UNICEF headquarters in New York on 7-8 June 1993. The meeting was attended Olivier Berthoud, Anil Bordia, Frank Dall, Lavinia Gasperini, Aklilu Habte, Khadija Haq, Aster Haregot, Anthony Hewett, Uyeng Luong, Frank Method, Nyi Nyi, Heli Perrett, Ana Maria Quiroz, Elsie Rockwell, Kate Torkington, Daniel Wagner and Fred Wood. All these contributions are acknowledged gratefully.
INTRODUCTION

The term Non-Formal Education (NFE) denotes here an approach to education rather than an educational domain or sub-system. Such approach introduces greater flexibility with respect to formal education: a decentralised structure, more democratic management and relationships,  adapting programmes to specific contexts and people (families, learners, educators), learner-centred pedagogies and content, creative ways of mobilising and using education­al resources, community ownership and participation in planning and management. Non-Formal Primary Education, as it is called in South East Asia, refers thus to non-conventional school programmes that "deformalise" schools in a number of aspects. In order to reach the unreached - the hardest to reach, the poorest, the most vulnerable and distant, those trapped in conflict situations - flexibility is essential. Rigid and homogeneous school patterns, imposed to all, have not and will not serve the purpose.

"Non-formal" approaches can be applied to all modes and levels of education - including initial, primary, secondary and tertiary education, as well as adult education, and vocational training.  Given the paramount importance of universal primary education (UPE) -- UPE being recognized as the core and the cutting edge of 'basic education for all' within EFA efforts -- this paper concentrates on NFE's potential for achieving UPE.

I. UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION: THE CHALLENGE 

The main delivery system to ensure children's basic education outside the family is the school. Primary education must be universal, meet the basic learning needs of children, and take into account the culture, needs and expectations of families and of the community. Non-conventional, alternative programmes can help meet such basic learning needs, even in highly disadvantageous situations, if they are given the necessary conditions to facilitate children's access, wellbeing and learning.

Achieving universal primary education has been an explicit aim for most countries since the early 1960s. However, UPE was understood in terms of enrollment, regardless of retention, completion, and actual learning. This model, centered on a linear and homogeneous expansion of the regular school system, overlooked the different contexts and needs of the population, the actual teach­ing/learning conditions and processes, and ultimately, the learning results. Access and enrollment, infrastructure and central administration consumed most efforts and budgets destined for education, to the detriment of the quality of teaching/learning conditions and results. Non‑enrollment, repetition, dropout and low learning achievement are still major challenges, particularly for 'developing countries' and for the most disadvan­taged groups of society.

Although progress in the last three decades has raised net enrollment rate in developing countries from around 50 per cent of the primary school age-group to over 80 per cent, there are still at least 130 million eligible children who are not enrolled in primary schools. And of those who enroll, at least one-third, do not complete the primary cycle because of a combination of poverty and other socio-cultural disadvantages of children and their families, and the poor quality of the education offered. These figures hide profound disparities, such as those between rural and urban areas, between and within countries, and between boys and girls.

"Education for All" launched and approved in Jomtien (1990) re-defined UPE beyond enrollment or numbers of years of schooling; UPE must ensure "meeting basic learning needs" and "alternative programmes" must ensure:

(a)  quality,
(b)  linkages with the regular school system ("the components should constitute an integrated system, complementary and mutually reinforcing"), and
(c)  adequate support.

(a)  Quality: Quality is a major concern in all forms and levels of education. In particular, quality remains a key issue within the NFE field, historically marked by low academic status and weak political and social recognition. The most effective way to gain legitimacy, indispensable to success, is by demonstrating results. Achieving equal results as those of the school system -- often claimed as a proof of success-- is important but not enough if we consider the low learning outcomes of the school system and the ongoing efforts to improve them.

(b)  Linkages with the regular school system: The battle for UPE requires convergent -- although diversified -- efforts, integrated within a unified system. Not only is the school system the most widespread educational institution worldwide, but it also defines and influences social perceptions and expectations about educa­tion in general. Associating NFE with "out-of-school" education has contributed to its marginalisation. Rather than developing two parallel systems, it is necessary to create linkages and coordination between school and out-of-school, formal and non-formal, based on complementarity, mutual exchange and mobility between them. NFE approaches have much to contribute to the renovation and the "deformalisation" of the school system as well as to the creation of non-conventional programmes complementary to regular schools to serve the difficult-to-reach groups. 

(c)  Adequate support: NFE has been traditionally viewed as a cheap compensatory alternative to the school system, operating with untrained, underpaid and voluntary personnel, with low budgets and precarious management. NFE primary education programmes are required to achieve the same or more than the mainstream school system under more difficult circumstances -- serving the most disadvantaged populations, most heterogeneous groups, in hard-to-reach zones - with fewer resources. If NFE is to improve its quality and play an effective role as a national UPE strategy, it will require greater resources and support at all levels of the educational and administrative hierarchy. Govern­ment policy and decision-makers must assume a lead role in promoting diversified educational approaches, in mobilizing and sustaining a favourable climate of opinion towards them, and in guarantee­ing the conditions (political, financial, legal, techni­cal, and managerial) required for success.

