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

On Innovation and Change in Education


Rosa María Torres
Light bulb - Fubiz

"You cannot force ideas. Successful ideas are the result of slow growth."
Alexander Graham Bell

Innovation - leading to meaningful change - is imperative  

Innovation is about change towards improvement. The term innovation does not say anything about the nature, orientation, pertinence and depth of such change and of such improvement. Education - both in and out of school - requires major changes. An "expanded vision of basic education" was proposed in 1990 in Jomtien-Thailand when the Education for All global initiative was launched. The need for "a new vision of education" has been highlighted by the Incheon Declaration (2015) and the 2030 Agenda. Minor, superficial, isolated, scattered innovations may modify very little. Increasing access to the school system as we know it, and improving its results as measured by standardized tests, without meaningful changes in conventional teaching and learning mentalities and patterns, may only reinforce and amplify the old "banking education" model. What is needed at this point is not only more or better education, but a different education, teaching and learning model.

▸ Innovations are particularly important in periods of crisis 

Throughout the world, in "developed" and "developing" countries, there is dissatisfaction with education, training and learning systems. Innovative experiences contribute to generate critical awareness on the weaknesses of conventional education practices. They show new angles, possibilities, alternatives, ways out. They reveal that commitment, creativity and change are there and alive behind the apparent inertia and despite adverse conditions. In fact, the most inspiring educational innovations are usually found in the most difficult and disadvantaged circumstances - rural and remote areas, urban slums, small villages, poor neighborhoods, multilingual settings, learners with special needs, etc.

It is critical to transform the school system, the most widespread vehicle of systematic education  

While innovation occurs on a daily basis in schools and classrooms, change is slow and non-systemic. Innovation is often the initiative of enthusiastic, committed and subversive individuals and teams. Activating and accelerating change requires persistent and co-ordinated efforts from all sides: top-down and bottom-up, from inside the school and from the outside, from parents and students, universities, the media, mass organizations, political actors, private enterprise. Experience shows that innovations developed on the margins of the school system tend to be shortlived if they are unable to influence mainstream education. 

Out-of-school education also requires major changes 

The term education is generally understood as school education. On the other hand, innovation in education has often been associated with non-formal or out-of-school education, with NGO programmes rather than with government ones. However, most learning throughout life takes place out of the school system, in the family, the community, the workplace, the media, cultural activities, sports, contact with nature, use of the Internet and digital technologies, autonomous reading and writing, social and political participation, etc. Not all education labelled non-formal or run by ONGs is innovative. At the same time, there are many examples of powerful innovation taking place within school systems. Renovation is a need and a challenge for the education, training and learning field as a whole, governmental and non-governmental, formal, non-formal and informal, dealing with people of all ages - children, youth and adults.   

Innovation is not necessarily related to, or dependent on, technologies  

The extraordinary expansion and advantages of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have led many people to associate educational innovation with technologies. The image of "the world as a huge classroom" is strongly associated to the utopia of a connected world where every individual has access not only to information but to knowledge. Realities show the limits of such fascination and overconfidence on ICTs as guardians of educational democratization and change. Let us remember that half of the world population has no access to the internet. On the other hand, research and experience are already showing that incorporating digital devices and the Internet in schools and classrooms does not necessarily change curricular or pedagogical practices. Acesss to does not ensure effective use of. Access to the Internet is not enough; the speed and quality of Internet connections is a new critical component of the digital gap. Broad band remains a luxury in most countries in the South. And yet, social and pedagogical innovation continue to take place in those contexts that have limited or no contact with the digital world.
Innovation is not only about the future, it may be also about the past

People think of innovation as something that is in the future, something that has never been tried before, and awaits to be discovered or imitated from others. However, important innovations may also be in the past. Many countries can tell about wonderful education experiences, often rooted in local cultures and ideas, that made a difference in the national context and that were left behind in the name of modernity. Many of them remain alive as proud memory and also as inspiration for meaningful current policies and practices. In education, and in many other fields, not everything related to the past is bad or outdated, and not everything related to an imagined future is bright and good.
Innovation is nourished by collaboration, not competition 

People tend to associate innovation with isolated individuals or institutions rather than with groups and teams. However, innovation flourishes
where there is collaboration rather than competition. Learning to collaborate is a key challenge for school systems, mostly dedicated to cultivate competition, forcing students to compete with each other in the name of "excellence". In highly competitive and individualistic societies, learning to collaborate is also a challenge at the workplace, in social and political life. In an increasingly competitive world and with an increasingly competitive Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), chances of technological and social innovation become slimmer.

Innovators get better with age 

Contrary to popular belief, the capacity to innovate and the quality of the innovation become better with age. Research shows that "the age of eventual Nobel Prize winners when making a discovery, and of inventors when making a significant breakthrough, averaged around 38 in 2000, an increase of about six years since 1900." "A 55-year-old and even a 65-year-old have significantly more innovation potential than a 25-year-old." Reasons for this include: 1. It is necessary to learn the patterns before daring and being able to break them. 2. The capacity to learn from mistakes is essential for innovating and it grows with age. 3. Gray hair gives more confidence and better capacity to convince others. The Finnish school model considers that a teacher is better equipped for good teaching after ten years of practice. All this contradicts "common sense" and regular practices in school systems worldwide, where "old" teachers are often forced to retire when many of them are in the best years of their careers.

Innovations are of very different kinds and scopes  

Innovations may have an eminently transforming or an eminently preserving nature, and may vary greatly in scope and impact. Some innovations challenge the conventional  education model in important aspects ("disruptive", "radical", "alterative", "transformative", "paradigmatic", are some of the terms used); others focus on marginal modifications. Some innovations produce the illusion of change, while replicating conventional teaching-learning practices (this is often the case of innovations that rely on technologies as main motors of change). Many are the result of exceptional situations and processes and are thus hardly replicable in other contexts. Many operate in well-controlled micro conditions and are thus hard to scale-up. Most innovations do not transcend the micro and the local level. Few reach the required depth, consistency and persistence to become true educational alternatives. 

Innovations are never totally innovative  

Experiences considered "innovative" may have one or more innovative components, while other aspects remain unchanged. Continuity and discontinuity, tradition and innovation, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, education carries the double mission of preserving tradition and promoting change, learning about the past while preparing for the future. Very often innovations in education are related to administration, organization and infrastructure, which are the easiest to for top-down initiative and control; curricular and pedagogical innovations are hard to sustain since they require educators' will, motivation and competencies. In this terrain, attention is usually given to instructional materials; less attention is given to critical dimensions such as changes in role/behavior, knowledge production, dissemination and use, understanding, internalization of values, etc. Influencing the real curriculum and changing the teaching culture (stereotypes, ideologies, styles, practices) have proven the most difficult and challenging.
 
