Quality Formal Schooling in Marginalised Regions:
Embedding Social Justice in Education
Alison Shepherd
Abstract
Currently there exists a dilemma in global education where quality has not kept up with
a rapid expansion of access; leading to questions about definitions of quality and how to
improve it. The conceptual framework employed for defining quality affects how issues
and solutions are identified, and this dissertation makes a case for placing social justice
at the core of education planning, and enhancing democratic participation in policy and
school governance. Case studies of formal education reform are analysed from Brazil
and Colombia to assess the extent to which stakeholder participation enhances
inclusion, relevance, and democracy.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1984)
A global commitment to Education for All (EFA) has resulted in resources channelled towards
widening access to formal education and ensuring minimum requirements such as basic
infrastructure, basic teaching and learning materials, and enough qualified teachers. Much has been
written about these important physical aspects of education, and much is being done to work
towards fulfilling these requirements. Regrettably, education quality has not always kept up with the
increase in coverage, with a growing recognition of a ‘learning crisis’ (ODI 2014c; Jones & Lan 2007)
as schools are failing to meet basic standards to enable students to achieve basic numeracy and
literacy (UNESCO 2014), and failing to prepare them for employment and life outside the classroom
(UIS 2013).
In-keeping with recent recognition that there needs to be a global shift of focus from access to
‘access plus learning’ (UIS 2013), this dissertation seeks to move beyond mainstream human rights
and capital analyses of education regarding responsibility and efficiency of deliverability, to consider
not only EFA but quality EFA. What is meant by 'quality' is discussed from a social justice perspective,
following an exploration of how quality could be improved, particularly by means of enhanced
stakeholder participation throughout the education system. In exploring how education shapes, and
is shaped by, development, particular attention is given to marginalised areas as a manifestation of
inequality. The concentration is mainly (though not exclusively) within developing countries, for
example, impoverished rural areas or inner-city slums. Though attention can and should be given to
subgroups within these groups such as rural indigenous women or black working-class males, due to
its brevity, this paper provides a general overview of formal state-provided schooling, as it is the
channel through which the majority of the world’s children – particularly the less privileged – pass;
and have access to according to law.
Chapter 1 outlines empirical issues and opportunities encountered in formal education in rural
developing regions; whilst Chapter 2 provides a comparative critical analysis of theoretical
frameworks. A rationale is postulated for reconceptualising education through a peoplecentred
framework synthesising mainstream approaches with a social justice model. Chapter 3 employs the
EdQual framework proposed by Tikly & Barrett (2011) which suggests three core aspects of
education quality: inclusion, relevance, and democracy. This dissertation focuses on the latter
dimension as a precursor to the former two aspects, exploring the possibility of enabling stakeholder
participation in education governance. Chapter 4 presents examples of formal elementary school
reform in Brazil and Colombia, utilising the EdQual framework to assess the extent to which the
reforms improved rural educational quality. The conclusion presents lessons for future education
policy and implementation, and it is argued that greater stakeholder involvement is desirable and
can be possible and beneficial for improved quality within formal education systems in marginalised
areas.
One – Formal Education in Today’s World
This section presents some of the pressing issues faced by education practitioners and policymakers,
as well as the opportunities that education can provide for improving the lives of individuals and
working towards local and national development.
1.1 Issues
The universal demand for education has led to major expansions of school systems following
numerous international human rights agreements. Despite increased enrolments worldwide encouraged by initiatives like school feeding programmes or cash transfer arrangements such as the
World Food Programme in Malawi, or Nicaragua’s Social Protection Network – there continue to be
deficits in education coverage. The latest EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO 2014) stated that
there are still 57 million children who do not attend primary school – approximately 1 in 10; with a
further 69 million adolescents not in secondary school (VSO 2014). Many out-of-school children live
in conflict-affected countries (GPE 2013); half live in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (UN 2013); an urban
bias exists meaning that rural children are more likely not to attend school (ibid); as well as a gender
bias meaning that more girls are denied an education than boys (ibid; Kabeer 2005).
As well as a lack of access for marginalised children, of those who do enrol, 25% drop out before
finishing primary school, with SSA then South Asia worst affected (UN 2013), with dropout defined
as “a student who leaves school for any reason, except death, before completing school…” (Al-Hroub
2013:2). Dropout has been linked to starting late due to health or safety reasons; having to repeat
grades (UN 2013); as well as a lack of relevant curricula for
rural children, which can include being taught in a language different to that spoken at home;
necessity amongst the poorest children to engage in productive work; or girls taking on a re
productive role from a young age (Welch 2000). Where disenchantment with formal schooling
exists, it is worth considering dropout as a rational decision by individuals or families in the face of
irrelevant schooling (Al-Hroub 2013; Shepherd 2014; Tomasevski 2003). Of those who do complete
primary education, a third fail to attain basic numeracy and literacy due to poor quality schooling
(UIS 2013). UNESCO (2014) reported that in Mali, 92% of children at the end of second grade were
unable to read a single word; in Zambia, the figure was 78% of third-graders; and in Iraq, 61% of
second-graders couldn’t answer a single subtraction question correctly. In some classrooms there
are up to 100 students, despite the globally- recommended 40 maximum for optimal learning (EFA
2000), and many teachers are not qualified, or have not completed secondary or even primary
schooling themselves (Torres 1995). As stated by Plank (in Torres 1995:152), the problems in
education are “discouragingly
familiar” with “shortages of teachers, textbooks, and materials; teachers who lack both ducation
and training; teachers’ strikes lasting up to ninety days; and high rates of failure, repetition, and
dropout among students.” Nevertheless, the above figures are estimates - some believe modest - as
data surrounding learning outcomes is limited in developing regions due to both practical aspects of
data collection as well as a lack of qualitative research (UIS 2013).
A 2014 UNESCO report estimated that in order to meet the 2015 goal of EFA, 1.6 million more
teachers would be needed. VSO (2014) estimates this number to be 5.2 million. Unfortunately,
official development assistance to education is down 10% since 2010, with basic education being
underfunded by US$26 billion a year (UNESCO 2014). This annual loss of around $1.3 billion due to
reduced investment is reportedly less than military spending in just a third of a day (ibid),
highlighting an imperative to redress global expenditure priorities. Furthermore, country
governments are failing to invest the recommended 4-6% GDP into education (GPE 2014), however
this is often affected by issues such as crippling external debt meaning that government fiscal
priorities lie in repayments to lenders, offering an explanation for incongruence between policy and
action (Torres 1995).
Moreover, as with the economic downturn of the 1980s which was followed by drastic spending cuts
in education (Welch 2000), the economic crash of the 2000s extended worldwide and can be
considered a factor in reduced investment in education. Reductions in public spending are often
borne by households, yet despite investment and sacrifices made by families in anticipation of the
benefits of education, the reality of formal schooling as a panacea has either left individuals
disappointed and frustrated, or become a “drug or placebo” for the masses to believe as an escape
from poverty (Gould 1993:203).
Further factors contributing to poor quality education include teaching methods that are
authoritarian and hierarchical, rote learning which focuses on repetition rather than understanding,
out-dated and irrelevant curricula that is academic-focused and thus doesn’t value practical or ‘soft
skills’ such as teamwork and self-esteem; exacerbated by regional inequalities. According to UIS
(2013) 200 million adolescents leave secondary school without the skills for life and employment. As
pointed out by Robinson (2010) governments are trying to prepare for the future by doing what they
did in the past, using an education system designed during industrialisation, which is not relevant to
many modern contexts. Whilst schooling originally intended to produce skilled workers for a
industry-based labour market, in today’s rapidly-changing, highly-globalised, and oft-unequal world,
creative solutions are necessary for modern problems, necessitating the teaching of not only
practical skills for employment, but also critical and creative thinking skills.
In terms of policy addressing these issues, there is reliance on quantitative measures of
quality, obscuring qualitative aspects: “*G+lobal and domestic conditions have conspired in many
instances to create a ‘perfect storm’ that holds back quality improvements. At the domestic level,
incentives can be skewed towards areas which are visible, targetable, and perceived to offer higher
political rewards. At the global level, this has been reinforced through Millennium Development Goal
targets and attention to what is more easily measurable” (ODI 2014c:1)
Thus there is an imperative to direct attention to quality education, and define what quality
means.
1.2 Opportunities
Despite the challenges, progress has been made since the establishment of international
agreements about the importance of EFA, and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals
discussion include education, arguing that it is the most effective way to eliminate poverty
(UN 2014). The Global Partnership for Education (2014) state eight reasons why education is
important: Despite being an attractive argument for investment in education, the modal 'can' should
be added to express the potential of education to achieve all of these things, though by no means
the guarantee: “It can foster peace”, etc. For example, education can only promote girls’ rights if
girls are a) allowed to study and b) not marginalised through irrelevant curricula. 1. It makes people
healthier
2. It increases income
3. It promotes girls' and women's rights
4. It reduces poverty
5. It fosters peace
6. It raises crop yields
7. It boosts economic growth
8. It saves children's lives
The enabler of these potential outcomes relies on equal access; the availability of economic
resources; relevant and inclusive curricula; well-trained and supported teachers; and investment
from communities on a more than economic level. Furthermore, the above benefits are
instrumental, without recognition of intrinsic values of education.
The unfortunate reality of many state-provided schools in the developing world is that simply
ensuring children's attendance does not secure the above attributes. Currently many schools
comprise disengaged students who struggle to find employment after graduating; authoritarian
systems with corporal punishment; and irrelevant curricula and teaching practices in makeshift
buildings lacking resources and filled (or not) with frustrated, underpaid teachers and hungry, tired
children.
As summarised by UNESCO (2014): “The benefits of education – for national development,
individual prosperity, health and social stability – are well known, but for these benefits to
accrue, children in school have to be learning.” Whilst this seems like an obvious statement, it
reiterates the need to shift the education paradigm to focus on quality; including, but not restricted
to, using standardised testing to ensure basic numeracy and literacy has been attained. The EFA
goals established in Jomtien, Thailand in 1990 demonstrated a global commitment to meeting basic
learning needs. This commitment was echoed in Goal 6 of the 2000 Dakar Framework for Action,
which calls for “improving every aspect of the quality of education, and ensuring their excellence so
that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy,
numeracy and essential life skills” (World Education Forum, 2000: no pagination). However, there
was no consensus on what those outcomes should be or how they should be measured (UIS 2013).