 II. DIVERSIFIED APPROACHES TO PRIMARY EDUCATION: THE NFE ROLE 

There are today, in broad terms, three main strands of organizational and institutional arrangements in primary education: a) the formal school system, b) traditional indigenous education systems and institutions and c) non-conventional programmes generally labelled as NFE programmes. The three are present in all regions, although operating under very specific realities, with different emphases, approaches and strategies. All three require major changes and improvement.

a.  Innovations within the formal school system

The need to reform and revitalise the formal school system is evident all over the world. Counterbalancing the growing tide of criticism and skepticism about schools and public education, identify­ing and disseminating "success stories" ("good practices", "effective schools") have become a major thrust both nationally and interna­tionally. Programmes such as Colombia's Escuela Nueva, Chile's Programa de las 900 Escuelas, Mexico's Cursos Comunitarios, Zimbabwe's Educational Reform and the "Community School" approach revived in several African and Asian countries, show that change is possible and taking place within school walls in state-run public education systems. Many of these reforms have been inspired or become acceptable and possible as a result of the legitimacy of change and innovation spawned by NFE practices and research. Since formal primary schools serve the large majority of children, the greatest potential for NFE's contribution to universal primary education lies in its possibilities to trigger change and innovation in the public school system.

b.  Traditional indigenous education institutions

Traditional indigenous institutions, primarily stemming from the religious tradition predating European colonialism, are widespread in 'developing countries' and can be found in many countries under different denominations (Buddhist temple schools in several Asian countries, African bush schools in Liberia, Islamic schools in Asian and African countries, Church Schools in Ethiopia, etc). Many of them are elaborate systems that have been maintained outside the standard school system, have not been incorpo­rated in educational diagnoses and statistics, and have been overlooked by policy makers and researchers. Some provide an alternative to modern schooling, including a whole range of levels and modalities that play an equivalent role to the conventional "ladder" from pre-school to middle and even special­ized education. Some of them have been undergoing changes and introducing innovations in an effort to adapt to changing times and to "modernization". This is particularly true of the Islamic or Koranic school system, prevalent in over 40 countries and a large school population numbering in tens of millions of children.

Today, with ongoing educational reforms and a sense of urgency promoted by EFA, there is an increasing interest - particularly in Africa and Asia - in studying, documenting and revitalizing these traditional indigenous education alternatives, incorporating them within UPE efforts, and nourishing them with new curriculum and pedagogical methods, some of which are derived from NFE  approaches. 

c.  Non-formal primary education programmes

Primary education programmes categorically labeled as "non-formal" have been emerging since the early 1970s, with a marked increase during the 1980s, particularly in South Asia, the region with the highest percentage of out-of-school children in the age group 6-11.  (Bangladesh's BRAC Non-formal Primary Education is one of the best known programmes of this type). These programmes are still incipient in Africa and rather unfamiliar in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the term "non-formal" continues to be associated with adult education and out-of-school activities.

Non-formal primary education is aimed at out-of-school children/ youth, covering both the non-enrolled and the drop-out; most programmes operate in the rural areas; some are specifically designed to deal with gender disparity through a range of measures including gender-segregated programmes; some are addressed to very specific groups such as working children/youth, abandoned or street children, refugees, nomads, etc;  many derive methodology from adult education programmes, and some have maintained that link and even developed an integrated child/adult education framework; and some have attempted systematically to establish links with other development activities such as community development projects, women's groups, recreation and reading centers, etc.

These programmes present a great variety in terms of magnitude and scope, management, modes of delivery, curriculum, teaching approaches, and relation­ship with the school system. Some common features of the more effective non-formal primary education programmes can be identified:

Organization of the programme: annual calendar, daily schedule and number of total yearly hours determined by local circumstances, including part-time and spare-time schedules as well as multiple-shift arrangements. Emphasis on utilizing shorter hours more effectively.  Local and community involvement in planning, management and budget with accountability to community and parents.

  Teachers: Para-professionals and community members, including part-time and volunteer staff for all or most of the teaching personnel. Flexible formal education requirements, short pre-service orientation/training; reliance on on-the-job learning and supervision for maintaining teaching quality and teachers' motivation.

Learners: Flexible age requirements and no pre-requisites, although usually "affirmative action" approach in favour of the disadvantaged is followed.

Curriculum and teaching-learning methods: Curriculum and learning materials are adapted to local needs through simplification, shortening, condensing or re-structuring the curriculum. Flexible evaluation, promotion and certification criteria and procedures. Pragmatic mix of a variety of approaches and methods: self-learning, group and individual work, peer-tutoring, ability and interest grouping; self-paced learning; multigrade classes and arrangements.

Physical facilities: Any convenient physical facility (including private homes or even open spaces), multiple use of building, no capital investment for building within the primary education budget.

Types and degrees of linkages with the formal school system vary considerably from one programme to another, as well as the understanding and operationalization of the issue of "equivalence", depending on the role seen for NFE in the total UPE effort.  Many programmes run parallel to the regular school system and have no connection with it. A number of them seek equivalence either with the complete primary cycle or with some initial grades -- usually the first three or four grades. Some have lateral entries to the school system at several points. A few have a much wider and more complex relationship with the formal system, collaborating with it in areas such as teacher training, planning, learning materials, etc. Others operate in a compensatory role, as school reinforcement, providing poor and deprived children a substitute for elitist private tutoring (e.g. the Explicaçâo - "Explana­tion Schools" - in Guinea-Bissau and other countries). Establishing a modus operandi for links between the regular primary system and the non-formal programmes is critical for realizing the full potential of NFE for universal primary education.

III. TEN CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVENESS

Experiences have accumulated and lessons have been learned over the past decades to help avoid common mistakes, anticipate common problems, and limit the search for strategies, approaches and measures that have proven useful in different circumstances. Major requisites for effective application of NFE approaches in UPE can be identified from the wide vista of practice and experience in all regions of the world.

1.  A unified comprehensive system for UPE.  NFE and diversified approaches to primary education need to be seen as components of a unified system.  Major non-conventional and non-formal primary education initiatives must be a key component of the total UPE strategy to reach all those not reached by the regular system. This unified approach requires:

(a) decentralized local structures of planning, management and monitoring of the UPE strategy in geographical units small enough to allow meaningful involvement of communities; and

(b) a partnership for basic education and UPE at community and other levels among government, private sector, community organizations, parents, teachers and local government.

An unplanned voluntary sector expansion of NFE programmes, in a general climate of heavy criticism of public education and a government withdrawal, is not the answer.  Governments have to assume a strong and pivotal role in UPE in establishing general policies and indicators, guaranteeing basic inputs, compensating for regional imbalances, creating the conditions for local actions, and providing professional support for making a unified system with diverse approaches function effectively. 