The starting point for innovation is critical awareness and analysis of practice

Innovation implies seeing the obvious with new eyes, or putting into practice what is already known. Innovation is often about old ideas being resuscitated, rejuvenated, placed in new contexts or applied to new issues, or about new combinations of the same ideas, or about new components integrated into old ones. While external inputs and stimuli are important, change takes place when it involves ownership, understanding, reflection and critical analysis of one's own practice. 

Educational change requires working at both macro and micro levels 

The term innovation is usually associated with local actors and initiatives and with on-the-ground experiences. The term reform, on the contrary, is associated with large-scale, top-down initiatives, coming from governments and/or international agencies. Educational development and change require both bottom-up and top-down efforts. Sustained and effective change is systemic and this requires complementary and coordinated interventions at both levels. If the school is the focus of change, students, teachers and parents must be placed at the center of the process. Trusting teachers, empowering them, investing in their professional autonomy and status, are essential conditions to ensure building school change from the ground up.

Innovation must be based on realistic grounds  

Perennial, ambitious or radical reform projects often succumb to reality, leaving in their wake skepticism and increasing resistance to change. Many times, changes proposed are too complex or not feasible under concrete conditions and proposed timetables. Typically, teachers are expected to change long-entrenched teaching models and styles with little explanation and short in-service training courses; group work and participatory methods are prescribed regardless of overcrowded classrooms, overloaded curricula or lack of the minimal physical conditions; parental and community involvement in the school is promoted in the absence of any tradition of such involvement and of information, communication or capacity-building efforts. A thorough diagnosis of the starting point and of actual conditions - including resistance to the changes proposed (often confused with "resistance to change" in general), especially when they are not properly communicated and understood - is essential for effective reform implementation.

The innovation process takes time 

Developing, consolidating, institutionalizing and expanding an innovation takes time. Based on lessons from concrete experiences, some authors recommend an initial period of three to five years, and others even a decade or more, before starting an expansion and dissemination process. The fact is that it is easy to initiate innovation but it is hard to sustain and institutionalize it. Many innovative initiatives die before they can even walk by themselves. The field of educational innovation is full of tombs, an indication of the complexities involved and of the haste and simplistic approaches adopted by policy makers and administrators. Survival beyond a limited period of time becomes an indicator of success in itself.

Consolidating and expanding innovation requires a careful strategy  

Systemic does not mean simultaneous: change requires a progressive experimentation and implementation strategy that foresees the different stages and components, the necessary conditions, capacities, resources, support and evaluation to be provided along the way. Understanding, ownership and full involvement of those engaged in the innovation process are conditions for its success. Resistance of some sort must be expected, and a strategy devised to deal with it from the beginning rather than letting it come as a surprise. It is also important to bear in mind that, while initial steps may be encouraging, innovation does not follow a linear evolution: reversion or stagnation is common, as revealed by reports on innovations and reforms that went back into the "old" ways.

Innovation can capture educators' enthusiasm provided that certain conditions are met  

The much-repeated "resistance" of teachers to change has less to do with teachers' characteristics than with what is required of them and under what conditions. Experience has taught teachers that "change" is routine rhetoric in education, something that comes in waves and always from the top. If desired change does not occur within a given (usually short) period of time, it is the teachers who are blamed, not the architects of the plan. Changing teachers' role is not something that can be imposed from the outside and taught through brief lectures or courses. No change in school culture should be expected if it continues to be an external push, and if teachers continue to be viewed as mere implementors.

Innovation is not primarily about money

Often, the possibility of promoting change is perceived primarily as a financial issue. However, abundant international experience, research and evaluation show that higher spending in education is not necessarily related to improved teaching or improved learning. The most important, sustainable and promising change in education has to do with mentalities, with values and attitudes towards education, towards teaching and learning, and towards learners. Ultimately, it is the will to change, at all levels, from central bureaucracies to school classrooms, that makes change foreseeable and possible.

Innovation is not about saying but about doing 

Educational rhetoric has been characterized by ambitious goals and grandiloquent words. Trends towards homogenization and "global education reform" have resulted in a well-known set of words: equity, quality, improvement, decentralization, school autonomy, teacher professionalization, assessment, evaluation, standardized testing, 'merit pay', parental and community involvement, cost-sharing, partnerships, consensus-building, focus on learning, participatory approaches, learner-centered methodologies, learner-friendly schools, technology in education, 1 to 1 models, and, of course, innovation.

There is a big gap between words and facts. Often, programmes are considered innovative because they say they are innovative; education reform proposals are confused with actual reform processes and results; curriculum reform is often considered a document; access to modern technologies and to the Internet is confused with actual and effective use, and taken as equivalent to innovation and change; etcetera. Real innovation and change must be perceivable, not intended.

Innovative experiences cannot be transplanted  

Education and learning are highly dependant on the actors engaged and on the contexts in which they develop. Historical, political, economic, social, cultural, linguistic and other dimensions shape education realities. In a way, each experience is unique. What is innovative in one place may be perfectly conventional in another; what is feasible and what works in a certain context may be rejected or prove ineffective in a different one. There is no "what works/what does not work" in general. Accepting this and acknowledging diversity would avoid the usual temptation to "model" successful experiences and try to replicate them with little or no regard for the particular context and conditions that enable, and ultimately explain, them. 

Innovative experiences may inspire or challenge similar attempts elsewhere but cannot be adopted - and sometimes even adapted - successfully from one context to another. Innovation is about search, exploration and experimentation, not about importing ready-to-use 'one size fits all' models.

Little is still known about educational change   

The nature of educational change is complex and as yet not fully understood. Little is still known on how innovations are initiated, developed, disseminated and institutionalized. "Success stories" and "best practices" tend to be described superficially and included in boxes in national and international reports. We lack information about cultures and contexts, dynamics and contradictions involved in the process. Educational and pedagogical change worldwide would benefit enormously from thorough contextual and in situ studies (not mere accounts), analyses (not mere descriptions) and debate (not just information sharing) on successful and sustainable innovative practices.

To learn more

International Initiatives for Education ▸ Iniciativas internacionales para la educación

Rosa María Torres

Compilación de textos sobre iniciativas y actividades vinculadas a organismos internacionales publicados en este blog

Compilation of texts on initiatives and activities linked to international agencies published in this blog


International Co-operation ▸ Cooperación internacional
▸ Knowledge-based aid: Do we want it? Do we need it?

