| |
|
Introduction
|
| |
|
The
starting point for this study is Article 7 of the World Declaration
on Education for All. The Declaration emerged from the World
Conference on Education for All (WCEFA), which was held in
Jomtien, Thailand, in 1990. It stated that: National, regional,
and local educational authorities have a unique obligation
to provide basic education for all, but they cannot be expected
to supply every human, financial or organizational requirement
for this task. New and revitalized partnerships at all levels
will be necessary: partnerships among all sub-sectors and
forms of education; … partnerships between government and
non-governmental organizations, the private sector, local
communities, religious groups and families…. Genuine partnerships
contribute to the planning, implementing, managing and evaluating
of basic education programmes. When we speak of "an expanded
vision and a renewed commitment", partnerships are at the
heart of it.
|
| |
|
This
study, prepared a decade after the World Declaration, examines
some dimensions of partnerships in education. It notes the
rationale for this clause in the World Declaration, comments
on the experiences upon which it was based, charts some of
the paths which have been forged during the decade which followed
the 1990 World Conference, and discusses appropriate future
directions.
|
| |
|
| In order
to permit reasonable depth, the study covers only some of the
partnerships envisaged by the World Declaration. As will be
evident from the title, the primary focus is on communities.
These communities are of many types, operate in diverse settings,
and have multiple partnerships. The study primarily focuses
on their partnerships with government at various levels. The
chief goal is to identify lessons from what has and has not
worked in settings of different kinds. Like the World Conference,
the concern is with the quality as well as the quantity of educational
provision. The study also notes some of the wider implications
of partnerships for social and political development. |
| |
|
| In line
with the Jomtien mandate, the work is mainly concerned with
the less developed countries of the world. However, even poor
countries may have rich communities, just as rich countries
have poor communities. In such cases, a major question for policy
makers concerns ways to harness the resources and energies of
prosperous communities while protecting and encouraging their
less prosperous counterparts. The study is concerned with urban
communities as well as rural ones. |
| |
|
| Within
the education sector, the study is mainly concerned with primary
schooling. Obviously partnerships also exist at other levels
and in other types of education; but the restriction in focus
is necessary to permit some depth of analysis. |
| |
|
| One of
the major themes when analyzing the nature of partnerships between
communities and governments is the extent and impact of centralization
and decentralization. The periods both before and after the
Jomtien conference brought considerable advocacy of decentralization
as a mechanism to improve the provision of education in less
developed countries. Much of this advocacy failed to distinguish
between the many types of decentralization, and glossed over
the fact that in some circumstances increased centralization
of decision-making was more desirable than increased decentralization.
However, decentralization was certainly desirable in many settings;
and a particular need was to find structures in which governments
shared control in a more balanced way with communities and other
actors. |
| |
|
| The study
begins by presenting the conceptual framework in greater depth.
It then turns to rationales for advocacy of partnership in the
education sector. Different actors of course have different
motives. However, many of these motives overlap with and complement
each other. Some statements about partnership are rather idealistic,
and they are not always grounded on empirical reality. Nevertheless,
identification of rationales provides a benchmark against which
to evaluate the actual experiences set out in subsequent parts
of the study. |
| |
|
| Also important
for macroscopic understanding is awareness of major trends over
the decades. These are the focus of the next section, which
discusses emerging concepts of partnership within the framework
of the changing role of the state in education systems. The
Jomtien conference was held during a period in history in which
the central role of the state was being seriously questioned.
During the period since the Jomtien conference the questioning
has grown louder, and major shifts have been evident in some
countries. This has implications for communities as well as
for governments. |
| |
|
| Following
these quite broad analyses, commentary turns to two particular
mechanisms through which partnership is operationalized. The
first concerns school governance. The study notes different
models for school committees and parents' associations, and
notes both positive and negative features of experiences in
a number of settings. The second mechanism, which may be linked,
concerns financing. Much has now been learned about the nature
of partnerships as they affect and arise from community financing,
and about administrative structures within centralized and decentralized
systems. |
| |
|
| The next
section analyzes the impact of innovations in a number of domains.