2.  A supportive climate of opinion.  The greatest obstacle to adoption and effective application of NFE approaches is lack of understanding and appreciation of their potential both among national policy-makers and in the entrenched educational establishment. NFE has been traditionally conceived as "second rate" education, a low-cost compensatory alternative to the regular school system intended for the poor and for marginal populations. An effective way to counteract the perceived low status of NFE is to demonstrate its effectiveness, by carrying out well-conceived projects, assessing these and other relevant experiences, and disseminating the results.  Government policy and decision-makers must assume a lead role, especially in defending and promoting diversified educational approaches.

3.  A support structure for planning and implementation
.  Several factors are of crucial importance for success in NFE within UPE:

(a)  Organisational, administrative and management issues are often underestimated in the NFE field. The idea persists that NFE is, by nature, a non-systematic, non-structured type of education. NFE primary education programmes cannot succeed without a decentralised local structure for planning, management and monitoring in a small enough unit for effective community and parental participation in the local UPE effort. This local structure needs to have adequate authority and support by higher levels of the educational planning and administration hierarchy.  NFE cannot play its role fully as long as it is planned and managed in isolation from mainstream primary education.

(b)  The curriculum, pedagogy and learning materials are often neglected as key components of the educational process and as specialised areas. NFE approaches can help rethink conventional ways of addressing problems related to curriculum and content -- overburdening with too many academic subjects, use of a non-local language as medium of instruction, fragmentation of the curriculum and lack of practical relevance, which prompt children to drop-out and defeat the main purpose of primary education. Some successful programmes have simplified the curriculum, organized relevant learning materials, related content to the life and experience of learners, and adapted it to the specific needs and possibilities of teachers. Regional and even local adaptations to centrally produced materials that foresee the need and include built-in mechanisms for such adaptations have proven effective in programmes such as Escuela Nueva in Colombia.

(c)  Capacity-building and training of personnel in planning, administration, pedagogy, curriculum, supervision and evaluation at different levels are another neglected area. Teacher training in NFE approaches becomes all the more crucial considering the limited formal education and lack of pedagogic preparation of the usual para-professional and community teachers. A short initial training complemented by frequent refreshers and close supervision has proven successful in many programmes. Multigrade methodologies require specialized training targeted at the specific components and requirements of multigrade teaching (group learning, peer-tutoring, self-paced learning, self-instructional materials). At the same time, desirable levels of competence should be set realistically so that too high standards do not become an obstacle to expanding or replicating the programme and serving those deprived of any primary education opportunity.

4.  Adequate resources  NFE has been traditionally viewed as a cheap alternative to the formal school system. It is expected to accomplish the "mission impossible" with few resources and support.  Often, the very concept of "cost-effectiveness" is misunderstood: a programme may be cost-effective but not necessarily inexpensive, while a low-cost programme may turn out to be an ineffective investment. It is clearly necessary to pay attention to costs, benefits and resource mobilization for both formal and other complementary primary education programmes with a perspective of attaining the universalisation goal. NFE is not the remedy for chronic under-financing of primary education.  NFE approaches, however, offer the opportunity for developing a more efficient pattern of resource allocation, that de-emphasises capital costs and concedes greater importance to factors that are critical to the teaching-learning process and results, such as capacity building, learning materials, and monitoring.

5.  Strong community and parental involvement  Community and parental involvement are crucial not only for the necessary ownership of the programme but also for the indispensable accountability at local and community levels, both of which are crucial to sustainability. "Participation" is an ambiguous term and often understood in a restrictive sense -- provision of materials and labour force.  One essential condition is to create and cede authority to local planning and management structures that lead to community ownership of the programme.  Participation involves all phases of the programme, from design to evaluation.

6.  Assessment of learning achievement  Developing appropriate assessment methodologies and tools implies coming to an agreement on, or a definition of, basic learning needs in terms of literacy, numeracy, and basic life knowledge and skills. This also implies a clear understanding and assessment of implementing conditions and better use of information for planning, management and monitoring at local and higher levels. BRAC's Assessment of Basic  Competencies (ABC) -- a simple and rapid assessment method to assess reading, writing, arithmetic and essential life knowledge and skills -- is a pioneering attempt applicable to both formal and non-formal components of UPE.

7.  Taking advantage of modern and traditional media  Communication media are fundamental allies of UPE: (a) as complementary teaching and learning tools for everyone; (b) as a means for continuous teacher professional development and solidarity, and (c) as channels for advocacy, information, citizenship building and shaping public opinion. Better use of media and technologies for educational purposes requires developing technical capacities and critical thinking.

8.  Expansion and replication of innovations  The lack of plans and mechanisms for scaling up of programmes is a major issue in NFE approaches, especially the ones managed by NGOs. "Pilot projects" (often confused with "small projects") have become a matter of controversy as a result of many failed experiences. The opposite danger is of massive programmes that are implemented without previous experimentation or hurried scaling-up of emerging small-scale experiences. A balanced approach that recognizes ample lessons from experience in NFE as well as in other social development programmes must be adopted. More important, however, is the need to initiate and design programmes from the very beginning with an eye to expansion and replication, if we consider that in many countries UPE cannot be achieved without large-scale efforts.

9.  Addressing gender disparity  Studies conducted all over the world have consistently documented some of the main constraints in girls' and women's access to education, and the need for specific strategies to address them. Such strategies include, among others, the location of schools closer to homes or communities; promoting the recruitment of female teachers; reducing hidden costs to parents; developing relevant curricula; increasing community participation; promoting localiza­tion and decentralization; encouraging advocacy and social mobiliza­tion; designing systems that accommodate the needs of female students; and supporting multiple delivery systems that involve multi-media approaches. All of these constitute features commonly attributed to NFE approaches. If properly put into practice (at least a combination of several of them), NFE can make a specific contribution to greater gender equity. One concrete experience is that of BRAC in Bangladesh, where over 70 per cent of children enrolled in schools are girls.