Alongside a new consensus in the education community of ‘access plus learning’, there needs
to be a consensus about what this means. This dissertation considers attempts at school reform to
improve education quality for marginalised students, with a focus on how the framework used to
conceptualise education influences the proposed policy and implementation of reforms.
Two – Education and Development
After fifty years of development assistance, it is clear that policies and projects are not implemented
in a vacuum. They are formulated by bureaucrats and planners and implemented by people with a
particular mindset in a particular culture and with particular social norms… - Nayaran 1999 (in Burns
2007:38)
The term ‘education’ is not unambiguous, and although ‘education’ and ‘schooling’ are used
synonymously, education can include a spectrum of learning from organic, life-long learning,
to informal educational organisations, to formal school systems. Education’s etymological
roots denote ‘bringing up’, or rearing; which is reflected in formal schools’ goal of moulding
functional and valuable members of society. Education can be measured by attendance; the
‘amount’ or length of learning; or impact on society (Gould 1993:202), and as is explored later,
the agreed purpose of education influences the preferred method of measurement. Education is
valued by individuals, families, communities, governments, as well as the international community
as an instrument for development (Gould 1993). In addition to economic benefits, education can be
a tool for social change, from preserving hegemonies; establishing new political ideologies; as well as
opportunities for liberation from oppression. It is thus relevant
to consider issues of power and control in terms of decision-making about the type of education that
children receive and for what purpose. Ideological biases of the ruling party, or
the lending banks upon which governments may be dependent, can and do affect what and
how children learn in schools. From the constructivist perspective that the world is socially
constructed (Baylis & Smith 2001), so too is education which does not exist in a vacuum
from the wider global political economy (GPE) or social context.
Education and its purpose can be conceptualised using various lenses which are outlined in
this chapter: human rights, human capital, human development, and social justice. Attempts
have been made to synthesise the dominant human rights and human capital approaches (eg.
2005 EFA GMR; UNESCO 2004), though this dissertation seeks to make a case for amalgamating
human development and social justice aspects also. Each is considered separately in this chapter to
examine their development approach and definition of quality.
2.1 Human Rights
The human rights (HR) approach argues that everyone has a right to education and that as
well as being intrinsically valuable, education fosters other HRs such as equality, political
participation, preserving languages and culture, and the “full development of the human
personality” (UN 1984). Since the 1948 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, education is
an established human right. This has since been followed by numerous conferences and
agreements regarding the right to education for every child, notably the 1990 Jomtien Declaration of
Education for All, followed by the 2000 Dakar World Education Forum to ensure
that no state would fail EFA due to lack of resources. Similarly, Millennium Development
Goal (MDG) 2 set the goal of universal primary education by 2015. Other conventions pertaining to
Education for All rights include the 1960 Convention against Discrimination in Education and the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1979, ensuring
equal rights to education for boys and girls. MDG 3 to promote gender equality and empower
women stipulates the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary school enrolments.
Whilst the existence of human rights has been an important step in establishing a common
international framework, and in holding governments to account in terms of social provisions,
a rights-based approach tells us where we should be, but not necessarily how or why.
2.2 Human Capital
A commonly-applied policy framework emerged from transformations in the GPE from the
end of the Second World War as neoliberal policies were adopted and have grown ever more
entrenched (Welch 2000). This framework is an economic-focused approach with strong demand at
both local and national levels. Human capital (hereafter HC) is concerned with “finance, economic
returns, human resources development, efficiency, effectiveness, costings,
private funding and the like” (Watson 1996:49 in ibid). At the local level, families invest in
education with the expectation of social mobility and improvements in living standards, and
communities hope for the benefits through income or influence (Gould 1993). At the national
level, education is seen as a driver of development and can help nations advance scientifically
and technologically (OECD 2013). What's more, as societies develop, the quantity of formal
education necessary to fulfil the requirements of modern technological advancement increases
(Gould 1993; World Bank 2013). In this sense, Gould argues, education is viewed by governments as
a “key, perhaps even the master key, to Pandora's box of development” (p.203), with valuable rates
of return in terms of poverty alleviation, well-being promotion (particularly women's) and economic
growth; with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the main development indicator (Tikly & Barrett
2011). Thus, aside from adhering to international rights
agreements, providing universal and free education is seen as an investment in national
development.
Investment has expanded from primary schooling to include secondary and vocational training
to equip citizens with the skills necessary for integration into the new 'global knowledge
economy' (ibid). HC approach also recognises that education increases people’s chance of
employment (OECD 2013) and reduces the likelihood of poverty being perpetuated through
generations (ECLAC in Tomasevski 2003), thus aiding individuals as well as states if there
are less people needing welfare, instead contributing to the economy. Despite being the framework
employed by most development banks, there are wider benefits
of education that are not considered such as improved health, family planning, and increased
citizen participation; nor is regional or cultural diversity taken into account, or teachers’ and
students’ voices integrated into planning (Welch 2000). Measurement of quality lies in measuring
educational outcomes such as grades and graduations, meaning that other aspects of educational
quality are marginalised such as teaching practices, learning processes, and ‘soft’ skills such as
collaborative working and conflict resolution (ibid), leading to what some call the ‘diploma disease’:
numerous students qualified on paper but lacking applicable skills for work and life (Gould
1993:145). Furthermore, dropout is deemed as ‘wastage’ by international financial institutions (IFIs),
overlooking the social inequalities which lead to students dropping out of school (Welch 2000).
Following a HC approach becomes even more problematic when the economic focus is a neoliberal
one promoting reduced government interference in public services and increased private
contributions, which often exclude the poorest; and decreased regulation of the economy, which
again hits the poorest the hardest (ibid). If inequality is not objected to on moral or rights-based
grounds, there exist arguments that stipulate that inequality has a negative effect not only on those
at the disadvantaged end of the spectrum, but on a nation’s economic growth as a whole thus
affecting everyone (ibid; UNDP 2013).
Despite its shortcomings, it is “largely operative, empirically verifiable and politically consistent
with the market (or quasi-market) reforms of education” (Lanzi 2007:325). Although the World Bank
stated in 1995 that HC theory “has no genuine rival of equal breadth and rigor” (Welch 2000), other
approaches have been developed as an alternative; the Human Development
approach now being widely-recognised.
2.3 Human Development
In contrast to the HC approach, others criticise labelling people as ‘capital’ or ‘resources’,
arguing that education is inherently beneficial for human development (hereafter HD):
“Human beings are not only the most important means of social achievement, they are also its
profoundest end” (Sen in Tomasevski 2003:34). Sen’s work (1997; 1998; 2008) discusses
different freedoms that individuals and groups should have. Fundamental freedoms include
the freedom to be or do whatever it is they may “have reason to value”; allowing for plurality
depending on the needs and context of different peoples. Freedoms can be both ‘positive’ and
‘negative’, for example freedom to go to school, as well as freedom from poverty; with
education as a means to escape poverty. However, a problem with seemingly unlimited
freedoms arises when Person A’s freedom to do something is inhibited by Person B’s freedom
to do something antagonistic (Nussbaum 2003), particularly if Person A is a girl wanting to
go to school and Person B is a religious leader exclaiming that girls’ education is wrong.
Sen distinguishes between 'capabilities' and 'functionings'. The latter comprises an endless
amount of things that people can be or do, such as being healthy, having control over one's
body, going to school, or getting a job. The former involves the potential to achieve a
functioning, with capabilities as more than simply skills, including the idea of 'agency
freedom' in terms of the ability to bring about changes, which can be affected by
characteristics such as gender, race or ethnicity, rurality, (dis)ability etc. in terms of structural
power inequalities within society (Tikly & Barrett 2011). For this reason, capabilities differ
from rights and offer a more nuanced way to understand social justice: a country may state on
paper that girls have the right to education, but if girls are not attending school due to a lack
of capabilities, not only can a nation not claim to be just, but a spotlight is turned on issues in the
private sphere that may affect capabilities, in this case, gender dynamics (Nussbaum
2003).
Regarding formal education, quality schooling is both intrinsically valuable but also instrumentally in
terms of livelihood support and income generation. Education should also support the expansion of
individuals' capabilities in terms of both knowledge gained to support future employment, but also
skills such as critical thinking and autonomy for future life decisionmaking (Tikly & Barrett 2011:7).
Whilst these aspects can be valued by HC theorists, HD differs by also considering ‘positional values’
such as how increased education can affect social relations (Lanzi 2007).
HD also argues for evaluating education not only as physical inputs and outputs such as
teachers and grades, but also capabilities that can develop into a wider range of functionings.
However, there are a number of practical limitations of measuring HD. The first issue is the
lack of a definitive list of capabilities. Some education researchers have attempted to establish
capabilities for certain groups without making generalised lists (Biggeri et al 2006; Walker
2006). However, Unterhalter (2005) argues that this is a strength of Sen's theory as it supports
and expands the notion of rights, without making universal assumptions, instead believing
capabilities are contextually-situated and open to interpretation according to different group
or individual values (Tikly & Barrett 2011:8). Furthermore, Sen’s individualism differs from
neoliberal individualism in that the former is ethically individualistic; the latter ontologically
individualist (Walker 2006).
Expanding on Sen’s work, Martha Nussbaum (2000) distinguishes central capabilities in order
to offer a tangible list of development goals, as with human rights. However, one capability
is that of 'senses, imagination and thought' which is much harder to measure than quantitative
outputs like grades. If the capabilities approach is to become an established part of educational
planning and evaluation, verifiable measures are desirable. Nussbaum (2003) also criticises Sen’s
work for not explicitly making the link between HD and social justice or explaining why equality of
capabilities should be a goal for governments. However, the idea of capabilities is nonetheless a
useful tool to conceptualise different dimensions of education.