It gives particular attention to recruitment and retention of
pupils; to teachers and their conditions of service; educational
achievement; equity tensions; and political dimensions. These
areas are of particular importance to policy-makers at the apex
of education systems. |
| |
| Finally,
the two concluding sections highlight major lessons learned,
summarize trends since 1990, and comment on future prospects.
While strategies for the future must vary according to context
and priorities, some common principles may be identified as
a guide for policy makers. |
| |
|
|
Box
1: Partnerships - A Persistent Theme
The
1990 Jomtien call for strengthened partnerships was
echoed at the 1996 mid-decade review in Amman, Jordan.
The final report of that meeting (International Consultative
Forum on EFA 1996, p.26) observed that: As governments
seek ways to decentralize responsibility for education,
equalize educational opportunities, and raise more funds,
they need strong and innovative allies. The [Amman]
Forum noted that greater and more active partnerships
have been one of the most successful outcomes since
Jomtien. As the report added, however, "building partnerships
is easier said than done". The Forum tried to evaluate
critically the conditions in which partnerships can
thrive, and pointed to new directions for their development.
The present study builds on that work.
|
|
| |
| Concepts
and Parameters |
| |
|
| To provide
a framework for what follows, certain terms need to be defined
and/or explained. The first is the concept of primary education.
While at first sight this seems to be clear, particularly when
primary schools are distinct from kindergartens and secondary
schools, closer examination may reveal complexities. In general,
the study focuses on institutions with an explicit educational
purpose operated for children in the approximate age-range six
to twelve years by governments or independent operators. However,
education systems may vary in the length of the primary cycle.
Thus, while in Nepal and Maldives for example the primary cycle
lasts only five years, in Malawi and Kenya it lasts for eight
years. Sharp distinctions will not be drawn in this study, because
in most cases the general nature of the organization and content
of schooling is more important than the specific duration of
formal cycles. |
| |
|
| Another
potential complexity is that some societies have institutions
which operate parallel to mainstream schools but serve many
of the same functions. In some settings, these institutions
are described as nonformal rather than formal. However, the
dividing lines between the categories are blurred. Bangladesh,
for example, has a system of institutions run by the Bangladesh
Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) which operate parallel to
government primary schools and serve 1.2 million children (Ahmed
et al. 1993; Nath & Chowdhury 1999). Whether the BRAC institutions
are formal or nonformal could be debated, but for present purposes
such a debate would not be very useful. The main point is that
they serve the educational needs of primary-school-aged children;
and the BRAC model has inspired innovations in such countries
as Chad, Uganda and Malawi (Hyde 1999a). |
| |
|
| Other initiatives
which could be classified as either formal or nonformal include
community schools in Egypt, El Salvador and Mali, which operate
parallel to the mainstream government system with support from
various external donors (Zaalouk 1995; Reimers 1997; Muskin
1999). All these models are within the framework of the study.
Indeed they are of considerable importance because in many cases
they have instructive forms of partnership from which lessons
can be learned. |
| |
|
| The second
term to be defined is partnership. One dictionary (Procter 1980,
p.791) rather naturally defines partnership as "the state of
being a partner". The question then turns to the definition
of partner, to which the answer is "a person who shares (in
the same activity)". For the present study sharing in the same
activity is indeed important, though the concept can apply to
organizations as well as to persons. Although in many contexts
the word partnership implies equal sharing, it does not necessarily
do so. This study will give some examples in which communities
are the dominant partners, and other examples in which communities
are the subordinate partners. The nature of partnerships varies
widely in different settings and at different points in time.
|
| |
|
| Two terms
which are related to partnership are involvement and participation
(Myers 1992, p.309; Shaeffer 1994, p.16). Most analysts consider
involvement and participation to be relatively weak forms of
activity. Partnership implies more active and committed involvement.