10.  Continuing educational opportunities beyond primary education  Primary education cannot be viewed as a terminal and the only educational opportunity for the vast majority of the world's population. Invariably, expansion of primary education has led to an increasing demand for more education. Expanding, improving and diversifying post-primary educational opportunities are thus also challenges for both the regular school system and NFE programmes. Basic education, as defined by the World Conference on Education for All, must satisfy basic learning needs of children, youth and adults. In as much as one of these basic needs is building the foundation for lifelong learning, continuing post-primary education, also flexible and adapted to learners' specific needs and conditions, cannot be lost sight of in planning for UPE and NFE strategies.

Related texts in this blog
International Initiatives for EducationIniciativas internacionales para la educación

Educación Primero ▸ Education First


(English text below) 


 La Educación ante Todo - Una nueva iniciativa global 


"Una iniciativa para asegurar a todos una educación de calidad, relevante y transformadora"  

La Educación ante Todo (traducción oficial de "Education First") es el nombre de la nueva iniciativa mundial para la educación lanzada por el Secretario de Naciones Unidas, Ban Ki-Moon, en Nueva York, el 26 de septiembre de 2012, con oportunidad de la 67 Sesión de la Asambea General de la ONU.

La Educación ante Todo asume tres prioridades para los próximos cinco años: (a) todo niño en la escuela, (b) mejorar la calidad de la educación, y (c) fomentar la ciudadanía global, a fin de desarrollar "la comprensión, las habilidades y los valores necesarios para cooperar en la resolución de los desafíos intercontados del siglo 21". La iniciativa identifica 10 accciones claves para que los países logren un cambio significativo en la educación.

La ONU cuenta para ello con la participación y el aporte financiero de gobiernos, agencias internacionales y comunidad empresarial. Se lanzó con más de 1,5 billones de dólares ya comprometidos para su ejecución. Se estima que se requerirán 24,000 millones de dólares por año para universalizar la educación primaria y secundaria en el mundo.

La idea es colocar a la educación como una prioridad mundial y acelerar el progreso de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (2000-2015) y específicamente el Objetivo 2: "Lograr la enseñanza primaria universal" y su correspondiente Meta: "Asegurar que, en 2015, los niños y niñas de todo el mundo puedan terminar un ciclo completo de enseñanza primaria" (el indicador es, en verdad, "supervivencia al quinto grado"). En esa misma dirección apunta Completar la Escuela, otra reciente inciativa mundial lanzada en 2010 por UNICEF y el Instituto de Estadística de la Unesco (UIS), focalizada en 25 países, y cuyo objetivo es "Todos los niños en la escuela en 2015". 

Todo indica que varios de los ODM no se cumplirán para el año 2015. En lo que respecta a la educación, se reconoce que "las esperanzas son cada vez más débiles de que en 2015 se logre la educación universal, a pesar de que muchos países pobres han hecho tremendos avances". Más aun, Naciones Unidas alerta que, "sin un gran esfuerzo, existe el peligro real de que en 2015 más niños estén fuera de la escuela que hoy". ¡Nótese que ni siquiera se mencionan la calidad y los aprendizajes!

Dado que "la gran mayoría de los niños que no finalizan la escuela están en África subsahariana y el Sur de Asia", tanto los ODM como La Educación ante Todo ponen el acento en estas subregiones. Una región como América Latina y el Caribe, con una tasa relativamente alta de matrícula en educación primaria, con excepción de unos pocos países, no califica como prioridad en términos de acceso a la escuela pero ciertamente sigue teniendo una vieja agenda pendiente en términos de calidad de la educación y de una educación orientada hacia el desarrollo de la ciudadanía, en primer lugar a nivel nacional antes que global.

Llama la atención que en su lanzamiento público esta nueva iniciativa de la ONU no haga referencia a la Educación para Todos - EPT, la iniciativa mundial para la educación coordinada por la UNESCO, lanzada en 1990 en Jomtien, Tailandia, y cuyas metas también vencen en el 2015. Las seis metas de la EPT - mucho más amplias que la meta de educación de los ODM - incluyen no únicamente educación primaria sino educación básica para niños, jóvenes y adultos, desde el desarrollo infantil y la educación inicial hasta la educación básica de jóvenes y adultos. Esas metas no se cumplieron en el año 2000, según se evaluó en el Foro Mundial de Educación reunido en Dakar, donde se postergó precisamente el plazo hasta el 2015. El Informe Global de Seguimiento de la EPT 2012 fue claro en advertir que muchos países no alcanzarán tampoco dichas metas. ¿Tendrán las Naciones Unidas y el mundo que admitir, otra vez, que las metas de la Educacion para Todos no se han cumplido después de 25 años - un cuarto de siglo - de ejecución y monitoreo permanente? 

Cualquier agenda post-2015 para la educación debe hacerse cargo de estos hechos y hacer una reflexión colectiva en torno a las dinámicas políticas, económicas, sociales, culturales, institucionales e interinstitucionales, que han llevado a estos resultados. No más de lo mismo. Es indispensable introducir cambios profundos hacia el futuro y repensar la educación y el aprendizaje de cara a las nuevas realidades y al emergente paradigma del Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida.

 Education First - A new global initiative 

"An initiative to ensure quality, relevant and transformative education for everyone"

Education First is the name of the new Global Initiative for Education led by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, BAN Ki-moon, and launched in New York on Sep. 26, 2012, with the opportunity of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly.

EF has established three priorities for the next five years: a) putting every child in school, b) improving the quality of education, and c) fostering global citizenship, so as to develop "the understanding, skills and values they need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st Century." EF identifies 10 key actions that can help nations achieve a breakthrough in education.

The initiative counts with the participation and financial collaboration of governments, donors and the business community. At its launch, over US$1.5 billion had already been committed. It is estimated that an additional 24 billion dollars are needed annually in order to ensure universal primary and secondary education. 