2.4 Social Justice
Whilst Sen discusses education and HD, he purposefully does not label education as a core
capability or functioning, allowing groups or individuals to decide for themselves what they
value. Whilst this idea permits plurality and ‘democratic deliberation’ avoiding paternalistic
tendencies or neo-colonialism, as Nussbaum (2003:47-8) points out: “One cannot say, ‘‘I’m
for justice, but any conception of justice anyone comes up with is all right with me.’’” ; particularly if
democratic traditions are not established, either culturally or institutionally. It is
thus more useful for this dissertation to look to the work of those who unambiguously discuss
education and social justice (hereafter SJ).
In discussing SJ, there is firstly recognition of injustice; in the form of marginalisation, cultural
imperialism, or violence, for example (Gewirtz 1998). Numerous authors have discussed
SJ education, though with varying definitions of what this entails and the extent of radicalism
(Hackman 2005). Brazilian educator Paulo Freire has extensively written about the role education
can and should play in emancipating the marginalised, and has been significantly quoted to discuss
SJ education. In employing Freirian theory it is hoped not to merely regurgitate what has been
discussed before, but to rediscover his work and illustrate its continuing relevance. Particularly as SJ
is under-theorised in educational policy (Gewirtz 1998).
Freire worked on adult literacy in the impoverished Northeast then later became Secretary of
Education 1988-1991, implementing country-wide reforms. For Freire, education is necessarily
participatory, thus traditional education is “transformation for the oppressed rather than
with them. It is my belief that only the latter type of transformation is valid.” (1970:43). He
calls for education that enables people to be critical about their realities; education that encourages
‘conscientisation’ by recognising relationships between social, political, and economic structures,
and thus allowing people to work towards meaningful solutions (Torres
1995:177).
Criticising the dominant model of teaching and learning as creating binary concepts of teachers
as knowledgeable and students as ignorant, Freire called it the ‘banking’ model of education
as teachers ‘deposit’ information into passive receptacles; similar to John-Paul Sartre’s
image of ‘digestive’ education where knowledge is ‘fed’ to students (Freire 1970:44). Freire’s
proposed alternative involves a ‘problem-posing method’ where teachers present material for
students’ consideration; reflection and action are necessarily linked; and both student and
teacher learn.
Intersections can be seen between Sen’s idea of agency freedom and radical educator Freire's
call for critical emancipatory education, though SJ more explicitly seeks to eradicate inequality.
Similarities can also be seen in their respective discussions of freedom. Sen talks about
both positive and negative freedoms; something Freire refers to stating that it is not only
‘freedom from’ but “freedom to create and to construct, to wonder and to venture” (1970:43),
which is reflected in Nussbaum’s list of capabilities that includes thought and imagination, as
well as physical capabilities. Freire also calls for a transformation of oppressive structures so
the oppressed become ‘beings for themselves’ which echoes similar sentiments to Sen’s
stipulation regarding positive freedoms in that people should be able to be or do ‘whatever
they have reason to value.’ A difference perhaps is that from an SJ perspective, education is
inherently political, as is the task of transforming it (Kabeer 2012).
Hackman (2005:10) identified five components of social justice education, and specifies that
utilising any one can be beneficial for classrooms: For others, participation in decision-making
processes is imperative (Tikly & Barrett 2011), with Fraser (2008) arguing that to create ‘parity of
participation’ it is necessary to first break down barriers of injustice that exist so participants can act
as peers, rather than within a hierarchy. Freire believed that only a revolutionary society could carry
out liberatory education in systematic terms which explains why non-formal education tends to be
more political than formal in terms of positional values of education1; for example, a women’s antiliquor campaign in India arose out of images of alcoholism presented in a women’s literacy project
(Kabeer 2010). This uncovers an issue with SJ theory that a moral commitment to equality is crucial,
but sometimes lacking in pragmatic policy-making. SJ can be seen as too left-wing or radical if critical
consciousness includes challenging the existing norms, systems, and power structures which
challenge dominant ideologies. Furthermore: “Some work simply marginalizes or rejects social
justice concerns, either because of a sceptical postmodernist denial of the tenability and desirability
of universalistic principles, or because of an uncritical, problem-solving orientation, or because of a
commitment to 'value-free' research.” (Gewirtz 1998:469) However, this challenge of SJ’s practical
adoption is simultaneously the justification for its relevance, with a body of academic-activists
purporting its importance (ibid). Similarly, HD theory talks about the importance of developing
‘moral capabilities’ in order to analyse society and generate social change (Lanzi 2007).
Why conceptualising education matters
Education is neither apolitical nor ahistorical. Since the end of World War II, education has
shifted from a welfare priority to an economic tool for promoting growth and international
competitiveness. Welch describes (2000:21): “This reorientation has profound implications for both
the kind and extent of educational provision, and places no inherent limits on the extent of
privatisation in education, or on increasing inequities. By this I do not mean that formal education is
apolitical, but rather that non-formal is more openly counterhegemonic
to accepted ideologies in formal schools; which themselves can be sites of struggle between
neoliberal hegemony and ideals such as affirmative action, or bilingual education (Darder 2002). As
Freire said: “The politics of education is part and parcel of the very nature of education” (ibid:56).
The ubiquitous use of the HC approach fails to incorporate non-economic aspects of development,
seeing growth as an end, rather than a means to the end of human development (Sen 1997). Since
the internationally-ratified MDGs, there has been a reduction in out-of-school children from 20002011 from around 102 million to 57 million, however, those that remain without schooling are
children from the poorest families; and girls, regardless of family income (UN 2013:5). A failure to
ensure gender parity in basic education suggests that rights alone are not enough to motivate
change, and that in a world where men’s labour is valued over women’s, it becomes a rational
financial and survival-related decision for poorer families to send boys to school rather than girls.
However, this HC explanation does not address why richer families choose to keep girls at home, nor
provide incentives to rectify this. A HD approach might point to the benefits of educating females in
terms of improving family health, as well as increasing participation in decision-making both within
and outside of the household (Sen 1997; Kabeer 2010:16). The latter capabilities and functionings
also relate to SJ if women are empowered to claim their rightful place in the public and private
sphere. Though whether this is a direct or indirect aim and/or result of education depends on the
programme context. It is also worth considering that women’s existing social roles may influence
how girls’ education is viewed: if roles are purely reproductive, education might be presented as
enabling women to be better wives and mothers (ibid). Furthermore, formal school systems may
reflect social inequalities, exacerbated by hierarchies and authoritarian structures (ibid), resulting in
preferential treatment to boys, or certain ethnic groups, and so on. An SJ approach is thus ar guably
imperative to critically understand gender roles and thus interrupt the cycle of discrimination which
harms so many girls.
Despite the differences between the frameworks, they are not mutually exclusive and can
overlap (Sen 1997; Tikly & Barrett 2011). Whilst Lanzi (2007) proposed a ‘closed loop’ between
HC and HD, arguing that the two frameworks complement each other in terms of investing
in both future job opportunities and life skills, it is arguable that a ‘closed loop’ between
HR, HC, HD, and SJ would be the most beneficial approach, ensuring that social equality is not
forgotten in a market-centred GPE. Synthesis is important if we recognise that economic growth is
not ‘development’ if it is not inclusive or sustainable. Nevertheless, there is tension between
differing aims of education, for example, preparing students to enter into the hierarchical job
market, yet fostering active citizenship in democratic societies (Welch 2000); or preserving cultural
traditions that may include gender hierarchies whilst promoting social change through critical
thinking and participation. The matter is complex and may have to incorporate Sen’s idea of each
community deciding what they value through, ideally, an open process of dialogue, which Freire
deemed vital. This is, however, a theoretical ideal that is not easily applicable in many contexts that
suffer from extreme poverty, conflict, entrenched hierarchies, or values universally (or in the West)
deemed unacceptable.
Nevertheless, crises can offer opportunity and stimulus for change (Lawuo 1989:138; Shepherd
2014), and change is necessarily a long-term process (Burns 2007). The following chapters thus
consider what education quality with a focus on social justice might look like, then attempts of
reform in action.
Three - Quality as Inclusion, Relevance, and Democracy
This chapter assesses definitions of quality education using Tikly & Barrett’s (2011) EdQual
framework which identifies three dimensions of quality social justice education - inclusion,
relevance, and democracy – as a guide. This dissertation purports that democratic stakeholder
participation throughout education should be a starting point for improving areas of inclusion
and relevance, and thus educational quality for marginalised areas. Definitions of quality are
variable, especially if ends – and means to those ends – differ. The most commonly-deliberated
features of quality are physical infrastructure and resources: Are school buildings safe? Are there
enough classrooms, teachers, and textbooks? What is the teacher to student ratio? The UN
declaration on the Right to Education (1948) mentions health and safety, teacher training, and
indigenous language instruction; whereas the World Bank (2013), utilising a HC approach, link
quality to learning outcomes, which raise productivity and income.
Hanushek & Wosmann (2007) found a higher positive correlation between educational quality
and economic growth than between education quantity and growth, providing governments
with an incentive to invest in quality improvement. However, educational quality needs to be
considered as more than simply economic measures or quantitative indicators regarding
achievement grades and graduation rates. More qualitative data analysing the means to better
grades and reduced drop-out is necessary, to understand what works and why. This is especially true
when schools may report false data in order to ‘save face’ if statistics make the
school look bad, or over-report enrolments to gain access to more resources (Welch 2000:6).
Curricula have been debated, mainly as a vehicle for employability, which has resulted in an
academic versus vocational debate emerging, though some governments have tried to combine the
two (Doctors 2014). Curricula reform has also included debates around national cohesion, or
alternatively cultural preservation (Welch 2000; Vasquez 2010). Recently, teacher
training has been given attention (see UNESCO EFA GMR 2014), as well as issues of equality,
particularly in reference to gender and economic disparities (eg. 1990 Jomtien conference).
However, traditional pedagogy goes largely unchallenged, and the type of stakeholder participation
increasingly utilised in health and agricultural projects is noticeably absent from formal education.
Fraser (2008) outlines aspects of social justice in education: recognition of marginalised
groups; redistribution of resources; and participation in decision-making. Drawing on Fraser’s
notion of SJ, and Sen’s HD, Tikly & Barrett (2011) identify three key areas of quality education:
inclusion, relevance, and democracy. The latter component is essential according to both
Fraser and Freire as a necessary feature of education in order to address the issues of inclusion
and relevance, as well as expand capabilities and uphold rights.