Partners share responsibility for a joint activity, whereas
participants may merely cooperate in someone else's activity. |
| |
|
|
A further
term to be defined is that of community. At this point, the
complexities multiply. Hillery's classic paper (1955, p.113)
noted 94 alternative definitions of community, and observed
that the list was still not exhaustive. Without going too
deeply into this matter, it is useful here, based on the observations
by Wolf et al. (1997, pp.9-10), to note that a community has
at least some of the following features:
a network
of shared interests and concerns,
a symbolic
or physical base,
extension
beyond the narrowly-defined household, and
something
that distinguishes itself from other similar groups.
|
|
| However,
some authors warn against coarse generalizations. Communities
may expand or contract according to the need and situation.
Also, the voices of all stakeholders may not be heard equally;
and although multiple and possibly overlapping communities sometimes
come together to achieve common objectives, they may have different
ideas about the ways in which those objectives can best be achieved
(Myers 1992, pp.317-8; Wolf et al. 1997, p.10). |
| |
|
|
Nevertheless,
with these caveats and qualifications, it is possible to identify
several types of community which are particularly prominent
in the field of education. For present purposes, the most
important types are:
geographic
communities, which embrace the individuals living in relatively
small areas such as villages, districts or suburbs;
ethnic
and racial groups, especially ones which are minorities and
which have self-help support structures;
religious
groups of various kinds;
communities
based on shared family concerns, including Parents' Associations
which are based on adults' shared concerns for the welfare
of their children; and
communities
based on shared philanthropy, and in many cases operated by
specifically-designated charitable and/or political bodies.
|
| |
|
| Examples
in this study will be taken from each of these types of community.
They vary considerably in their degrees of formal structure,
for some are quite fluid while others are officially registered
as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or Community-Based
Organizations (CBOs). |
| |
|
| Schools
can themselves have a community-building function which is important
for social development quite apart from the educational role.
As noted in 1999 (p.10) by Kader Asmal, South African Minister
of Education, a functioning school "is a true community in its
own right, and an indispensable centre for the wider community's
social and cultural needs and interests". To help achieve goals
of community-building and social cohesion, the South African
government has devoted major effort to the creation and operation
of school governing bodies. Other countries may be faced by
different circumstances and challenges; but the general point
remains that schools in all societies may be focal points for
community activity and development. School committees are important
instruments for achieving these goals, especially when they
include not only parents but also representatives of religious
organizations, commercial bodies, NGOs, and other groups. |
| |
|
| The role
of NGOs deserves special mention, first because they received
particular prominence at the Jomtien conference and second because
their role developed further in the decade which followed. In
some parts of the world, the NGO sector remains small. This
is the case in China, Eritrea and Iran for example. However,
NGOs are particularly active in countries as diverse as Brazil,
Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Philippines and Thailand
(Chen 1997, p.576). They can be an important force for poverty
eradication, reinforcing and complementing government activities.
NGO work is not always unambiguously constructive; but many
productive partnerships between governments and NGOs achieve
results which would otherwise have been impossible. |
| |
|
| The fact
that many NGOs participated in the Jomtien conference both reflected
the changing times and helped to shape the outcomes of the conference.
Some participants felt that NGO voices were being clearly heard
in fora of this type for the first time; but, if so, the final
report (WCEFA Secretariat 1990, p.34) explicitly recorded the
view of the Co-Rapporteur-General that it would "not be possible
after this week for anyone to consider having a major educational
conference or meeting without the participation of these important
groups". |
| |
|
| The growth
of the NGO sector during the 1990s increased the diversity.
Some NGOs are large, while others are small; some are tightly
organized, while others are loosely organized; some have multiple
national and international connections, while others are parochial
in focus and operation. This creates a further problem for analysis,
because the term NGO, like the term community, can cover so
many different types of body. While some NGOs are effectively
community bodies, others are more like corporations or foundations.