The idea is to make education a top global priority and boost progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and specifically Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education and its target: "Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling" (four years of schooling, the indicator being "survival to grade five).

Everything indicates that several MDGs will not be met by the 2015 deadline. As for education, it has been acknowledged that "hope dims for universal primary education by 2015 even as many poor countries make tremendous strides." Moreover, if current trends continue and "without a major effort, there is a real danger that more children will be out-of-school in 2015 than today." Let us note that the quality of education is not even mentioned!

Given that "Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are home to the vast majority of children out of school", both MDGs and Education First place an emphasis on those subregions. A region such as Latin America and the Caribbean, which has overall high primary education enrollment rates, except for a few countries, does not qualify as a priority in terms of access, but has certainly a pending agenda in terms of improving the quality of education and fostering citizenship - national citizenship in the first place.

Let us remember that the year 2015 marks the deadline not only for the MDGs but also for Education for All (EFA), the global education initiative coordinated by UNESCO that was launched in 1990 in Jomtien, Thailand. EFA's six goals are far more comprehensive and ambitious than the MDG education goal. They comprise not only primary education but basic education for all, including early childhood development, and youth and adult basic education. The goals were not met by 2000, when the World Education Forum was convened in Dakar to evaluate EFA results over the 1990-2000 decade, and the deadline was postponed for 15 additional years, until 2015. At this point, it is clear that many countries will not meet EFA goals by 2015 either, as highlighted by the 2012 EFA Global Monitoring Report. Will the UN and the world have to admit, once again, that EFA has not been achieved after 25 years - one quarter of a century - of continued implementation and monitoring?

Any post-2015 agenda for education must acknowledge these facts and make a thorough collective analysis around the dynamics - political, economic, social, cultural, institutional and interinstitutional- that have led to such results. Not more of the same. It is necessary to introduce major changes vis á vis the future, and to rethink education and learning in accordance with the world's new realities and the emerging Lifelong Learning paradigm. 

To learn more / Para saber más:
UNESCO, Education for All Movement (EFA)
▸ UNESCO, World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE), EFA, 2012
UNESCO, Education Milestones
UIL-UNESCO, Lifelong Learning policies and strategies
Education First: The United Nations Secretary General's Initiative [infographic]
UN and Civil Society, The World We Want 2015
 

Literacy and Lifelong Learning: The Linkages



Rosa María Torres


Conference and paper presented at the 2006 Biennale of ADEA
(Libreville, Gabon, March 27-31, 2006)



According to UIL-UNESCO this was the first paper that discussed the linkages between Lifelong Learning and Literacy, and the only one until 2015. See: Ulrike Hanemann, Lifelong literacy: Some trends and issues in conceptualising and operationalising literacy from a lifelong learning perspective, International Review of Education, July 2015.




Abstract 


This paper attempts to deal with misconceptions about literacy and to show the intimate  relationship between literacy and lifelong learning. The goal is not eradicating illiteracy but ensuring literacy for all - literate families, literate communities, literate societies. Achieving this goal implies working simultaneously on four complementary fronts:

  • universal quality basic education for all children, placing literacy (acquisition, development and use) at the heart of school efforts and reforms;
  • ensuring effective literacy for all youth and adults, not only through specific programs for adults but also as part of family and community education efforts, and through all possible means;
  • promoting a literate environment and a literate culture at local and national level, stimulating not only reading but also writing, and engaging all institutions, forms and technologies related to literacy (e.g. libraries, schools, newspapers, radio, TV, digital technologies, etc.); and
  • dealing with poverty in a structural manner, not only through ad-hoc focalized interventions or compensations but through sound and fair economic and social policies. There is no way to achieve quality education for all and literacy for all without eliminating poverty, ensuring more egalitarian societies and promoting human development.[1]
    Lifelong Learning (LLL) means “learning throughout life”. This is what we all do, regardless of who we are, where we live, and whether we go to school or not. Thus, in a sense, there is nothing new about LLL. However, the current adoption and revival of LLL as a paradigm for education systems worldwide implies the recognition of the following: it is learning that matters, and not information, education or training per se; the emerging information and the knowledge society fundamentally imply building learning societies and learning communities; continuous learning is today essential for survival and for enhancing people’s quality of life, as well as for national human, social and economic development; there are many learning systems, places, means, modalities and styles; and it is necessary to ensure learning opportunities for all throughout life.


Introduction
[2]

This paper attempts to deal with misconceptions about literacy, and show the intimate relationship between literacy and lifelong learning. Youth and adult literacy have been neglected in national and international agendas. The Education for All goals (Jomtien in 1990 and Dakar in 2000) prioritized children and primary education. The Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) did not include adult literacy within education goals. Recommendations against investing in adult literacy and adult education in general, promoted by the World Bank since the late 1980s with respect to developing countries, were based on i) scarce resources and the need to prioritize children’s education and primary school, and ii) the low cost-effectiveness of adult literacy programs.[3] Neither of these arguments is valid because children’s and adult education are intimately related and the low cost-effectiveness claim was not based on sound evidence and knowledge of the field.  This has been acknowledged and rectified in recent years by the World Bank (Lauglo, 2001; Oxenham and Aoki, 2001; Torres, 2004).[4]

The goal is not eradicating illiteracy but ensuring literacy for all in order to create literate families, communities and societies. Achieving this goal implies working simultaneously on four complementary fronts:

1. universal quality basic education for all children, placing literacy (acquisition, development and use) at the heart of school efforts and reforms;

2. ensuring literacy for all youth and adults, not only through specific programs for adults but also as part of family and community education efforts, and through all possible means;

3. promoting a literate environment and a literate culture at local and national level, stimulating not only reading but also writing, and engaging all institutions, forms and technologies related to literacy (e.g. libraries, schools, newspapers, radio, TV, digital technologies, etc.); and

4. dealing with poverty in a structural manner, not only through ad-hoc focalized interventions but also mainly through sound and fair economic and social policies. There is no way to achieve quality education for all and literacy for all without eliminating poverty, ensuring equity and promoting national human and economic development.[5]
 
Lifelong Learning

Lifelong learning (LLL) has become a paradigm for education systems worldwide, implying that:
  • learning (not information, education or training per se) is what matters
  • the emerging information and the knowledge society fundamentally imply the building of learning societies and learning communities;
  • continuous learning is essential for survival and for enhancing people’s quality of life, as well as for national human, social and economic development;
  • there are many learning systems, places, means, modalities and styles;
  • learning opportunities for all must be ensured, throughout life.
Literacy and lifelong learning

The term literacy refers essentially to the ability to read and to write (numeracy is often added as a component of literacy). Although the term illiteracy and literacy have traditionally been used refer to 15 year-olds or older, learning to read and write is an ageless concept and learning process for children, youth and adults.