3.1 Inclusion
Inclusion in education refers to ensuring that all children have access to quality education,
regardless of their ethnicity, gender, caste, ability, sexuality, or social class. Despite national
and international pledges of EFA, there are still many marginalised social groups that continue
to be excluded. This number increases when the focus is quality EFA. Furthermore, of
those who do have access, curricula and teaching practices are not always inclusive, as education is
affected by cultural norms and can reproduce inequalities within the classroom (Darder 2002).
Alternatively, schooling can influence values and can thus be a powerful tool for inclusion (Apple
2012).
Tikly & Barrett (2011:9) define inclusion as:
“*T+he access that different individuals and groups have to a good quality education and the
opportunities they have for achieving desired outcomes. It is bivalent with respect to the
redistribution and recognition dimensions of social justice [and] has implications for how resources
for a quality education should be distributed and also, the recognition of socio-cultural identities of
different groups of learners, which influence how they develop valued capabilities.” Ensuring
inclusion necessitates disaggregated data to uncover which learners are most disadvantaged, then
targeting resources to particular learners, such as school meals to poorer students to ensure they
eat during the day, or separate sanitary facilities for girls so school days are not missed during
menstruation (ibid). This involves considering the distribution of resources both between and within
schools. Such targeted interventions have occurred in a number of countries, for example, the World
Bank’s EDURURAL project in marginalised North-East Brazil (Torres 1995); and Vietnam’s 2006-10
pro-poor policies, in particular for children in the highlands to ensure education access (Jones & Lan
2007). However, Tikly & Barrett (ibid) point out that this kind of targeting is unusual in Africa where
uniformity of provision is seen as enhancing governments’ legitimacy. Aside from generalising across
a huge and diverse content, at the 2005 Ministerial Seminar on Education for Rural Development, a
number of SSA countries agreed on the need for affirmative action policies for reducing educational
inequalities between urban and rural areas (ADEA 2005).
Inclusion also refers to curricula relevant to the environment, language, and cultural identities,
thus coinciding with the relevance aspect of a SJ approach to quality education, discussed in
the following section. Tensions can arise when deciding on the language of instruction in areas with
minority languages such as indigenous peoples in Latin America, or even majority
languages that are not the country’s official language, as can occur in Africa, dominated by
colonial languages such as English and French.
As well as the official curriculum, there is what is referred to as the ‘hidden curriculum’:
“messages that are transmitted to students through the underlying structure of meaning in
both the formal content as well as the social relationships.” (Giroux & Penna 1983:102 in
Torres 1995). This can range from the social and political context in which education exists,
to the texts chosen to teach subjects or ideas (ibid). For example, if texts or stories feature only
the favoured ethnic group or religion, this implicitly excludes others. Alternatively, exclusion
could be more explicit if texts purposefully represent certain groups unfavourably.
Inclusion can also refer to participation in decision-making, which is discussed in section 3.3.
3.2 Relevance
This section distinguishes two components of relevance: curricula and pedagogy. Bernstein
(175:85) explains: “Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy defines
what counts as valid transmission of knowledge” (in Hoadley 2011). Tikly & Barrett
(2011:10) define relevance as “concerned with the extent to which learning outcomes are
meaningful for all learners, valued by their communities and consistent with national development
priorities in a changing global context.” As educational planning is usually top-down, often only the
latter aspect is considered regarding how education can aid the nation as whole, with a ‘trickledown’ assumption of benefits. Whilst this idea is valid, the other two areas of relevance are equally
as important though less discussed. Developing capabilities involves what individuals, communities,
and nations have reason to value and - linked to the democracy dimension - allowing people to have
voice and control over the delivery and content of their schooling in a way which recognises
different identities.
The Eurocentric public education model was exported to colonies to train, mostly boys, to
become clerks for the colonists (Gould 1993; Escobar 1995; Lawuo 1989). Often this took
place through missionaries, adding a religious conversion aspect to education, and literacy
was valued instrumentally for employment, or to read the Bible. Christian colonial education
is arguably the epitome of exclusive, irrelevant, and undemocratic schooling: education
through an imposed foreign religion in a context different to that in which it was designed to a
select number of privileged children. That is not to say recipients had no agency, as individuals
and communities manipulated Western education to their needs (ibid), though modern
government-provided education needs to evolve from being planner-centred to people-centred.
Woodson (1933) went as far as to argue that irrelevant curricula for children constitutes
'miseducation'. Although Woodson wrote in the context of African-American children, the same
argument can be extended to other contexts, from education in the multicultural West (Watson
2014) to schools in developing regions. The author conducted research in rural Mexico in 2013 and
in an interview, a secondary teacher from Mexico explains:
“*There are p+roblems in algebra because they *the students+ don’t see the relevance in the reality in
which they live. Many students say: “Why should I care about algebra if I don’t have the money to
carry on studying? I’m only going to finish secondary and then go to look after my animals in the
countryside.” (Shepherd 2014a: Appendix)
Material should not only ensure students gain employment, but also expand their capabilities
and relate to their lives as they are and as they wish them to be. Aside from ‘integrated curricula’
combining academic and vocational content, life skills such as hygiene and conflict
resolution can be taught, or kitchen gardens cultivated for food sovereignty as in Bhutan
(FAO 2010). As in Mexico, an urban-biased curriculum utilised in rural areas is a common problem. In
Tanzania, Nyerere’s government prioritised an agricultural-focused curriculum not only for relevance
but for food sovereignty and national postcolonial development that was not tied up in dependency
(Nyerere 1967). In a similar departure from previous ideology, post-apartheid South Africa
introduced ‘Curriculum 2000’ with a heavy focus on social justice to redress years of racism and
oppression (Hoadley 2011). There is, however, a contradiction between arguing for ‘relevance and
real-world problem-solving’ and pre-packaged curricula (ibid); particularly where relevance is
defined by the government, excluding the voice of other
stakeholders.
As pointed out by Tikly & Barrett (2011:9), learning materials alone are not sufficient to enable
learning without appropriate pedagogical practices. Rote learning and 'teaching to the test'
leave little room for creativity or critical thinking in teaching or learning. “Under these conditions,
students are being disenfranchised and created into low-skilled laborers, not citizens who are
participatory in their own liberation and education” (Watson 2014:172). Tshireletso (1997) also
found that authoritarian teaching and corporal punishment employed in Botswanan schools did not
relate to the way children were raised in rural areas (in Tikly & Barrett 2011:10). Furthermore,
overreliance on test results as a measure of quality obscures other aspects of schooling that cannot
be measured in this way.
Pedagogical reforms are gaining ground, with BRAC in Bangladesh and Escuela Nueva in
Colombia exporting their learner-centred teaching to other countries (the latter of which is
discussed in detail in Chapter 4). Teacher education is therefore imperative to support teachers to
be good facilitators of learning, and reforms. The One Laptop Per Child initiative illuminates this
importance, as ICTs in schools can only flourish if teachers are comfortable with technology (ibid).
The extent to which teachers can influence policy and management, and consequently the changes
that occur in their classrooms, is an important aspect to be considered.
There therefore needs to be a shift in pedagogy from teacher-centred education to studentcentred that is well-supported by all stakeholders from parents and teachers to policymakers.
Involving stakeholders in education governance is discussed in the next section.
3.3 Democracy
This paper utilises the term ‘democracy’ to refer to “participatory social justice in relation to
education quality” (Tikly & Barrett 2011:11). As argued by Freire (1970), Sen (1998), and
Fraser (2008), this dissertation asserts that participation is vital to the other previously discussed
aspects of quality and the expansion of capabilities. Following criticisms, particularly from Southern
voices, of “top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic” development (Escobar
1995:44), the importance that project stakeholders participate has become central to
development discourse (Michener 1998). Though the terms ‘beneficiaries’, ‘stakeholders’,
‘community’ and ‘public’ are often used interchangeably, 'stakeholders' is preferred in this
paper due to being less loaded with questionable connotations than ‘community’ with the idea
of homogenous groups (Cannon 2014), or ‘beneficiaries’ which implies top-down delivery of
“ “badly needed” goods to a “target” population.” (Escobar 1995:44) Tomasevski (2013:55) argues
that education should involve four key stakeholders: government; students; parents (‘first
educators’); teachers (‘professional educators’). Civil society, local leaders, and NGOs could also be
included. Often, participation in education refers to attending school or contributing in class. This
dissertation, however, seeks to explore participation in governance, with 'governance' defined as
“the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented” (Participation
Works 2014: no pagination). Participation
could occur throughout the education system from in-classroom regarding class
content and delivery, to within schools regarding timetables, vacations, resources, and ways
to improve inclusion (Messiou 2012). At a policy level this could include deciding how to
improve access, structure, or locally-relevant curricula.
Though some participatory techniques have been used to consult communities in developing
regions in terms of educational access, it is usually within non-formal education (Michener
1998; Robinson-Pant 2001). There is an apparent absence of participation in, for example,
curricula design which could improve relevance and thus increase enrolment and reduce
dropout rates in formal education. Furthermore, teacher dropout and low morale could be reduced
if teachers feel they have more control over their profession.
A HC approach might address teacher motivation with financial incentives and accountability
mechanisms such as standardised assessments, whilst a rights approach might focus on issues
of fair pay and continuing professional development. Action research (AR), on the other hand,
is necessarily participatory. AR with teachers and headteachers working with disadvantaged
students highlighted that teacher participation replaced feelings of resignation with a sense of
agency and enthusiasm (Tikly & Barrett 2011:10), aligning with Sen’s idea of expanding capabilities.
For AR to entrench SJ, Participatory Action Research (PAR) – AR that is inherently
political in that empowerment of the marginalised is at its core – could be employed to empower
staff and students.
In order for Freire’s idea of dialogue between teacher and student to take place, teachers must
themselves be ‘conscious’ of their reality to facilitate education, rather than ‘miseducation’. The
likelihood of governments providing formal teacher training that encourages this depends
on a) the ideology of the government, and b) the extent to which their ideology is explicit or
implicit. This, however, is an opportunity and justification for teachers being more involved
in their own education and ‘creating meaning together’ (Freire 1970). Similarly with educational
decision-making taking place at a national level, policies can be influenced by ruling party ideology
(Loewenson 1999). This both justifies promoting wider stakeholder participation, yet simultaneously
provides a disincentive for governments to encourage it.