Governments may thus have partnerships with NGOs which are distinct
from government partnerships with communities. In some settings,
trilateral relationships are needed between governments, NGOs
and communities. These types of arrangement are not a strong
focus of the present study. In other settings, more clearly
within the focus of this study, NGOs and communities identify
so closely with each other that relationships with governments
are bilateral rather than trilateral. |
| |
|
|
Box
2: Partnerships and a New Way of Working
One of the syntheses of roundtable themes prepared after
the WCEFA (Fordham 1992, p.22) elaborated on the concepts
of partnerships presented at the Conference: Developing
strong partnerships with parents and communities means
a new way of working for governments, for service agencies,
and for educators. Above all, it means listening to
the needs of local communities and addressing their
local agendas. It means becoming familiar with the people
and their religious beliefs, their customs and even
their food taboos. Then it is possible to see how best
to build on what they know. The synthesis added that
listening to people:
means recognizing the diversity of cultures, languages,
customs, and resources which make up societies, rather
than seeking uniformity;
means training - for teachers, administrators, specialists
-- to sensitize them to the needs of communities and
to ways in which they can involve parents in the education
of their children;
means recognizing that education as well as child
care begin in the home and within the community, and
must be nurtured there.
|
|
| |
|
| Rationales
for Partnership |
| |
|
|
Within
every partnership, the various actors may have different reasons
for collaboration. For example, when governments, communities
and international agencies work together, each side may have
a different reason for doing so. In most settings, however,
one may identify a cluster of important rationales for engaging
in partnerships:
Shared
experiences and expertise. Each partner can bring knowledge
and skills to the task at hand.
Mutual
support. When circumstances are difficult, partnership provides
mutual support to persist in efforts to achieve goals.
Division
of labor. Collaboration can allow partners to concentrate
on the tasks that they do best. The tasks which one partner
can do best are not necessarily the ones that other partners
can do best. In this situation, division of labor permits
all sides to gain.
Increased
resources. When each partner brings resources to the common
forum, the total availability of resources is increased.
These resources can be human and material as well as financial.
Increased
sense of ownership. When people work together on a task,
they are more likely to feel a sense of ownership than if
the task is performed for them by someone else.
Extended
reach. Different partners may have voices in different places.
This can extend the reach of initiatives.
Increased
effectiveness. When partners come together, they each bring
their own perspectives. They may help each other to identify
obstacles to effective implementation of programs, and ways
round those obstacles.
Evaluation
and monitoring. When partners have links to different sectors
of society, they can complement each others' efforts in
assessing the impact of programs. This information can be
used to make necessary adjustments and improve impact.
|
|
|
While
these rationales are quite generally applicable, some commentators
have made specific observations on the value of partnerships
within the context of education for all. For example, the
WCEFA Framework for Action (WCEFA Secretariat 1990, p.58)
presented two main reasons for an emphasis on partnerships.
One, focusing on resources, would be placed by many people
at the top the list:
Partnerships
at the community level and at the intermediate and national
levels should be encouraged; they can help harmonize activities,
utilize resources more effectively, and mobilize additional
financial and human resources where necessary.
|
| |
|
|
The other
rationale focused more specifically on learning:
The demand
for, and participation in, learning opportunities cannot simply
be assumed, but must be actively encouraged. Potential learners
need to see that the benefits of basic education activities
exceed the costs the participants must bear…. Also, learners
tend to benefit more from education when they are partners
in the instructional process, rather than treated simply as
'inputs' or 'beneficiaries'.
|
| |
|
|
One of
the three volumes which synthesized the roundtable themes
and which was prepared following the WCEFA (Windham 1992,
p.3) made related but slightly different observations:
Whether
through new organizational structures or through reorienting
existing structures to include a basic education component,
local and national partnerships can help provide materials,
facilities and personnel to meet the basic education challenge.
A special benefit of this broadening of participation is to
focus greater public attention on educational issues and to
establish a stronger societal commitment to the principles
of the World Declaration.
|
| |
|
|
Other
actors may have different or additional reasons for wishing
to promote partnerships. For example, UNICEF (1998b, p.11)
has stressed sustainability:
[P]artnerships
at this time of economic uncertainty will strengthen the capacities
and maximise the investments needed to ensure that programmes
for children are sustainable in political, technical, managerial
and humanitarian terms.
|
| |
|
|
This statement
also mentions politics. A comparable perspective has been
presented by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), which has argued that partnerships can promote democratization
and help weak voices to be heard. Also, the agency has suggested,
partnerships can help in accurate identification of needs.