Social convention sees childhood as the “normal” age to become literate. People are supposed to learn to read and write during their “school-age” period. Such social convention assumes societies that effectively ensure children’s universal right to go to school that ensure the right to learn. However, that is not the case in most countries in the South and in many countries in the North. Millions of children do not have access to school or to a school that ensures the right to learn, or do not have the conditions to remain in school long enough to acquire solid reading and writing skills. Thus, millions of children, youth and adults are forced to learn to read and write when they are young or adults, through formal or non-formal “second chance” education options.

“School age” is not equivalent to “learning age.” Moreover, notions such as “late entry” to school or “over age”, which use age as a discriminatory factor, must be revised. Given the objective economic, social and educational conditions offered to the population, education and learning systems must assume lifelong learning as an inevitable reality, be open and flexible to accommodate the literacy needs of learners at any age.

Literacy acquisition and development in and out of school

It is commonly believed that people start to learn to read and write when they enter school or pre-primary school, and that such process ends with the last day of school. That belief is the result of lack of knowledge and prejudice. Abundant research informs us that The basis for literacy acquisition is rooted in early childhood.

Understanding the nature and role of the written language is a process that begins well before reaching “school age” and going to school. At 2-3 years old, children start building hypotheses about the written language and its social uses, by seeing or listening to writing and/or reading acts and materials around them (at home, in the street, on the radio, on television, etc). By the time they get to school, children have already strong ideas – many of them sound and valid - of what reading and writing in their own language(s) are about. This occurs not only among children coming from privileged families but also among children coming from poor families and poor literate contexts. Evidently, the context and stimuli determine important differences in children’s early introduction to literacy. [6]

School systems do not build on the previous knowledge children bring to school but ignore and despise it: the same is true for adult learners, although the need to respect and start from previous knowledge is much more emphasized in adult education than in child education). Longitudinal studies on child literacy acquisition processes reveal that  school often contributes to stopping children’s curiosity about language and a spontaneous desire to learn to read and write. Becoming literate turns out to be a difficult, painful experience for millions of children worldwide, a learning process that could be facilitated if policy makers, school administrators and teachers were more knowledgeable about literacy acquisition and about the home-school learning transition.

Literacy development goes far beyond the school system 

Traditionally, the world of education has associated literacy with schooling and improving literacy with teacher training and school reform. However, being able to read and write with understanding, for self-expression, information, communication and learning purposes, implies much more than going to school and having motivated teachers. Out-of-school factors are equally important for literacy development, facilitating or inhibiting learners’ desire and capacity to learn to read and write and to use the written language meaningfully in daily life. Economic, social, cultural and linguistic policies must converge if the target is a literate nation.

The family and the local community have a critical role in making literacy accessible, necessary, and enjoyable throughout life. Access to cultural activities, to a sport yard, to a library, a museum, a reading center, a cyber cafe, newspapers and mass media, etc, complements school life, enhances a literate and a learning environment for all, and can make an important difference in a person’s life and in the life and future of a whole community.

Often, many such resources exist in poor urban and rural areas but are not used properly, in a planned, coordinated and inter-sectoral manner for the benefit of all. The school or community library are meant only for school students, not for the entire community. If computers are available, they remain locked up at school rather than being accessible in a multi-purpose community reading and learning center. Adult literacy classes are often held under a tree while the school building remains underutilized. Newspapers hardly ever trespass school buildings even when there are no textbooks or interesting materials to stimulate students’ reading.

The school does not guarantee literacy acquisition

Illiteracy is generally associated with lack of access to school and continues to be identified with the out-of-school population. However, illiteracy is also related to access to poor quality education. Abundant studies, statistics, and tests confirm over and over again that the school system is doing a poor job with regard to literacy education. 

Literacy remains the most important mission delegated by societies to school systems. This mission is now in crisis and under heavy scrutiny in the South and in the North where reading and writing results from (both public and private) schools have become a major national issue. National and international tests, most of which place a special emphasis on literacy skills, show consistently much lower reading and writing results than those expected in each specific country. So-called “developing countries” regularly occupy the last places in such international tests when compared to “developed countries”.[7]

The main problem lies evidently on the teaching side and on the conventional school structure and culture. Everything suggests that major changes are needed in the teaching of reading and writing in schools, but schools and teachers clearly need to be supported in their literacy mission with strong and renewed family, community and societal strategies.

Literacy is a trans-generational issue

Considerable evidence shows the importance of parents’ education – and especially of mothers - for children’s lives: health, nutrition, child care, protection, school attendance, etc. Adult and parental literacy are tightly linked to children’s literacy. In all regions and across countries and cultures, illiterate women acknowledge that one of their strongest motivations to learn to read and write revolves around the school and their children’s education.  They want to help them with school homework, feel more confident to approach the school, attend school meetings and speak with teachers. So important is parental education for children’s welbeing, that, as we have argued elsewhere, children’s right to basic education should include the right to educated parents.[8] 

Child and family literacy programs in developed countries stimulate parents to read to their children nightly before bedtime, something that millions of parents in developing countries cannot afford to do because they do not know how to read, because they have nothing to read or simply because they have no time.