There are many examples of stakeholder participation in non-formal education that foster inclusivity
and relevance, whilst empowering participants. Aforementioned examples include
the N.E. Brazilian adult literacy programme (Freire) and the women’s literacy campaign (Kabeer)
where learning occurs through dialogue between students. The farmer-to-farmer movement in
Central America provides a further example. The author worked at the Permaculture Institute of El
Salvador (IPES) from 2010-2011 where sustainable agriculture was taught to community leaders who
then taught others in their community. Decisions were made collectively, and discussions
encouraged about the political situation of the subsistence farmers (many of whom were exguerrillas from the civil war), with notions of solidarity and selfreliance central to the organisation
(Felix-Romero 2010). The flexibility of non-formal education in that there may be no centralised
organisation to answer to means that groups can decide 'what they have reason to value' in terms of
curriculum and pedagogy. This is a limitation of formal education, but also a lesson in the possibility
of the role that decentralisation can play in allowing diversity within national school systems.
Furthermore, though with IPES participation was an organic, grassroots process, Michener
(1998:2116) reported that in Burkina Faso, for local people “participation had little to do with selfreliance, empowerment or even efficiency. Instead, it is an opportunity to extract resources from
willing agencies”; illustrating that participation in practice can be ‘thin’ rather than ‘thick’ democracy
(Gandin & Apple 2013).
Benefits
Ideas about participation lead us to question why democracy is desirable. Gilson et al
(2008:1686) view participation as a right: “People who are the intended beneficiaries of government
policies and actions have a right to participate in their design, delivery, and assessment.” From a HC
perspective participation can make education more efficient and effective if decision-making powers
or financial investment increase personal investment in education; something Michener (1998) calls
‘planner-centred’ participation outcomes. Considering HD, stakeholder participation could increase
confidence, build collaborative decision-making, as well as other skills such as budgeting and
research. However, regarding social justice, participation becomes more ‘people-centred’, that is,
democratic
participation where stakeholders have equal voice (ibid), becoming emancipatory for
marginalised groups which is imperative if we want development that is egalitarian and sustainable,
as ratified in international pledges. Robinson & Taylor (2013:32) stipulate that SJ
student participation involves four core values: “communication as dialogue; participation
and democratic inclusivity; the recognition that power relations are unequal and problematic;
and the possibility for change and transformation.” As summarised by Loewenson (1999:7):
“To some, 'participation' is a means to other development ends such as enhanced local skills, and
increased efficiency, accountability, and sustainability, with the view that dialogue is necessary
regarding the mutual roles of service providers and service users. To others, it is an end in itself due
to the formation of solidarity networks and the empowerment of its members.”
The UK initiative Participation Works (2014: no pagination) describe the in-school benefits
of student participation: Although this research was carried out in a UK context, there is support
from developing country contexts for increased participation in reforms. Tikly & Barrett (2011) found
that attempts to promote learner-centred education in Africa failed when implemented top-down
highlighting the importance of teacher involvement and buy-in with reforms. However, specific
countries are not mentioned, therefore it is difficult to assess whether it was the topdown
implementation of reform, or the change to a non-teacher-centred role that was resisted due to
cultural norms. Freire explains (1970:68):
“One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action programme which fails to
respect the particular view of the world held by the people...action which is not critically aware of
this situation runs the risk of either ‘banking’ or of preaching in the desert.”
As early as 1989, Lawuo, writing about the Kenyan formal educational reforms during colonisation,
argued: “…the extent in which the local people understood the type of education that would assist in
the community development…implies that educational planners ought to seek the views of the
members of the community before they undertake new education planning. The local people have
relevant ideas on the type, level, and amount of education needed in their community to assist
development. There is evidence that involving pupils more in school life can have positive impacts
for themselves, the school and staff. It can lead to:
• Improvements in attainment
• Pupils more confident in their learning
• Improvements in teaching practice
• Better discipline and behaviour
• Enhanced communication and listening skills for pupils.
“Their views and ideas may need refining by educational experts but they should not be overlooked
or even ignored.” (p.139) Lawuo implicitly raises the point that community members are “local
experts”, as valuable as “education experts” in the planning process. Messiou (2012) echoes this
sentiment arguing that students are educational experts through their lived experiences, reiterating
Heron’s (1996) notion of different types of knowledge (see Burns 2007:3). That is not to say that
governments need not be committed to reforms, as in Mexico tensions between active Teacher
Unions and a non-responsive government led to a social justice movement in Oaxaca having an
adverse effect on education as strikes meant missed school days for students (Shepherd 2014a); only
that theirs should not be the only voice.
Limitations
Despite the desirability of participation, it is not suggested as a panacea, or easy to implement.
It is a long-term cyclical process of reform and re-evaluation, not without limitations.
Loewenson (1999) found that regarding public participation in healthcare through
decentralised decision-making, there was weak information access; limited authority of
participants; and most participation was aimed at management and implementation, when
groups would rather participate in policy-making and implementation. Michener (1998) also
found that ‘genuine participation’ in a non-formal education project in Burkina Faso was not
easy to ensure as stakeholders manipulated outcomes according to their needs. Thus it can be
said that whilst Freire’s ‘pedagogy of love’ (Darder 2002) is an ideal to be worked towards,
ensuring democratic participation within formal schools is arguably ‘romantic
possibilitarianism’: “We know that the issue is not whether “the subaltern speak,” but
whether they are listened to” (Apple 2013). Participation therefore requires constant and skilful
facilitation. Networks “where hierarchies are softened and bottom-up planning and organization are
implemented” are thus necessary to “reveal asset complementarities, share specific knowledge or
expertise, and promote cooperation in educational projects” (Lanzi 2007:433). When Secretary of
Education in Brazil, Freire introduced school councils of teachers, principals, parents, and
government officials in order to decentralise power and ensure participation of all stakeholders, not
just those traditionally holding power (Torres 1995). Assumptions about ‘outsiders’ as more
knowledgeable must be challenged, especially in North-South collaboration (Chambers 2002).
Furthermore, participation can be time-consuming and thus undesirable where there are time
constraints.
There is a further issue of children perceived as dependants, not trusted decision-makers with
valid opinions; an attitude that is present in most cultures that have hierarchies concerning
age, which makes student participation hard to achieve when policy-makers and teachers feel
that ‘they know best’. There is thus the issue of ensuring equal participation of marginalised
groups where power inequalities inevitably exist. Furthermore, Loewenson (1999) warns that
realistic expectations of what is possible must be made clear to stakeholders; and representatives
must be elected to deter powerful figures self-selecting.
There is also the threat that with the concept of ‘participation’ so popular with development
organisations and academics, that it becomes a superficial exercise in order to fulfil specifications,
rather than a meaningful process; especially for stakeholders with less power (Michener 1998).
Lastly, participation is inherently social and political, presenting both opportunities and threats for
civil society and governments (ibid), whose aims can be at odds. For example, despite national
pledges of EFA, citizens often don’t know how to exercise their right to education (Torres 1995).
Public engagement and mobilisation is therefore critical in terms of promoting democracy and
holding governments to account.
Whilst weaknesses and barriers to increased democratic participation exist, they do not
signify that it is impossible or should be abandoned in theory or practice; particularly if the
benefits of participation can be demonstrated. Despite reported problems with superficial
‘tick-box’ participation in a Zimbabwean healthcare project, there was a willingness of civil
society to participate meaningfully, with a Women’s Action Group arguing: “Community
involvement can, if properly planned, strategised, with true and equal representation and
consultation at all levels, enable people to get quality care and influence the existing health
policy” (in Loewenson 1998:16). Thus there needs to be effective facilitation of participation
in educational governance, with sufficient buy-in from all stakeholders, ensuring support for
reforms from both the government and the grassroots to create an enabling environment for
change to occur. As pointed out by Tikly & Barrett (2011), more research is needed into the
(dis)advantages of decentralising education; with a more nuanced understanding of the
difference between decentralising decision-making and devolving financial responsibilities.
Four –Education Reform in Practice
This chapter deliberates formal school reforms in Brazil and Colombia over the past fifty
years in terms of to what extent they have been successful in improving education quality for
marginalised populations, drawing on the EdQual framework of inclusion, relevance, and
democracy for analysis. The examples offer a comparison of policy in historically- and politicallydiffering contexts; furthermore, they are reforms which, although supported by external donors,
were designed and driven from within. Though both case studies are from Latin America, and their
unique political and social contexts cannot be ignored or generalised, the findings are generalisable
to theory. Lessons may also be applicable to other country contexts, offering space for South-South
or South-North transference of ideas, as opposed to traditional North-South flows of ‘expertise’ in
development.
4.1 Porto Alegre, Brazil
This case study analyses the attempts of the left-wing Workers’ Party (PT) to improve
inclusion, relevance, and democracy in poor urban areas of the city of Porto Alegre through
participatory governance. Reform took place as a deliberate alternative to mainstream
neoliberal approaches to schooling, and was part of wider city transformation to tackle
inequalities.
Background
Brazil in the 21st century suffered high levels of inequality after centuries of colonisation and
military dictatorships which had produced a small, landed elite (Azvedo & Schugurensky
2005). Rural poverty was high, resulting in an exodus to the cities in search of employment,
which resulted in the emergence of urban favelas (slums) and further social exclusion (Gandin &
Apple in Apple 2013). Favelas are low-income communities characterised by crowding,
inadequate housing, and a lack of basic infrastructure and services (Szwarcwald, Andrade, &
Bastos 2002), as well as prevalent gender violence (Wilding 2010). Education in Brazil was
typically highly centralised giving schools little or no autonomy, and exclusion of poor students
endemic (Gandin & Apple 2004), and although enrolment is compulsory between the
ages of 6-15, attendance is not enforced (Bursztyn & Coffman 2012).