▸ About "good practice" in international co-operation in education


▸ El Banco Mundial y sus errores de política educativa
▸ The World Bank and its mistaken education policies


Avenidas promisorias y callejones sin salida

▸ Maldición de Malinche

Plans, Objectives and Goals for Education Reform ▸ Planes, Objetivos y Metas para la Reforma Educativa

1990-2030: Global education goals
1990-2030: Metas globales para la educación

Recipe for education reform
Receta para la reforma educativa

▸ América Latina: Seis décadas de metas para la educación (1957-2021)

▸ Latin America: Six decades of goals for education (1957-2021)

Adult Literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Plans and Goals 1980-2015
Alfabetización de adultos en América Latina y el Caribe: planes y metas 1980-2015

Education for All (EFA) ▸ Educación para Todos (EPT)

La década olvidada de la Educación para Todos (1990-2000)

Una década de Educación para Todos: La tarea pendiente (IIPE-UNESCO Buenos Aires, 2000)
One Decade of Education for All: The Challenge Ahead (IIPE-UNESCO Buenos Aires, 2000)

Basic Learning Needs: Different Frameworks

1990-2015: Education for All | Educación para Todos

25 años de Educación para Todos
25 Years of Education for All

Six 'Education for All' Goals
Seis metas de la 'Educación para Todos'

▸ La Educación para Todos se encogió

Educación para Todos: De Jomtien a Dakar (1990-2000)
Education for All: From Jomtien to Dakar (1990-2000)

▸ What happened at the World Education Forum (Dakar, 2000)?
▸ ¿Qué pasó en el Foro Mundial de Educación (Dakar, 2000)?
▸ Que s’est-il passé au Forum Mondial sur L’Éducation (Dakar, 2000)?

▸ Lifelong Learning: Moving Beyond Education for All (EFA)

Lifelong Learning for the North, Primary Education for the South?

▸ El Pronunciamiento Latinoamericano por una Educación para Todos

▸ Observatorio: Mitos y Metas de la Educación para Todos - blog
▸ Observatory: Myths and Goals on Education for All
- blog

▸ Military spending and education
▸ Gasto militar y educación

▸ 2005

Education for All 2000-2015: How did Latin America and the Caribbean do?

Millennium Development Goals (MDG) ▸ Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (ODM)

What did the MDGs achieve?
¿Qué lograron los ODM?


▸ Educación para Todos y Objetivos del Milenio no son la misma cosa - entrevista con la Campaña Latinoamericana por el Derecho a la Educación (CLADE)

▸ Education First
▸ La Educación ante todo


Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) ▸ Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS)

Goal 4: Education - Sustainable Development Goals
Objetivo 4: Educación - Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
SDG: Translation issues
ODS: Problemas de traducción

VI International Conference on Adult Education ▸ VI Conferencia Internacional sobre Educación de Adultos (CONFINTEA VI)

▸ From Literacy to Lifelong Learning
▸ De la alfabetización al aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida

▸ Youth and Adult Education and Lifelong Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean

United Nations Literacy Decade ▸ Decenio de Naciones Unidas para la Alfabetización (2003-2012)

▸ Literacy for All: A Renewed Vision
▸ Alfabetización para Todos: Una Visión Renovada


▸ Letter to UNESCO on the Literacy Decade (2003-2012)
▸ Carta a la UNESCO sobre el Decenio de la Alfabetización (2003-2012)

Indice de Desarrollo Humano - PNUD

Indice de Desarrollo Humano: América Latina y el mundo
El Ecuador y el Indice de Desarrollo Humano

Banco InterAmericano de Desarrollo - BID

Satisfacción excesiva con la educación en América Latina

Foro Económico Mundial - FME

El Foro Económico Mundial y la calidad de la educación

World Innovation Summit for Education - WISE (Qatar Foundation)

WISE Prize for Education Summit: Bottom-up innovators
Los laureados con el premios WISE a la educación

▸ On Learning Anytime, Anywhere (conference at WISE 2011)

PISA - Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de Alumnos (OCDE)

Artículos sobre PISA
Articles on PISA

Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación - LLECE (UNESCO)

América Latina y las pruebas del LLECE

Information Society ▸ Sociedad de la Información

Education in the Information Society
Educación en la Sociedad de la Información

Education as a Human Right ▸ La educación como derecho humano

▸ The 4 As as criteria to identify "good practices" in education
▸ Las 4A como criterios para identificar "buenas prácticas" en educación

Lifelong Learning (LLL) ▸ Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida (ALV)

▸ ¿Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida para el Norte y Educación Primaria para el Sur?
▸ Lifelong Learning for the North, Primary Education for the South?

▸ Literacy and Lifelong Learning: The Linkages

▸ On Learning Anytime, Anywhere

▸ Rosa María Torres, Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education, Sida Studies 11, Sida, Stockholm, 2004.

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
 

A Teacher's Monologue



(Texto en español: Monólogo)

If, as a teacher, they tell me that I cannot teach, thta I am not inspired by a vocation in teaching, who is to be held accountable: I, or those who - with al their knowledge and experience - accepted me and saw me move towards a career for which I am now told I am ill-equipped and incompatible.

If, as a teacher, I enjoy teaching, but am confronted with shortfalls others see within me, who should bear the liability: myself, or the institutions - with names, budgets, official seals and signatures - that certified my aptitude, accredited my studies, and furnished me with a diploma that decreed I was qualified to teach.

If, as a teacher, I am told that what I teach is obsolete, irrelevant for learners and long surpassed by new developments in science and technology, who is to be considered outdated: I, or those who design the curriculum, those who taught me what and how to teach, those who train me and propagate outmoded teaching and learning content, methodologies and approaches, often without consultation and lacking themselves essential knowledge on education policies and on school cultures.

If, as a teacher, I am accused of not facilitating learning, and am told that the results fall short of what should be, am I the only one who is at fault? Or should others, too, be held accountable, be required to share in the concern and in the solution: those who supervise and evaluate my work, those who are responsible for the continuing education of teachers and for teacher professionalization, those who are in charge of managing the school?

If I teach day after day, year after year, and they tell me that nothing I do or nothing that I have to give is enough  - not education, training, vocation, commitment, time and effort dedicated to teaching and to learning - where does the problem stem from? Does it lie in myself alone? Or should it be shared by those who restricted the opportunities for my own education, those who now deny me the possibility to continue learning, those who decided long ago that teaching was a profession for the poor and for the unambitious, deserving poor salaries and status, condemned to mediocrity and to limited access to books, specialized journals and the Internet, and yet expected to rejuvenate, each day, the mystique attributed to teaching and rarely to other professions.

Ladies and gentlemen: It is time to address the real issues and the real obstacles. Rather than part of the problem, I am part of the solution.