Based more on prejudice than on consistent data, parental illiteracy has come to be considered a predictor of children’s school failure. In the framework of modern competition among schools for students’ academic results that are associated with incentives for teacher or school performance, a predictable situation is emerging and  spreading: public schools are selecting students to ensure high ratings.[9] Extreme poverty and parental illiteracy are a red light for school principals. There is also evidence that school repetition, a decision to a great extent taken by every teacher on unclear grounds, is often related to prejudice against poverty, racial status, and parental illiteracy.[10]

The trans-generational impact of literacy is also true in the relationship between teachers and students. Teachers who do not have reading habits and do not enjoy reading and writing cannot teach their students. Policies addressed to teachers’ literacy development, including the free distribution of newspapers to schools, book series produced for teachers at low cost, digital literacy, etc., are critical for transforming schools into reading institutions and to enhancing theirs literate environment. 

Literacy is a solid foundation for lifelong learning

Not all knowledge and learning depend on being able to read and write. In fact, a large portion of the information and knowledge that are essential for life and for cultural reaffirmation and renewal are learned without any formal education and are often transmitted orally from one generation to another at home, in the community, and in school. It is wrong to equate illiteracy and ignorance.

Nevertheless, the written language has a central role in schooling, in the building and transmission of knowledge, and in lifelong learning. Books continue to be the most important means for the preservation and transmission of knowledge. Despite the unprecedented expansion of the audiovisual culture, reading and writing remain at the core of information and communication media such as radio, television, film, or video. Digital technologies require proficient readers and writers. Combating the digital divide, by democratizing the access to and use of computers and other modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), implies a huge literacy effort worldwide.

Literacy is the most important passport to lifelong learning.  Being able to read and write marks a before and an after for school children. Metaphors used by adults who learn to read and write include “light”, “window” or “door.”  Reading and writing accompany people throughout life and enable them to keep informed and intellectually active.

Literacy is essential for human development and for improving the quality of life
"Human development is about much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. People are the real wealth of nations. Development is thus about expanding the choices people have to lead lives that they value. And it is thus much more than economic growth, which is only a means – if a very important one - of enlarging people’s choices. Fundamental to enlarging these choices is building human capabilities – the range of things that people can do or be in life. The most basic capabilities for human development are to lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, and to be able to participate in the life of the community. Without these, many choices are simply not available, and many opportunities in life remain inaccessible”. (UNDP 2001:9)

In recent years, literacy has been framed within the economic logic dominating the world and the education field in particular. Internationally, current dominant trends link adult literacy to “livelihoods” (Oxenham et.al. 2002), to “poverty alleviation” amongst the extremely poor and as a preventive strategy to “prevent children’s failure in school.”

However, attributing literacy per se the capacity to change people’s lives by impacting significantly on their income, employment, or poverty is not realistic. Today, basic literacy does not make a difference between getting and not getting a job, much less getting a good job. Unemployment is high and on the rise worldwide, especially in the South. Millions of high school graduates and professionals are unemployed and millions migrate to the North in search of better living conditions. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the possibility to break the cycle of  poverty in this region implies at least twelve years of schooling.[11]

And yet, literacy improves the quality of life of people in many and most profound ways, not necessarily economic in nature. As has been traditionally acknowledged, literacy is related to human dignity, self-esteem, liberty, identity, autonomy, critical thinking, knowledge, creativity, participation, empowerment, social awareness and social transformation, all of them important human satisfactions, beyond material conditions.

Adult and third-age learners often refer to reading and writing as “a companion,” “a weapon to fight loneliness,” “a means to travel without traveling.” Substituting the fingerprint with the writing of one’s own name is the most important act of dignity for an illiterate person, affected by shame and low self-esteem.

Literacy is also related to mental and psychological health. Neuropsychological research suggests that people who cultivate an active and complex mind throughout life – very much linked to reading and writing, as opposed to the passive activity of watching television – age well and are less exposed to diseases such as Alzheimer and dementia. In a comparative study between literate and illiterate elders in the Northern Manhattan community, illiterates obtained lower scores than literates on measures of naming, comprehension, verbal abstraction, orientation, and figure matching and recognition.[12]

Measuring the personal, family and social impact of literacy in terms of improving people’s quality of life implies going beyond narrow economic frameworks and indicators, identifying and creating new, more integral and qualitative indicators.  

Literacy is a lifelong learning process

For decades, people have considered that literacy acquisition occurs within a short period of time, that is, with a few years of schooling for children, a short literacy program or campaign for youth and adults. The idea that functional literacy requires four years of schooling, attributed to UNESCO, has been quoted and adopted by national and international policies worldwide. In fact, it was adopted in 2000 by the Millennium Development Goals that consider that the completion of primary education by the year 2015 is “reaching grade five”, an extremely modest goal and in many cases below the educational levels already being achieved in many countries in the South.

Four years of schooling, for children, youth or adults, is insufficient for ensuring sustainable literacy and basic education. A UNESCO Latin America regional study on functional literacy conducted in seven countries in the region (Infante, 2000) concluded that at least 6 or 7 years of schooling are required to deal meaningfully with reading and writing and that 12 years are needed to fully master them if they are used both within and outside the school, in different contexts including home, work, social relations, etc.

The accelerated expansion of schooling in the past thirty years in the South has expanded literacy and the literate population especially among the younger generations.  On the other hand, the accelerated expansion of modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) since the 1990s has further enhanced and diversified the need and the practice of reading and writing for millions of people, especially for youth. The definitions, needs and uses of literacy have become more and more complex, as a result of all these developments in the framework of the globalized, highly inequitable and competitive world that is emerging.

In other words, becoming literate can no longer be viewed as a specific period in anyone’s life but rather as a lifelong learning process in itself.  Multiple degrees and levels of mastery of the written language span illiterate and literate. Terms such as “basic literacy,” “initial literacy,” “functional literacy", "functional illiteracy,” “neo-literates,” “post-literacy,” etc., show the need to go beyond the usual dichotomy.
 