Citizen Schools
In response to the military dictatorship of the 1970s, the social democratic PT formed
comprising labour unions, grassroots organisations, and intellectuals. In 1988 PT won the
municipal elections in the city of Porto Alegre and decided to implement educational reforms
in order to give impoverished urban populations quality education to help them not only enter
the labour market but become empowered citizens (ibid). Reforms were introduced by the PT
that were (re)elected in the city from 1989-2005, and included participatory budgeting and
‘Citizen Schools’ with participatory school councils. Here, ‘citizen’ is employed not in the
neoliberal sense as consumers or clients, but in the sense of participating in “thick” processes
of democracy (ibid). Reforms manifested as a conscious alternative to neoliberal education,
and thus offer an example of transformation despite economic crises and ideological attack
from right-wing parties and media (Gandin & Apple 2013).
Due to the organisation of Brazilian education, PT controlled elementary education only. It
thus decided to build primary schools in the most marginalised areas, often in favelas, as
although access was around 95%, dropout was a huge problem (ibid). Inclusion and “thick”
democracy was further encouraged through democratisation of governance, access, and
knowledge. The former aspect included participation from all stakeholders, including students,
who were involved in monitoring and evaluation, allocation of resources, and curriculum
organisation. Council members were elected by community members, and the school
principle was elected by the whole school community. School years were organised into ‘Cycles of
Formation’ organised by age instead of ability, with automatic promotion to avoid ‘punishment’ for
‘slow’ learning. However, some criticised this approach for offering a less-rigorous education for the
poorest students (ibid).
Learning Laboratories were established to support students with special needs, as well as to
provide a space for teachers to conduct Action Research to improve the quality of their
classes. Further AR involving students, parents, and community members identified main
interests and concerns to become classroom content in a ‘thematic complex’ about issues such
as rural exodus, social organisation, and property (ibid). Here, Freire’s (himself a member of
PT) idea of self-directed learning through exploration and critical dialogue was consciously
adopted. Furthermore, children learned not through books irrelevant to their lives realities, but
starting with the historical experiences of their families, many of whom had migrated from
the countryside to the city in search of employment to experience further marginalisation
(ibid). Relevance was further promoted by incorporating African samba music and African
religion ‘candomble’, as well as openly discussing racism in Brazil. Mulitculturalism was
integrated organically, not “artificially added to a bureaucratically determined structure that is
averse to “difference”.” (ibid)
Citizen Schools attempted to consciously deviate from traditional ideas about knowledge and
knowers and thus from traditional power hierarchies. Objectives were: “not simply the formulations
of a team of experts…but are a democratic and collective construction, with
the participation of all the segments involved in education (including especially those people
historically excluded from nearly all of the processes involved in education).” (ibid) Furthermore,
through the participation of community members in the councils, learning
occurred in terms of skills to govern and budget effectively, thus incorporating education both
within and outside of the classroom for not only students and teachers. Government agencies
themselves were also ‘re-educated’ through popular participation teaching them how to better
serve communities (ibid).
Taking a closer look at participation, although introduced as a top-down initiative, Porto
Alegre had a history of social struggle and popular organisation and therefore had an active
community to engage, linking the vital components of giving people a voice, and actually
having that voice be listened to. Due to schools being centred in poor communities,
domination of discussions by middle-class voices was not a reported issue, though
domination by males and more education people in participatory budgeting meetings was,
despite gender parity of attending participants (ibid). Nevertheless, Baiocchi (1999) reported
that number of years of participation was actually the main factor regarding who spoke most
in meetings. Data regarding the racial makeup of members if unknown.
A further issue with enhanced participation is the time necessary to establish councils, elect
members, and ensure participation, though the long-term benefits arguably outweigh this
(Gandin & Apple 2013). Additionally, participation can be time-consuming for citizens who
have full-time job(s), families, and homes to take care of, and thus sustainability of
participation might have to include rotation of participants. Gandin’s research also found that
a number of schools had lapsed into tick-box participation over time (ibid), highlighting the
difficulties of ensuring “thick” democracy, whether that be due to time constraints, or lack of
will from authority or participants.
Finally, despite PT having de facto power in the city, there was reportedly a constant struggle
against hegemonic powers and the conservative press, and once a new political party took
power in 2005, some reforms such as participatory budgeting and cycles of formation were
kept, whereas others such as AR and thematic complexes were not (ibid). Sustainability of
change thus relies on sustained political will when reforms involve government systems.
Furthermore, the context in which the reforms were implemented connected to wider whole
city transformation, reminding us that formal education does not exist in a vacuum and
change - particularly where the purpose of education is social change – requires a long-term
and whole-system approach.
Nonetheless, and without romanticising Citizen Schools, the initiative provides an example of
formal education reforms which enhanced inclusion and relevance through democratic
participation. Decentralisation which resulted in autonomy and action unrestricted by
bureaucracy also supply an alternative to other cases where decentralisation has led to a
decline in resources (ibid). A simultaneous limitation and opportunity of Citizen Schools is
that it is within primary school only, and thus its lessons could be extended to secondary
school to perpetuate and diffuse its outcomes.
4.2 Colombia
This case study focuses on a Colombian initiative to improve quality in multigrade rural
schools by reforming curricula, pedagogy, and stakeholder participation and is thus a pertinent
example relating to the EdQual framework. It is also an interesting comparison with
Brazil’s urban reforms as it was more of a bottom-up process that arose out of necessity rather
than a top-down imposed political ideology. It is especially interesting as the model has been
exported to a number of other developing countries, offering an interesting example of
South-South development cooperation, though with varying degrees of success.
Background
A negative correlation has been found between distance from the capital city and educational
access and quality (Tomasevski 2003), with children living in urban areas up to 30 percent
more likely to complete primary school than children in rural areas (UNDP 2013). Considering
that around 85% of people experiencing poverty live in rural areas (OPHI 2014) it is imperative
that educational quality is addressed in such areas in order to tackle poverty and inequality.
Furthermore, marginalised social groups often reside in rural areas, for example, indigenous
populations in the Americas (Torres 1995).
Like many Latin American countries in the 1960s, Colombia faced extreme disparities between
urban and rural areas in terms of employment, wages, plus education access and quality
(Kline 2002). Only 18% of rural students completed primary school, compared to 42% of
urban students; and many children were not enrolled at all. Often there were only 1-2 teachers
to teach all 5 grades, resulting in multigrade classrooms in unsafe buildings, lacking instructional
materials (ibid). The curriculum also had an urban bias and was therefore not relevant in a rural
context (ibid), an issues faced by many rural populations (Shepherd 2014a).
Prior to the 1960s, rural education had not been a priority, it was only after a novel 16-year
power-sharing arrangement ordered that Liberal and Conservative parties alternate the presidency
every 4 years that rural development became a concern as a way to ‘pacify’ rural areas due to
continued violence driven by guerrillas, narcotraffickers and right-wing paramilitaries thus social
demands placed on the political system by unrest influenced government action (McEwan &
Benveniste 2002; Psacharopoulos et al 1985). The State’s legitimacy was thus in crisis, and reform a
way to rectify this.
Escuela Nueva
In an attempt to address rural educational deficiencies, UNESCO sponsored a “Unitary
Schools” project in 150 rural schools which encouraged cooperative learning between students
of different grades, facilitated by teachers and a guidebook, with automatic promotion
to avoid repetition (Kline 2002). Due to its success, in 1967 the Ministry of Education (MoE)
decided to expand the project to every one-teacher school, however there were issues with
teachers not fully understanding the reforms and finding the creation of their own educational
material too much work (ibid).
In the 1970s a group of rural primary teachers created learning guides for all basic subjects in
all five grades, in order to address the latter problem by reducing teacher preparation time.
This represents not only initiative on the part of teachers as problem-solvers, but also gives
them ownership over the educational change. They also decided materials needed to be
adaptable to the local context (ibid), highlighting the importance of relevant curricula. In
1976, these guides were distributed to 500 “Escuelas Nuevas”, or ‘New Schools’. Nevertheless,
in 1983 only 20% of rural students were completing primary school, and so it was decided
that the Escuelas Nuevas (EN) project be scaled-up. By 1982 it was implemented in 2000
schools, and by 1986 the programme was officially institutionalised under the MoE, supported
by the World Bank. The government also decided to pay teachers directly to combat corruption, all
in an attempt to “bring order to its chaotic education system” (Polo 1996 in Kline 2002:171).
Aside from relevant learning guides to make teaching multigrade easier, there are further
components of EN that address issues of inclusion, relevance, and democracy. Firstly, teacher
training is ongoing, with monthly meetings for teachers to share experiences and collaboratively
problem-solve, ensuring that teacher support for the reforms continue and morale does not wane
(McEwan & Benveniste 2001). As well as relevant curricula being more inclusive for rural children,
peer teaching is used, not only to reduce the issues arising with multigrade classrooms, but also to
make pedagogy more student-centred, additionally recognising the value that children have as not
only acquirers of new knowledge, but as possessors of existing knowledge. This idea echoes Freire’s
belief that education should not be a ‘banking’ experience where students wait for teachers to
‘deposit’ ideas into their heads, instead being collaborative, and also is a step towards trusting
children as partners in education, instead of merely recipients. Giving children positions of power as
peer teachers can positively affect children’s self-esteem (Messiou 2012) – something confirmed by
an evaluation of EN which found that students not only had better grades than traditional schools,
but also fared better on civic values and self-esteem (Psacharopoulos et al 1993) - as well as
developing practical speaking skills and ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork.
In 1989 the World Bank named EN one of the three most successful reforms that had impacted
policy in the world; and in 2000 the UN Human Development Report named it one of Colombia’s
greatest achievements (Fundacion Escuela Nueva, n.d.). Furthermore, education experts are
increasingly recognising the value of this kind of learning environment (Chambers
1994; Freire 1970; Messiou 2012; Robinson 2010). Due to EN’s reported success rates, the scheme
was adopted by other country governments suffering similar problems of rural schools with only 1-2
teachers. Expansion began in the rest of Latin America and was later implemented by the
Philippines, East Timor, Vietnam and Uganda, with over 20 countries in total experimenting with the
project (ibid). This expansion highlights the potential for EN to be both applicable and replicable for
other countries. However, some have argued that in its exportation to other countries, the ‘New
Schools’ lost their grassroots origins, becoming a purely top-down reform (McEwan & Benveniste
2001), resulting in mixed results regarding whether the reforms improved the quality of education.