* Originally published in: Education News, No. 10, UNICEF Education Cluster, New York, November 1994. Also published by Education International in its journal, Vol. 2, N° 2-3. Brussels, 1996.

Lifelong Learning for the North, Education for All for the South


Rosa-María Torres

Abstract of the presentation at the International Conference on Lifelong Learning “Global Perspectives in Education
(Beijing, China, 1-3 July 2001)

Texto en español: ¿Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida para el Norte y Educación Primaria para el Sur?

This conference was delivered at an event on lifelong learning in China in 2001. Education for All (EFA) had just been expanded for 15 more years, until 2015, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) had just been approved (2000-2015). I had started to promote Lifelong Learning as a paradigm not only for the North ('developed countries') but also for the South ('developing countries'), and was annoyed with the Millennium Development Goals' narrow goal for education - complete primary education (4 years) - at a time when the North was moving towards lifelong learning. Today, MDGs are history; the education goal was not reached worldwide and four years of school proved insufficient, anyway. Today, its successors, the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), want pre-school, primary, secondary, higher, technical, vocational, and lifelong learning for all, in the South and in the North ... So, why am I not happy?




































At the beginning of the 21st century we are witnessing an expansion, rather than reduction, of the gap between the North ('developed countries') and the South ('developing countries') in terms of education and learning. 


In the context of the emerging 'Knowledge Society', Lifelong Learning - "from the cradle to the grave" - has been adopted in the North as a key political, societal and educational organizing principle for the  21st century. At the same time, basic education – often narrowly understood as primary education - is prescribed for the South. The deficit ideology behind North-South relationships and aid seems to ignore the heterogeneity of so-called 'developing countries', where high illiteracy rates and low schooling may coexist with sophisticated education, training, research, intellectual production, scientific and technological development.

The World Conference on Education for All – EFA (Jomtien, March 1990) adopted an 'expanded vision' of basic education understood as the foundation for lifelong learning. Such 'expanded vision' comprises children, youth and adults learning in and out of school, and a broad understanding of their basic learning needs. Jomtien’s vision, however, was never translated into practice. EFA international partners themselves – UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP,  the World Bank and UNFPA - as well as other international agencies did not follow this approach. Education recommendations and policies for 'developing countries' continued to replicate a restricted notion of basic education - focused on children, schooling and primary school - and a restricted notion of basic learning needs where basic ended up being understood as minimum.

The World Education Forum (Dakar, 2000) acknowledged that EFA goals had not been met and extended the deadline until 2015. Jomtien’s goals were ratified but the  'expanded vision' of basic education was no longer central to the overall framework. Primary education became the ceiling in the Millennium Development Goals - MDG adopted in 2000 by the United Nations system, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The term "Universal primary education" was used to mean completing four years of school ("survival to grade 5" is the indicator for this MDG goal). Furthermore, the emphasis on children shifted to an emphasis on girls in the education agendas of most international agencies. 

The EFA agenda lacks a holistic vision of education and learning, and of the formal school system as such – pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary education - in relation to basic education goals and to meeting the basic learning needs of the population. Youth and adult education continue to be viewed as remedial and compensatory, addressed to the poor, and focused on literacy rather than on wider adult basic education. Obviously, this is not the appropriate framework for the development of Lifelong Learning, both in concept and in practice.

Globalization and Knowledge Society for All means Lifelong Learning for All. The North knows it and acknowledges it for its nations. The South must strive for it, fighting against double standards and global inequities, hopefully with the collaboration -- rather than against the will and advice -- of the North and the international community.


Some of these ideas have been developed in other publications by the author:

Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education (ABLE) in the South A study commissioned by Sida (Swedish International Development Agency). Stockholm: Sida, 2002.

▸ "What happened at the World Education Forum?", in: Adult Education and Development, N° 55. Bonn: IIZ-DVV, 2001.

"Knowledge-based international aid: Do we need it, do we want it?", in: Gmelin, W.; King, K.; McGrath, S. (editors), Knowledge, Research and International Cooperation, University of Edinburgh, Centre of African Studies, 2001.

“Cooperación internacional” en educación en América Latina: ¿parte de la solución o parte del problema?, en: Cuadernos de Pedagogía, Nº 308, Barcelona, diciembre 2001. Monográfico sobre “La educación en Latinoamérica”.

▸ "Learning Communities: Re-thinking education from the local level and through learning." Paper presented at the International Symposium on Learning Communities, Barcelona Forum 2004 (Barcelona, 5-6 October 2001).

One Decade of "Education for All": The Challenge Ahead. Buenos Aires: IIPE UNESCO, 2000.

▸ "Improving the Quality of Basic Education? The Strategies of the World Bank", in: Stromquist, N.; Basile, M. (ed.). 1999. Politics of Educational Innovations in Developing Countries, An Analysis of Knowledge and Power. NewYork-London: Falmer Press, 1999.

La educación según el Banco Mundial. Un análisis de sus propuestas y métodos. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila / CEM, 1997. (with José Luis Coraggio)

Knowldedge-based international aid: Do we want it? Do we need it?

 Conference and paper presented at
International Seminar on Development Knowledge, National Research and
International Co-operation, organised by the DSE and NORRAG, Bonn (3-5 April 2001).

Included in
Knowledge, Research and International Cooperation
Edited by Wolfgang Gmelin, Kenneth King and Simon McGrath,
DSE/NORRAG/CAS, September 2001.
 
This paper approaches «knowledge-based aid» in vogue within the international aid community from some specific perspectives: (a) a view from «the South», that is, from countries traditionally considered beneficiaries of such aid, typically facilitated by «the North» through international aid agencies; (b) a critical perspective, thus acknowledging that there is an uncritical South -- and a critical North; (c) a regional focus on Latin America; (d) a focus on education reform as a specific field to analyze some of the assumptions and practical consequences of such «knowledge-based aid», particularly over the past decade; and (e) a focus on the World Bank (WB) as a paradigmatic agency, given its leading role in shaping North/South cooperation and in promoting «knowledge-based aid» for school education reform. The «we» assumed in the title of this article refers to the global South in general, and to Latin American in particular.

The increased global concentration of economic and symbolic power (information and knowledge) and of the means and resources to access, synthesize and disseminate such information and knowledge is supported by an instrumental ideology about issues such as development, knowledge, information, education, and learning. In this context, and without fundamental changes in North-South relationships and cooperation patterns, as well as in knowledge and learning paradigms, there is little hope that the announced Knowledge Society and Lifelong Learning paradigm will bring the expected «learning revolution» and a more equitable distribution of knowledge.