REFERENCES

Abadzi, Helen, (1994), What We Know about Acquisition of Adult Literacy: Is There Hope? World Bank Discussion Paper, No. 245. Washington: World Bank.
Carr-Hill, R. (ed). (2001), Adult Literacy Programs in Uganda: An Evaluation. Washington: The World Bank.
ECLAC/CEPAL, (2000), La brecha de la equidad. Una segunda evaluación. Santiago.  
Ferreiro, E., (2000), “Leer y escribir en un mundo cambiante," Exposición en el Congreso Mundial de Editores (Buenos Aires, 1-3 mayo) en Novedades Educativas No. 115, Buenos Aires.
Ferreiro, E.; Navarro, L.; Vernon, S.; Loperena, M.L.; Taboada, E.; Corona, Y.; Hope M.E.; Vaca, J., (1992), Los adultos no alfabetizados y sus conceptualizaciones del sistema de escritura, Cuadernos de Investigación Educativa, Nº 10.  México: DIE.
IBE-UNESCO/UNICEF, (1996),  School Repetition: A Global Perspective. Geneva.
Infante, I. (coord.). (2000), Alfabetismo funcional en siete países de América Latina. Santiago: UNESCO-OREALC.
Lauglo, John, (2001), Engaging with Adults: The Case for Increased Support to Adult Basic Education in Sub-Sahara Africa, Africa Region Human Development Working Paper Series. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
Lind, Agenta, Johnston, Anton, (1990),  Adult Literacy in the Third World: A Review of Objectives and Strategies. Stockholm: SIDA.
Manly, Jennifer J. et.al,. (1999), “The Effect of Literacy on Neuropsychological Test Performance in Non-demented, Education-matched Elders,” in The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5: 191-202 Cambridge University Press.
Oxenham, John., Aoki, Aya, (2001), Including the 900 Million+, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Oxenham, John; Diallo, A.H., Katahoire, A.R., Petkova-Mwangi, A. , Sall, O., (2002), Skills and Literacy Training for Better Livelihoods. A Review of Approaches and Experiences,  Washington: Africa Human Development Sector, Africa Region, The World Bank.
Torres, Rosa-María, (2005), Justicia económica y justicia social 12 tesis para el cambio educativo, Madrid: Movimiento Internacional Fe y Alegría/Entreculturas. 
Torres, Rosa-María (2004), Lifelong Learning in the South. Stockholm: Sida Studies No. 11.
Torres, Rosa-María (2001), Base Document for the United Nations Literacy Decade (2003-2012) prepared for UNESCO, Basic Education Division: Paris.
Torres, Rosa-María, (1990), Evaluation Report, National Literacy Campaign “Monsignor Leonidas Proaño” 1988-1990, Quito: Minister of Education and Culture, and UNICEF.
http://www.fronesis.org/ecuador_cna.htm
Torres, Rosa-María, (1995), “Children’s right to basic education,” in: Education News, No. 14. New York: UNICEF. 
UNDP. 2001. Human Development Report 2001. New York.
UNESCO (2005), Literacy for Life: EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris.
WORLD BANK (1995), Priorities and Strategies for Education, Washington, D.C.


[1] Literacy for all and education for all require trans-sectoral policies. See: Torres, Rosa María, Justicia económica y justicia social 12 tesis para el cambio educativo, Movimiento Internacional Fe y Alegría/Entreculturas, Madrid, 2005.
[3] Both arguments can be found in World Bank’s 1995 Priorities and Strategies for Education. The low cost-effectiveness argument was based on a single study (Abadzi 1994) commissioned by the WB, and the data used referred to the findings of the  Experimental World Literacy Program implemented between 1967 and 1972 in 11 countries (see Lind and Johnston, 1990).
[4] Lately, some WB-supported studies (see Carr-Hill, 2001, conducted in Uganda) concluded that adult (out-of-school) education may be more cost-effective than primary (school) education. This is a tricky argument that may lead to see adult and non-formal education as a substitute for children’s schooling.
[5] Literacy for all and education for all require trans-sectoral policies. Education policies must be intertwined with economic and social policies. See: Torres, Rosa María, Justicia económica y justicia social 12 tesis para el cambio educativo, Movimiento Internacional Fe y Alegría/Entreculturas, Madrid, 2005. 
[6] See for example the rich theoretical and empirical research by Emilia Ferreiro in the Latin American region and comparative studies with other countries and regions.
[7] See OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), administered to 15-year-olds in schools to measure reading, mathematical and scientific literacy, and problem-solving in life situations. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/  See also the International Adult Literacy Survey of 2001, where results in participating developing countries such as Chile were devastating.
[8] Torres, Rosa María, “Children’s right to basic education,” in: Education News, No. 14, UNICEF, New York, 1995. 
[9] In the Latin American context, Chile has the oldest system of school achievement evaluation and competition between schools and incentives associated with achievement and competition. That public school principals reject students from very poor backgrounds and/or having illiterate parents has triggered an alarm in the past few years. The same is true in other countries in the region that have similar policies, often following World Bank recommendations.
[11] See ECLAC/CEPAL 2000  
[12] See “Effect of literacy on neuropsychological test performance in non-demented, education-matched elders,” in The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (1999), 5: 191-202 Cambridge University Press.

Related texts in this blog
» GLEACE,
Letter to UNESCO on the Literacy Decade (2003-2012)
» Rosa María Torres, Literacy for All: A Renewed Vision ▸ Alfabetización para Todos: Una Visión Renovada
» Rosa María Torres, Lifelong Learning: moving beyond Education for All
» Rosa María Torres, From Literacy to Lifelong LearningDe la alfabetización al aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida
» Rosa María Torres, About "good practice" in international co-operation in education
» Rosa María Torres, Adult Literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Plans and Goals 1980-2015
» Rosa María Torres, Youth & Adult Education and Lifelong Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean
» Rosa María Torres,
Formal, non-formal and informal learning

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...