El Salvador reported improvements based on grades only in basic literacy, but not in other
subjects (Hurtado et al 2000), whereas Mexico reported positive improvements in quality
based on participation in class, collaborative working, tolerance of others, and self-esteem
(SEP 2009); ‘softer’ skills increasingly recognised as important. These differing, but equally
important, ways to measure quality highlight a need for an internationally-agreed definition of
quality to be able to compare EN results. An example of successful adoption in the sense of retaining
EN’s core values and components is Guatemala. Implemented in 1989 as part of a wider plan to
improve girls’ access, bilingual studying, and education management, by 1998 there were 283
government and 1000 privately-funded ‘Nueva Escuela Unitarias’ (NEUs), with reported reductions
in dropout and repetitions, but improved completion rates meaning they became more costeffective per student (Kline 2002). Chesterfield & Rubio (1996) compared ENUs to non-ENU schools
to investigate egalitarian beliefs (measured by turn-taking and students helping one another),
leadership (giving directions to other students), and grades and found that ENUs scored higher on
every count, though the difference for boys was greater than for girls. Kline (2002:177) points out
that an important aspect of Guatemala’s success is that they did not “merely import a set ‘package’
of components”, instead adapting learning guides to local contexts and languages; something
particularly important for Guatemala’s diverse indigenous population.
However, although the EN model revolutionised pedagogy, and made curricula more relevant
to rural settings, it did not encourage students to challenge Colombia’s political situation or
their position within it, leading us to a distinction between multicultural education, which
seeks to “incorporate various cultures into the curriculum through additive approaches”,
compared with ‘transformative education’ which uses “social, political, and historical issues
to facilitate critical thinking and analysis about education’s role in social mobility.” (Watson
2014:171) A Freirian SJ approach would no doubt advocate the latter as opposed to the former
which, whilst being more inclusive and relevant, does not contest institutional discrimination
or class structures. In conclusion, there are some aspects of EN’s success to be considered: the first is
that the programme was “not meant to be static, but rather an ongoing exchange between students,
teachers, and the community” (Kline 2002:172). This exchange is an important aspect of democratic
participation of different stakeholders that do not usually have decision-making powers. Another
influential factor in the expansion is that one of the innovators of the project, a professor, was hired
in the MoE to coordinate teacher training, thus boosting political support within the government
(Kline 2002). Psacharopoulos et al (1993) also comment that support in some provinces was reliant
on preferences of local administrators. Financial support was also provided by external donors,
allowing Colombia to proceed with its ambitious reforms.
It can thus be argued that this combination of both high-level support, and grassroots
ownership by the teachers contributed to the success of the project; the latter aspect of which
waned during the expansion process. Tikly & Barrett (2011:10), referring to EN, conclude:
“Teacher recruitment, training, deployment, management and motivation are all key issues
that are particularly problematic when education systems expand rapidly.”
Lessons for Reform
Whilst reform in both case studies were motivated by a desire to improve quality education
for disadvantaged students, Citizen Schools were inspired by left-wing ideology with a focus
on critical consciousness of class inequalities - though arguably at the expense of discussing
other issues such as gender and race (Azvedo & Schugurensky 2005; Gandin & Apple in
Apple 2013) – whereas Escuela Nueva was driven by a right-wing government’s need to
pacify rural unrest, and though curricula was reformed to be more relevant, it did not have an
overtly political undercurrent. Thus examples were given of the possibility of participation
improving educational quality through relevance, inclusion, and democracy from both a
revolutionary and reformist approach.
What can be concluded from both case studies is that participation in education policymaking
and implementation can contribute to the success and sustainability of reforms. Furthermore,
there must be a change-enabling political environment, either due to party ideology
as in Brazil, or political unrest as in Colombia. Reforms were successful where both bottomup
and top-down commitment combined as in Porto Alegre, and Colombia before the project
was expanded. When projects are scaled-up as a package, success rates tend to decrease as
local context is not taken into account.
As summarised by McEwan & Benvensite (2001:558): “*E+ducation reform is a contested
process that is continuously shared and reshaped as political actors and institutions compete
for influence and scarce resources in a variable social arena.” Thus success of reforms depends
on critical awareness and constant re-evaluation and re-negotiation with stakeholders.
Limitations of these case studies is that although theory presented in this dissertation is not
context-specific, the examples presented focus on ‘middle-income' countries which, despite
rapidly growing economies, experience rising levels of inequality. Whilst all country governments are
obliged to ensure EFA, some may be restricted by low GDP and limited resources, whereas middleincome countries are in a better position to address education inequalities (see Table 1). That is not
to say that low-income countries cannot work towards
quality reforms (see Morales 1981), or that there aren’t lessons for more ‘developed’ countries
as one could point to rural educational deficiencies in 'developed countries' such as on
Reservations in the United States or in aboriginal Australia, as well as inner-city school deficiencies in
the US and UK. Therefore, despite the similarities of the case studies in terms of
geographical location and economic position, there are sufficient differences between them to
provide illuminating insight into improving educational quality in formal schools.
Finally, the reforms in these studies occurred within primary education which, although obligatory in
all countries, do not to extend to secondary level. If education from a social justice perspective
necessitates social change, this will be difficult to sustain if reforms are limited to affecting younger
children only.
Conclusion
The need for quality education is vital in today’s rapidly changing world, where growing
educational inequalities marginalise many. If education is to be a means to escape poverty
(Sen 1998), equal opportunity for capability development must be available through both
educational access and quality. From a policy perspective, “it is inconceivable that the
problems of education can be resolved without simultaneously dealing with the problem of
poverty and the segmentation of the…societies which it is causing” (Boron & Torres 1996 in
Welch 2000:23); supporting the argument for critical education, as well as the notion that
approaches to development must be holistic as complex issues cannot be understood in
isolation from wider systems (Burns 2007). Holistic approaches may involve, but are
certainly not limited to, conditional cash transfers for school and healthcare attendance to the
poorest households such as Oportunidades, Mexico or Bolsa-Familia, Brazil.
Drawing on a body of existing research, this paper calls for the synthesis of different
conceptual frameworks of education, with a conscious focus on social justice over the
dominant market-centred approach; providing a tentative framework for considering
education quality, and implementing reforms with a focus on increased stakeholder
participation.
Limitations lie in reliance on the assumption that policy-makers will recognise the importance
of equality and justice in a world where financial motivations and rates of return dictate
government and donor priorities. Furthermore, the perceived radical stance of social justice
and its prescription for change mean that its applicability in formal educational settings is
restricted, as few governments would wish to encourage the kind of ‘conscientisation’ that Friere
calls for if it means that citizens demand more from their governments, or even new
leaders and political systems. However, these issues support the argument for enhanced
participation from other stakeholders from a bottom-up perspective.
Freire’s work has been adopted by both those seeking to implement mild reforms and those
calling for revolution (Torres 1995), though Hackman (2005) believes that the former dilute
SJ theory by not demanding social change. Although whole system change is a long-term
process necessitating commitment throughout all echelons from grassroots to high-level
management (Blood & Thorsborne 2005; Burns 2007), that is not to say it should not be worked
towards, or that reforms cannot be made. (Participatory) Action Research can be carried out to
gather quantitative and qualitative data at both macro- and micro-levels in order to inform both
policy and in-school reforms; schools councils can be established to give different stakeholders a
chance to voice their opinions regarding governance; and students, teachers, and families should be
encouraged to provide input and feedback regarding curricula to make it locally relevant and
inclusive. Through quality reforms such as inclusive and student-centred pedagogy, quality indicators
can be found in both grades and ‘soft’ skills such as self-esteem and teamwork benefit
(Psacharopoulos et al 1985), expanding capabilities as students learn and become more wellrounded citizens. Stakeholders deciding for themselves what they value also means that the
limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach are reduced.
Regarding policy, Gewirtz (2006:482) provides a set of questions to guide evaluation which
include: “How, to what extent and why do education policies support, interrupt or subvert
exploitative relationships…? Processes of marginalization and inclusion..? [or] The promotion of
relationships based on recognition, respect, care and mutuality..?” The Escuela Nueva case study
illustrates the potential for reforms that are inclusive, relevant, and more democratic; as well as
warning that rapid project expansion can become top-down implemented, losing effectiveness. The
Brazilian reforms, on the other hand, highlighted the need for continued political support as once
the PT were out of power, grassroots support was not enough to maintain all changes. These
examples illustrate that promoting democratic participation
in formal education is possible, though not without shortcomings.
Despite barriers to ‘thick’ participation, it is argued that dialogue must be opened up about
how to adjust participatory frameworks to be responsive to local realities (Michener 1998).
Numerous practitioners have discussed participation (as referenced in this paper), contributing
to understanding of its importance and efficacy in development, though further studies
must be carried out and findings shared to establish improved ways of facilitating democratic
participation, particularly in the context of formal education governance. Loewenson (1999:6)
summarises: “Recommendations for future practice should be supported by information on how
different social groups have in the past raised and pursued issues, how these issues and public
concerns on quality, access, and equity have been addressed within existing structures and the
impact that participatory processes and structures have had on systems.”
Furthermore, these studies need to provide clear frameworks for common evaluation of indicators
of quality because, as with the limitations of measuring some capabilities, the difficulty of measuring
various qualitative aspects of education quality causes some to fall back on the more tangible
quantitative measurements which, whilst vital, are only part of the education quality entirety.
This dissertation maintains a stance of “optimism without illusions” (Apple 2013), recognising
limitations and the need for constant re-evaluation of a social justice approach. Despite criticisms of
SJ theory as utopian – which are not unfair considering reality’s complexity and hegemonic
entrenchment – there is a choice between continuing to address the same problems with the same
solutions or working towards new alternatives: “True utopia emerges when there are no ways to
resolve the situation within the coordinates of the possible and, out of the purge to survive, you
have to invent a new space.”” (Zizek in Apple 2013:126).
Bibliography
ADEA (2005) African Ministers Agree on Joint Effort to Enhance Education in Rural Areas.
Association for the Development of Education in Africa. Addis Ababa, September 9.
Al-Hroub, A. 2013. Perspectives of school dropouts' dilemma in Palestinian refugee camps in
Lebanon: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Development. 33.
Apple, M. (2013) Can Education Change Society? Routledge: NY.