On the contrary, we are experiencing a major epochal paradox: never before have there been so much information and knowledge available, so varied and powerful means to democratize them, and so much emphasis on the importance of knowledge, education and learning, but never before has the banking education model been so alive and widespread at a global scale: education understood as a one-way transfer of information and knowledge, and learning understood as the passive digestion of such transfer. Many global promoters of the Knowledge Society and of Lifelong Learning dream with a world converted into a giant classroom with a few powerful global teachers, and millions of passive assimilators of information and knowledge packages.

In an era characterized by change, uncertainty and unpredictability, knowledge-disseminators and technology-promoters seem to have too many certainties about the present and about the future. Recommendations and solutions are at hand and become global - «global development knowledge», «global education reform». «Global» means in fact [for] «the global South», «the developing world», «low- and middle-income countries», «client countries», «the poor». «What works» and «what doesn't work» are offered as clear-cut black and white alternatives, without the obvious questions that should follow: what works -- where, when, for what, with whom, for whom, under what circumstances? «Knowledge-based aid» rhetoric insists on avoiding the discussion of issues such as power and vested interests, not only within governments but also within civil society and within and among international agencies.

«KNOWLEDGE-BASED AID» FOR «DEVELOPING COUNTRIES»
What development? What knowledge? What kind of aid? Who is
«countries»?

There is nothing new about «knowledge-based aid». Knowing, and transferring knowledge to «developing countries» under the form of technical assistance has been the raison d' être of international agencies. It may be new, however, from a bank perspective, since banks are supposed to provide money, not ideas.

WB's decision - in 1996 - to become a «knowledge bank» made explicit the evolution of its role into an institution that provides both expert advice and loans - in that order of importance, as stated by the WB. This new role includes lending no longer as the most important role, but technical assistance, knowledge production and knowledge sharing; expanding clients and partners beyond governments, also incorporating organizations of civil society (OCS); and aggressive support to, and use of, modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a critical tool for putting such strategies in place.

In WB's terms: there is something called «development knowledge», which is available at the WB/knowledge bank, has been (and continues to be) compiled and synthesized by the WB, and needs to be «disseminated» (with the assistance of ICTs) or transferred through «capacity building» not only to «developing countries» - from government officials and decision-makers all the way down to OCS and school agents - but also to other agencies. The Global Education Reform Website and the Global Education Reform course offered by the WB to a wide range of learners (Ministries, OCS, international agencies, etc.) are some of the tools put in place for the global transfer of education reform knowledge to education reformers at various levels in the whole planet.

«Knowledge-based aid» is fundamentally North/South asymmetry-based aid: donor/recipient, developed/non-developed, knowledge/ignorance (or wisdom), teach/learn, think/act, recommend/follow, design/implement. The global North views itself as a knowledge provider and views the global South as a knowledge consumer. The North thinks, knows, disseminates, diagnoses, plans, strategizes, conducst and validates research (including the one done in, or referred to, the South), provides advice, models, lessons learned, and even lists of desired profiles (i.e. effective schools, effective teachers); the South does not know, learns, receives, applies, implements. The North produces and disseminates knowledge; the South produces data and information. The North produces global policy recommendations to be translated by the South into National Plans of Action. «Global knowledge» versus «local wisdom». «Think globally, act locally».
Rosa María Torres

For international cooperation purposes, «countries» refers to governments. Cooperating with governments has been assumed as equivalent to cooperating with countries and with the people in those countries, thus avoiding critical questions related to the representativeness of concrete governments in terms of public and national interests. Also, agencies' widened perception of «countries», incorporating civil society, are generally centered around NGOs, ignoring the variety of actors interacting in real civil societies: political parties, social movements, academic community, workers' unions, grassroots organizations, mass media, churches, etc. It is only in recent times that the term Organizations of Civil Society (OCS) has been incorporated. As a result, many key political, social and economic sectors and actors in the South - especially those unrelated to government and NGO circuits- have remained alienated from the resources, mechanisms, information and discussion surrounding international cooperation in their own countries.

We will discuss here some assumptions and consequences of the «knowledge-based aid» concept in action, as per WB's and other agencies' involvement in (school) education reform in the South, and in Latin America in particular.

Are we (the South) striving for and heading towards «development»?

Development (in the sense of progress) seemed desirable and achievable in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the term virtually disappeared from political and academic discourse, from social debate and from social expectations in the South -- very much so in the case of Latin America.

Development discourse has been substituted by «poverty alleviation», «debt relief», «combating unemployment», «improving the quality of education», etc. The overall spirit is that of «reversing decline» rather than that of «ensuring development». In the education field this is reflected in goals that do not go beyond augmenting (enrolment, instruction time) or reducing (illiteracy, drop-out, repetition) rates, aiming at «preventing school failure» or «improving academic achievement» (among the poor) rather than at «ensuring school success» or «ensuring lifelong and meaningful learning» for all.

Realities and analyses show that globalization is not moving in the direction of a more equitable world and that economic growth is no guarantee for human (even for economic) development. «Alleviating poverty» has become a condition for, much more than a result of, the possibility of getting access to education and learning by the majority of the world population. And yet, agencies continue to speak of «development» and «developing countries», of basic education as a strategy to alleviate poverty, and of economic growth leading to economic and social development.

The very meaning of development, as well as the means and strategies to get there, are not consensual and remain an issue of debate and controversy not only in the North and in the South but also among and within agencies themselves.

Is there is something called «development knowledge»?

How much does «development» depend on knowledge? What is the knowledge required to make «development» happen in «non-developed» contexts? Is there such a thing as «development knowledge» in general? Is it available, waiting to be «disseminated» or transferred through «capacity building»? Who possesses and who should possess such knowledge in order for development to occur? Is it a problem of dissemination and capacity building?

Most of these questions are already answers, or unraised questions, within the international cooperation community. Agencies act as if they knew, because this is their role and their business. And like bad teachers who have poor expectations of their students and think for them, agencies have in mind clients that are avid for ready-made diagnoses, recipes, transportable and easily replicable «success stories».

Conventional international aid has operated under one central assumption: the South has the problems, and the North has the solutions. If the solution proposed does not work, a new solution will be proposed, and countries will be held accountable for the failure. And again, just like the conventional school system that homogenizes students to facilitate its role and to ensure the prescription of universal curricula and rules, agencies prefer to think of «developing countries» as a uniform world, homogenized by poverty and by a number of problems that are well-known (by agencies and by experts in the North) and that differ at most in their magnitudes.

Paradoxically, the concept of ownership is framed within an accepted asymmetrical relationship. International agencies acknowledge the need to "put countries in the driver's seat". UNESCO acknowledges the need of "countries having a sense of ownership for the initiative" (UNESCO, 2000). But it does not occur. 

Donor-driven, top-down and one-size-fits-all policies have resulted in repeated and costly failures. If we are to judge the direction and quality of future changes in international aid by the lessons Education for All (EFA) partners say they learned during the 1990s, we should not expect meaningful changes in the 15-year EFA extension agreed upon at the Dakar World Education Forum (2000). On the contrary, many such problems - i.e. lack of coordination and enhanced competitiveness among agencies and specifically among EFA partners - have worsened. On the other hand, the new solutions aimed at amending previous problems (i.e. the «sector-wide approach», which attempts to correct the damage caused by the extensive agency-promoted «project» culture) may initiate a new wave of improvised solutions, without affecting the core of the problems, including those of conventional aid culture. Just as ineffective teacher training results in teachers incorporating new terms but not necessarily new concepts and renovated practices, agencies have incorporated politically correct jargon such as participation, consultation, transparency, accountability, empowerment and ownership and haven given them their own meaning and functional use.

Is [good] knowledge only to be found in the North?

Both related assumptions must be put into question: that the North produces good quality and universally accepted knowledge -- in general, about itself and about the South - and that the South does not. In fact, both the North and the South have good and bad schools and universities, produce good and bad quality research and knowledge, and have competent and incompetent professionals. The difference is that the North has far better conditions than the South to develop research and to enhance professional competencies and work conditions, and that the North socializes its professionals with a «run the world» mentality where «knowing» what is best for the South may appear as an in-built professional competency. However, when one looks at the tremendous North/South asymmetry one wonders whether the North is making the best use possible of its comparative advantages. One also wonders how much more and better the South could do if we would have similar conditions in place.

Knowledge produced in the South is disqualified or ignored altogether. The education field is a good example of this. Those reading about education only in publications produced in the North, and specifically those produced by agencies (which is the case of many education specialists in the North and of millions of students in universities around the world), probably come to the conclusion that there is no research, no intellectual life and no debate on education going on outside North America and Europe, and that most of it - if not all of it - happens to be written in English (Torres 1996). And yet, the South has a vast research and intellectual production, much of it of similar or better quality standards than that produced in the North, but much of it is invisible to the North. Arrogance and prejudice are important explicative factors as well as linguistic limitations. Here, the asymmetry and the comparative advantage may operate the other way round: while researchers and intellectuals in the South are often multilingual or at least bilingual, and can thus have access to a wider variety of literature and views, many researchers in the North are monolingual (especially native English-speakers) and thus have limited access to the intellectual production available worldwide. However, this does not prevent them from speaking for the entire world and for the «developing world» in particular, even when they access only to North-produced syntheses of South-produced research.

Linguistic limitations should not be a valid reason if the production of scientific knowledge is at stake and, moreover, is such intellectual production claims international validity and aims at interpreting and influencing realities in the South. Being professional and aiming at serious professional roles at international level today requires not only multidisciplinary but multilingual teams.

Is «good» knowledge expert knowledge?

The knowledge-based rhetoric reinforces the technocratic culture (the «symbolic analyst»). National and international experts multiply. The term is abused to a point where anybody can be called «expert» or believe he/she is one. The expansion and costs of the international consultancy industry have been analyzed and documented by various studies and for the various regions. The situation is particularly critical in the case of Africa, as highlighted in UNDP's Human Development Reports.

The perverse consequences of the expert and the consultant drive in the global South are enormous. The expert culture reinforces elitist approaches, social participation and consultation as mere concessions to democracy rather than as objective needs for effective policy design and action. It cultivates the separation between thinkers and doers, reformers and implementers, at national and global scale. It reaffirms the tradition to locate problems on the implementation side, never on the side of those who diagnose, plan and formulate policies.

Effective and sustainable policies and reforms require not only (good, relevant) expert knowledge, but also the (explicit and implicit) knowledge and will of all those concerned. Policy in practice - i.e. educational reform not resulting in educational change- shows the insufficiency of expert knowledge and the indispensable need for consultation, participation and ownership - whether it is governments, institutions, groups or individuals- as a condition for good policy design.

We have reached a point where common sense can make the difference between good and bad policy making, between good and bad program design.

Is «expert» knowledge good knowledge?

«Experts» can make expert and costly mistakes. WB experts have been behind the cyclical mistakes admitted by the WB in WB-assisted education policies and projects over the past decades, notably: the emphasis placed on infrastructure in the 1960s and 1970s; the priority given to primary education in the 1990s and the rates of return argument behind such priority; the abandonment of higher education (admitted as a major mistake by J. Wolfensohn during the official launching ceremony of the Higher Education Report on March 1, 2000 in Washington); and the «project approach» (now being amended with the SWAP - «sector-wide approach»). All these mistakes, and their long-term consequences, were based on expert WB knowledge and paid by countries in the South in monetary as well as political and social terms.

The faulty grounds of WB research in the education field has been highlighted and documented by many researchers in the global South and in the global North, and by WB people themselves. Problems mentioned include overgeneralization, oversimplification, lack of comparability of many studies that are anyhow compared, poor theoretical and methodological frameworks, lack of conceptual rigor, mechanical translation of research results into policy-making, and, more generally, use and abuse of research (and of comparative international research in particular) and of evaluation to legitimize recommended policies, funded projects and selected «success stories».

And yet, good or bad, this is the research that sustains technical advice provided to client countries in the South (and to other agencies). And the one that is now attributed global validity that is made available through a global web portal and offered to decision makers in face-to-face intensive seminars.

The opaque relationship between knowledge validation and (agency) power is a critical, un-mentioned, factor. Many of the ideas and trends that become dominant do so not necessarily because of their merit or proven efficacy to explain or transform realities, but because of the (ideological, political, financial) power that is behind them.

Are information, communication, knowledge, education and learning the same?

In the age of knowledge and learning, scientific research on learning -- from the most varied fields: Biology, Psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology, Sociology, Pedagogy, History -- shows its highly complex nature, mechanisms and processes. And yet, these notions are being banalized by agencies and by many international and national advocates of the «learning revolution».

Information, knowledge, education, training, learning are often used indistinctively. Ignoring current scientific knowledge available on these issues, and in the tradition of the «banking school education model», knowledge and learning continue to be trivialized as a matter of access (to school, to the computer and the Internet) and/or dissemination (of information, of knowledge, of lessons learned, of models to be replicated).