Azvedo, J. & Schugurensky, D. (2005) Three Dimensions of Educational Democratization:
The Citizen School Project of Porto Alegre. Our Schools, Our Selves. Vol 15(1)
Baiocchi, G. (1999) Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment and
deliberative democratic theory. Mimeo.
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. (eds) (2001) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Blood & Thorsborn (2005) The Challenge of Culture Change: Embedding Restorative Practice
in Schools. Sixth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other
Restorative Practices: Sydney, Australia, March 3-5.
Burns, D. (2007) Systemic Action Research: A strategy for whole system change. The Policy
Press: Bristol.
Burns, D. (2011) Embedding Public Engagement in Higher Education. National Coordinating
Centre for Public Engagement.
Bursztyn, L. & Coffman, L. (2012) The Schooling Decision: Family Preferences, Intergenerational
Conflict, and Moral Hazard in the Brazilian Favelas. Journal of Political Economy.
120(3).
Cannon, T. (2014) Why do we pretend there is 'Community'? Problems of Community BasedAdaptation (CBA) and Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR). Institute for
Development Studies Blog. 23 April 2014.
Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman Scientific and
Technical: Essex.
Chambers, R. (1994) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PARA): Analysis of experience. World
Development. 22(9).
Chambers, R. (2002) What can PARA offer to educational researchers? NETREED Conference
Paper January.
Chesterfield, R & Rubio, F. (1996) Indicatores de conductos democráticas en las escuelas de
la Nueva Escuela Unitaria (NEU). Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development,
Guatemala BEST Project.
Darder, A. (2002) Reinventing Paulo Freire: A Pedagogy of Love. Westview Press: MA.
Doctors, S. (2014) New Integrated Curriculum for Lesotho. Unpublished document.
EFA (2000). EFA 2000 Assessment Report: Malawi. Ministry of Education: Malawi.
FAO (2010) Household food security & community nutrition (online). Available from:
http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/household_gardens_en.stm [Accessed 10 August 2014]
Felix-Romero, J. (2010) Harvesting Peace: Permaculture as Peacebuilding. George Mason
University (Unpublished PhD).
Fraser, N. (2008) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World.
Polity Press: Cambridge.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books Ltd: Middlesex.
Freire Institute (2014) How Relevant is Freire Today? Paulo Freire Summer School. 30 August.
Fundacion EN. (n.d.) online. Available: http://www.escuelanueva.org/portal/en/escuelanuevamodel.html [Accessed 20 July 2014]
Gandin, L. & Apple, M. (2004) New Schools, New Knowledge, New Teachers: Creating the
Citizen School in Porto Alegre. Teacher Education Quarterly. Winter.
Gewirtz, S. (1998) Conceptualizing social justice in education: mapping the territory. Journal
of Education Policy. 13(4).
Gilson et al (2008) Addressing Determinant of Social Inequalities in Health. The Lancet.
pp.1684-89
Global Partnership for Education (2014) online. Available from:
http://globalpartnership.org/education [Accessed 13 June 2014]
Gould, W. (1993) People and Education in the Third World. Longman Scientific and Technical:
Essex
Hackman, H. (2005) Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence
in Education. 38.
Hanushek, E. & Woshmann (2007) Education Quality and Economic Growth. The World
Bank. Washington DC.
Hoadley, U. (2011) Knowledge, knowers and knowing: Curriculum in South Africa. In Yates,
L. & Grumet, M. (Eds). Curriculum in Today’s World: Configuring Knowledge, Identities,
Work and Politics. World Yearbook of Education.
Hurtado, V. Cruz, B. & Sermeño, R. (2000) Aulas Alternativas: Una Estrategia de Atención
Educativa a Niños y Niñas en la Zona Rural del Departamento de la Libertad. Ministry of
Education: El Salvador.
JICA (n.d.) Approaches for Systematic Planning of Development Projects: Rural Development.
Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Jones, N. & Lan, P. (2007) Education for All in Vietnam: high enrolment, but problems of
quality remain. Young Lives Policy Brief 4. Oxford.
Kabeer, N. (2005) Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the
third millennium development goal 1. Gender and Development 13(1).
Kline, R. (2002) A Model for Improving Rural Schools: EN in Colombia and Guatemala.
Current Issues in Comparative Education: Colombia University.
Lanzi, D. (2007) Capabilities, human capital and education. The Journal of Socio-Economics.
36. Pp. 424-435.
Lawuo, Z. (1989) Education and Social Change in a Rural Community: A study of colonial
education and local response among the Chagga between 1920 and 1945. Dar es Salaam
University Press.
Loewenson, R. (1999) Public Participation in Health: Making People Matter. IDS Working
Paper 84.
McEwan, P. & Benveniste, L. (2001) The politics of rural school reform: EN in Colombia.
Journal of Educational Policy. 16(6). Pp.547-559.
Messiou, K. (2012) Improving School through the Voice of the Students. Notes about an Experience
Carried out in Cantabria (Spain). International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education,
Vol 3(4)
Michener, V. (1998) The Participatory Approach: Contradiction and Co-option in Burkina
Faso. World Development 29(12).
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2003) Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice.
Feminist Economics. Vol 9(2-3) Pp.33-59
Nyerere, J. (1967) Education for Self-Reliance. The Ecumenical Review. 19(4).
ODI (2014a) Basics and beyond: what drives national progress in education? ODI Development
Progress: London.
ODI (2014b) Towards better education quality: Indonesia’s promising path. Development
Progress. Overseas Development Institute: London.
ODI (2014c) Unbalanced progress: what political dynamics mean for education access and
quality. ODI Development Progress: London.
OECD (2013) The Rationale for Higher Educational Investment in Latin America. August.
OECD Development Centre Working Paper No.319.
O’Neill, J. (2013) Who you calling a BRIC? Bloomberg View (online). 12 November. Available:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-12/who-you-calling-a-bric- [Accessed
9 August 2014]
OPHI (2014) Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas: Direct comparisons using the global MPI
2014. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Index: University of Oxford. June.
Participation Works (2014) Available at: www.participationworks.org.uk [Accessed 2 July
2014]
Psacharopoulos, G. & Loxley, W. (1985) Diversified Secondary Education and Development:
Evidence from Colombia and Tanzania. World Bank: John Hopkins University Press.
Psacharopoulos, G. Rojas, C. & Velez, E. (1993) Evaluation of Colombia’s “EN”: Is Multigrade the
Answer? Comparative Education Review. 37(3). Pp.263-276.
Right to Education (online). (n.d.) Available at: http://www.right-to-education.org/issuepage/
marginalised-groups [Accessed 22 June 2014)
Robinson, K. (2010) Changing Education Paradigms. The Royal Society of Arts. London.
Robinson, C. & Taylor, C. (2013) Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in
two student voice projects. Improving Schools. 16(32).
Robinson-Pant, A. (2001) Development as Discourse: What relevance to education? Compare:
A journal of Comparative and International Education. 31(3).
Sen, A. (1997) Human capital and human capability. World Development. 25(12) pp. 19571961.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Sen, A. (2008) The Idea of Justice. Journal of Human Development. 9(3) pp. 331-342
SEP (2009) Escuela Primaria “Plan de Guadalupe”. Subdirección de Education Primaria.
Sector XIV, Zona 030.
Szwarcwald, C. Andrade,C. & Bastos, F. (2002) Income inequality, residential poverty clusteringand
infant mortality: a study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Social Science & Medicine. 55.
Shepherd, A. (2014) Teaching Children with Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Difficulties:
Education in Refugee Camps. University of Leeds.
Shepherd, A. (2014a) Improving Higher Education Coverage in Marginalised Rural Areas of
Mexico. University of Leeds. January.
Torres, C. ed. (1995) Education and Social Change in Latin America. James Nicholas Publishers:
Australia.
Tikly, L. (2010) Towards a framework for understanding the quality of education. EdQual
Working Paper 27. November.
Tikly, L. & Barrett, A. (2011) Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low
income countries. International Journal of Educational Development. 31. pp.3-14
Tomasevski, K. (2003) Education Denied: Costs and Remedies. Zed Books: London
UIS (2013) Towards Universal Learning: Recommendations from the Learning Metrics Task
Force. UNESCO: September.
UN (1984) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris: 10 December.
UN (2013) The Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations: New York.
UN (2014) Youth, education and culture. Sustainable Development Goals. Available from:
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=9502&menu=1565&nr=5
[Accessed 2 August 2014]
UNDP (2013) Humanity Divided: Confronting inequality in developing countries. November.
UNESCO (2014) Teaching and Learning. Education for All Global Monitoring Report.
Vasquez, M.S. (2009) A New Model of University: Universities for Development. Universidad
Technologica de la Mixteca: Oaxaca.
VSO (2014). The time for a breakthrough on education financing is now. June 18. Available
online: http://blogs.vsointernational.org/index.php/2014/06/18/the-time-for-a-breakthroughoneducation-financing-is-now/ [Accessed 7 July 2014]
Walker, M. (2006) Towards a capability-based theory of social justice in educational policy
making. Journal of Education Policy. 21(2)
Watson, M. (2014) Freedom Schools Then and Now: A Transformative Approach to Learning.
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. 12(1).
Welch, A. (ed) (2000) Third World Education: Quality and Equality. Garland Publishing Inc:
London.
Wilding, P. (2010) 'New Violence': Silencing Women's Experiences in the Favelas of Brazil.
Journal of Latin American Studies. 42(4)
Woodson, C. (1933) The Miseducation of the Negro. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
World Bank (2013) Learning Outcomes. Available from:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/0,,contentMD
K:21911176~menuPK:5495844~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html [Accessed
13 June 2014]
This article was published in the Journal of Politics and International Studies, Vol. 12, Winter2014
POLIS Journal
Journal of Politics and
International Studies
Volume Twelve
Winter 2014
ISSN 2047-7651
Editor: Andrew S Crines
SSB 13.28 | Woodhouse Lane
Leeds | LS2 9JT | United Kingdom
Tel: +44 113 343 92 04
Fax: +44 113 343 4400
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/about/journal/
© POLIS Journal (Journal of Politics and International Studies), 2014.
Individuals may view, download, print, or save Journal content for the purposes of research,
teaching, and/or private study. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, reselling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.