Many false assertions need to be analyzed and clarified. Consider the following:

- Information can be disseminated but knowledge must be built.
- Information dissemination does not necessarily result in knowledge or in learning.
- Education (and schooling) does not necessarily result in learning.
- Learning exceeds education and education exceeds school education.
- Having access to the Internet is no guarantee of being informed, much less of learning.
- While lifelong education is something that no society or person could afford, lifelong learning is a fact of life.

Good distance education requires face-to-face interaction. The «Knowledge Society» many people have in mind is close to an information society. The Lifelong Learning many are advocating is e-learning, with everyone buying devices and connected to the Internet. For others, Lifelong Learning entails the burial of the school system and of formal education, and the multiplication of non-formal and/or informal learning opportunities and arrangements.

Unless North and South engage in serious analysis, research and debate on all these issues and their implications for a global «Knowledge and Learning Society», the «learning revolution» may be a new false alarm, an illusion created by the technological revolution, or a revolution only for a few, with many victims and wider gaps, controlled by central powers and benefiting strong economic interests.

Is there a positive relationship between (expert) knowledge and (effective) decision-making?

The weak linkages between information/knowledge and public policy design/decision-making are an old and well-known problem in both the North and the South. However, the «knowledge-based aid» rhetoric appears to take such relationship between (expert) knowledge and (effective) decision-making for granted, as well as between their respective assumed agents - agencies, on one hand, and countries (now governments and civil societies) on the other. The whos, whats, what fors, wheres and hows of knowledge and knowledge transfer are not put into question.

The WB claims that the gap between knowledge and decision-making is getting smaller in client countries - where we would be seeing «more effective policy making». However, the EFA decade assessment showed that education policies conducted in the 1990s did not accomplish the goals. In Latin America «quality improvement» in school education is not visible, at least in terms of learning. It is accepted that these reform processes did not «reach the school», did not improve teacher performance and morale, and did not modify conventional pedagogical practices. Even some of our publicized «success stories» have deteriorated -- such as Escuela Nueva in Colombia or the 900 Schools Program in Chile -- when looked closer at the school level (Carlson 2000; Torres 2000a; Avalos 2001). A closer, more analytical look at the micro levels and dynamics might reveal the same of many other «success stories» and «best practices» hastily labeled as such and enthusiastically disseminated by agencies all over the world.

On the other hand, the «Cuban success story» has been hard-to-digest and little publicised. The evaluation of learning achievement in primary schools (language and mathematics among third and fourth graders in both public and private schools) conducted by UNESCO Regional Office (OREALC), showed Cuba's superiority over all other countries studied (Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education -LLECE). Cuba faces a very difficult economic situation, and it is the only country in the region that has no loans for its education system and reform, and has not followed WB education reform recommendations.

While some attribute the failure of reform processes conducted in Latin America to lack of attention to research results and policy recommendations, many others - included the author of this piece - believe that part of the problem was too much attention to such recommendations (the educational reform recipe of the 1990s) and too much reliance on national and international «expert knowledge» for policy design and decision-making, too little social and teacher participation and consultation, and too little value given to domestic research, indigenous knowledge, and common sense.

The fact is that many countries in this region are today «reforming the reforms», reviewing previous approaches, acknowledging the limitations of top-down reforms and the importance of involving teachers in more meaningful ways as well as the need to put pedagogy and the school at the center. Growing disillusionment and loss of credibility in reform efforts have come together with a growing regional movement demanding responsibility, transparency and accountability both from governments and from agencies. The 2001 regional meeting of Ministers of Education (Cochabamba, Bolivia, 5-7 March 2001), and the Cochabamba Declaration and Recommendation, which closed the two-decade Major Project for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (1980-2000), put for the first time aid-related problems and issues high on the agenda.

In this respect, the experience with the Latin American Statement on Education for All (prepared on the occasion of the Dakar Forum, circulated widely, and signed by thousands of people in the region) represents an innovative and promising development that contradicts conventional North/South aid patterns: it is an endogenous initiative, born in Latin America, out of Latin American concerns, and conducted in Spanish and Portuguese (ownership is here a fact, not a concession); it is critical of the role of governments and agencies vis a vis education development and reform in the region, and proposes the need for a new aid framework; it is not an NGO but a social movement, involving a wide spectrum of sectors and groups, including civil society, government and agencies; information disseminated regularly to the list of signers is both local, regional and global; and it operates on a voluntary basis, with no international funding and thus with intellectual and financial autonomy. (Torres 2000d)

DO WE WANT AND NEED «KNOWLEDGE-BASED AID»?

Why would we want such aid? It has been ineffective and costly, it has increased our dependency and our foreign debt, it has not allowed us to develop our own human resources (while we have paid external consultants to learn and become experts while working in our countries); it has not allowed us to identify and develop our own ideas, research, thinking, alternatives, models. And it has not allowed us not learn along the way about both our achievements and mistakes.

Do we really need such aid? In most, if not all, countries in the global South we have the knowledgeable and competent professionals we need to put in place sound education policies and reforms. Moreover, if qualified and committed, nationals (and non-nationals who end up sharing these characteristics and ideals as their own) have two important advantages over non-nationals: they know the national/local language(s) and share local history and culture, and they love their country. Motivation, empathy, ownership, sense of identity and of pride, sense of being part of a collective- building project, are key ingredients of effective and sustainable policy making and social action. There is an important difference between living in a country and visiting it on technical missions. External consultants may leave ideas, documents and recommendations, but it is those living in the country, zone, or community who will finally do the job. Separating and differentiating the roles of those who think and recommend, and those who implement and try to follow recommendations, remains the key formula for non-ownership (or for fake ownership) and thus for failure.

A few final conclusions and recommendations

If international agencies want to assist the South, they must be ready to accept the need for major shifts in their thinking and doing. It is not just a matter of more of the same, or of improving cooperation mechanisms and relationships. What is needed is a different kind of international cooperation, operating under different assumptions and rules, to be discussed and devised together with the South, in professional dialogue. Partnership, but not for business as usual.

What can international agencies do to assist the South?

Work not only addressed to the South but, most importantly, to the North. Development and non- or under-development are intertwined. Development can only occur in the South if major changes are introduced in the North and in North/South relationships. Awareness raising, critical positions and pressure within the North, with both governments and societies, for the building of a more equitable world, is the single most important contribution international agencies and critical intellectuals and activists in the North can make to the South. In this, they are not substitutable.

Acknowledge diversity and act accordingly Homogeneous understandings and approaches to the South are no longer admissible. Just as we, in the South, learn about the North, and are aware of the diversity that characterizes the various countries and regions in the world, we expect the North to get better acquainted with the realities and the diversity that characterize so-called «developing countries». Universal recipes, formulas and ready-to be transplanted models offend intelligence, deny scientific knowledge and learning as a possibility, and prove ineffective.

Revise international cooperation assumptions based on asymmetry and unidirectionality Deficit approaches to the South must belong to the past. Knowledge production takes place both in the North and in the South. There is no reason why the North, international agencies and the WB in particular should monopolize the function of global catalysts, synthesizers and disseminators of knowledge. There is much agencies can do to collaborate with the South in disseminating (to the North and within the South) what the South produces and does.

Support social watch and enhance professional dialogue with the South  Social watch and participation of civil society are critical requirements of national development and of effective international cooperation for such development. This has been emphasized by agencies themselves, so here is a common platform for partnership and alliances with «the critical South». This implies from agencies a coherent institutional behavior (democratic, transparent, accountable, open to learn), a wider and more complex understanding of «civil society» beyond the traditional NGO-centered approach, and enhanced professional dialogue and exchange with the intellectual community in the South including universities, higher education and research institutions as well as teacher and other professional associations.

Sound understandings and critical approaches to information, knowledge, education and learning Critical thinking and critical approaches to information, knowledge, education and learning are today more important than ever. Ensuring that all information and knowledge transactions -- including of course those between countries and agencies -- incorporate such critical component should be part of any modern international development cooperation model and of any modern knowledge management system.

More questions and more learning together Agencies have too many answers and too few questions. Admitting ignorance and the need to learn, and to learn how to learn, is at the very heart of a new international cooperation model. Only honesty builds confidence, and mutual confidence is fundamental for a healthy and collaborative relationship. North and South, agencies and countries, must learn to learn together and from each other.

Assist countries identify and develop their own resources, talents and capacities If ownership is essential for development, it is time that it is considered seriously by both countries and the international development community. The most effective way to assist the South is by making sure that such assistance is sustainable, non-directive, empathetic, invisible: assistance to help countries in the South do our own thinking, our own research and experimentation, our own networking and sharing, our own search for alternative models, our own learning by doing, in our own terms and at our own pace.

REFERENCES 

Analysys. 2000. The Network Revolution and the Developing World. Final Report for World Bank and infoDev. Analysys Report Number 00-216, 17 August 2000.

AVALOS, B. 2001. "Policy Issues Derived from the Internationalisation of Education: Their Effects on Developing Countries". Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement "Equity, Globalisation and Change. Education for the 21st Century", Toronto, 5-9 January 2001 (mimeo).

BUCHERT, L.; Epskamp, K. (eds.) 2000. New Modalities of Educational Aid, Prospects, Vol. XXX, N° 4, Open File N° 116. Geneva: IBE-UNESCO.

CARLSON, B. 2000. Achieving Educational Quality: What Schools Teach Us. Learning from Chile's P-900 Primary Schools, Serie Desarrollo Productivo, N° 64. Santiago: ECLAC.

CORAGGIO, J.L and R.M. Torres, 1997. La educación según el Banco Mundial: Un análisis de sus propuestas y métodos. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila-CEM.

LOCKHEED, M. and A. Verspoor. 1991. Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington: A World Bank Publication, Oxford University Press.

NYÏRI, J.C. 2000. "The word information and its soulmate data", in B. Smith (ed.) The Monist, An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry. The Monist Online Service.

POPKEWITZ, T.S. (ed.) 2000. Educational Knowledge: Changing Relationships between the State, Civil Society, and the Educational Community. New York: Sunny Series Frontiers in Education, State University of New York Press.

TORRES, R.M. 1996. "Education Seen Through Anglophone Eyes", in: CIES Newsletter, N° 111,Washington: Comparative and International Education Society.

TORRES, R.M. 1999. "Improving the Quality of Basic Education? The Strategies of the World Bank", in: Stromquist, N.; Basile, M. (ed.). Politics of Educational Innovations in Developing Countries, An Analysis of Knowledge and Power. NewYork-London: Falmer Press.

TORRES, R.M. 2000a. Itinerarios por la educación latinoamericana: Cuaderno de viajes. Buenos Aires: Paidos.

TORRES, R.M. 2000b. One Decade of "Education for All": The Challenge Ahead. Buenos Aires: IIPE UNESCO.

TORRES, R.M. 2000c. "What happened at the World Education Forum?" in: Adult Education and Development, N° 55. Bonn: IIZ-DVV, 2001.

TORRES, R.M. 2000d. "2000 Voices from Latin America: The Latin American Statement on Education for All", in: K. King (ed.), NORRAG News, Nº 27. University of Edinburgh: Dec. 2000.

UNDP. 1993. Human Development Report 1993. New York: Oxford University.

UNESCO. 2000. Dakar Follow-up Bulletin, First Meeting of the Working Group on EFA (Paris, 22-24 Nov. 2000). Summary of the intervention by Maris O'Rourke, World Bank.

UNESCO-OREALC. 1998. Primer Informe. Primer estudio internacional comparativo sobre lenguaje, matemática y factores asociados en tercero y cuarto grado, Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación. Santiago.

UNITED NATIONS-Economic and Social Council. 2000. Development and International Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century: The Role of Information Technology in the Context of a Knowledge-Based Global Economy, Report of the Secretary-General, Substantive Session of 2000, New York, 5 July-1 August 2000. E/2000/52

WORLD BANK. 1995. Priorities and Strategies for Education: A World Bank Review. Washington: World Bank.

WORLD BANK. 1999. Educational Change in Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank: Latin American Social and Human Development.

WORLD BANK. 2000a. Education for All: From Jomtien to Dakar and Beyond. Paper prepared by The World Bank for the World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, April 26-28, 2000. Washington DC.

WORLD BANK. 2000b. World Development Report 2000/2001 "Attacking Poverty". Washington, D.C.

Other texts from Rosa María Torres 

- Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education, Sida Studies 11, Stockholm, 2004
- El enfoque de Aprendizaje a lo Largo de Toda la Vida, UNESCO, 2020.
- About «good practice» in international co-operation in education
- 25 Years of 'Education for All' ▸ 25 años de 'Educación para Todos'
 - The World Bank and its mistaken education policiesEl Banco Mundial y sus errores de política educativa
Lifelong Learning for the North, Primary Education for the South? ¿Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida para el Norte y Educación Primaria para el Sur?
- The green, the blue, the red and the pink schools
- 12 tesis para el cambio educativo
- The 4 As as criteria to identify «good practices» in education
- ¿Educar para adaptar?Education for Adaptation?
- Rendimientos escolares y programas compensatorios: El P-900 en Chile
- Pronunciamiento Latinoamericano por una Educación para Todos / Latin American Statement on Education for All
 - Expertos

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...