These perspectives are embodied in the statement (USAID 1998,
p.24) that:
The complex
political economy of the education sector requires participation
in and ownership of both the process and the results of problem
identification, strategy building, and reform implementation
to:
1) arrive
at informed and appropriate solutions;
2) achieve
consensus, cooperation, and acceptance;
3) fairly
and efficiently distribute financing responsibility; and
4) dislodge
entrenched interests in the status quo. Experience and research
show that educational reform must be demand-driven, and
its success depends on the ongoing support and involvement
of the stakeholders in this dynamic process. Systemic reform
will require that fora, mechanisms, and systems (e.g. …
town meetings, parent-teacher-student associations, and
NGO umbrella organizations) be put in place to give voice
to both the outspoken and seldom-heard groups, to support
their development, and to integrate and respond to their
concerns.
|
| |
| In some
countries, external agencies seek partnerships with local communities
in order to circumvent governments which the agencies do not
consider sufficiently oriented to the needs of disadvantaged
groups and democratic voices. In other cases, external agencies
operate through governments, and do not themselves have direct
dealings with local communities. |
| |
|
| While
many governments advocate partnership so that they can gain
access to the resources of communities, many communities advocate
partnership so that they can gain access to the resources of
governments. Only the most prosperous and well-organized communities
can by themselves run entire school systems, and partnerships
with larger entities provide ways to secure not only financial
but also human and other resources. But the fact that both governments
and communities consider partnerships as a way to access the
resources of each other is not necessarily a contradiction.
Both sides realize that the collaboration permits their reach
to be considerably extended; and both sides achieve more through
partnership than they would on their own. |
| |
|
| From the
perspectives of communities, partnership with governments can
give further benefits in addition to resources. One concerns
public recognition. Partnership with government may strengthen
legitimacy, which in turn facilitates institution-building.
Communities may also gain access to technical expertise, including
teacher training and advice on planning and management. |
| |
|
|
However,
where partnership is initiated, and how far it goes, depends
on circumstances. Some communities feel confident of their
own goals and resources, and prefer not to enter partnerships
with either governments or other agencies because the communities
fear that the partnerships would bring interference and loss
of control. In other cases, schemes initiated by governments
in the name of partnership are in fact efforts to "pass the
buck", i.e. to reduce the financial and other burdens on governments
by simply decreeing that henceforth certain types and levels
of schooling are the responsibility of communities rather
than of governments. Lynch (1997, pp.77-78) has observed that:
Moves
towards greater involvement of local communities in the provision
of primary education have often been little more than thinly
disguised means to move the burden of financing onto the backs
of the poor, where such approaches have not included the allocation
to those communities of adequate and appropriate resources
to fulfil the devolved functions.
|
| |
|
| This observation
raises important issues of equity and of local capacity, which
will be considered in subsequent sections of this study. |
| |
|
|
Box
3: Partnerships and Self-Interest
The fundamental basis for all partnerships is self-interest.
Partnerships are only likely to endure if they recognize
and build on this fact. As pointed out by Sack (1999,
p.12): It would be easy to provide a long list of partnerships
in a variety of contexts: politics (running mates),
business (banker and entrepreneur; co-owners), the family
(husband and wife) and social spheres (mother and midwife),
sports (coach and player), education (teacher and learner;
teachers and Ministry of Education)… No matter how broad
the variety, they all have something in common: when
all is said and done, the most powerful motive for the
partnership is self-interest. People enter partnerships
because there is something to be gained from it. Success
in partnership is heightened when all concerned are
explicitly aware of their own and their partner's interests.
Success is also promoted when the partners share a common
goal of mutual attainment of each partner's interests,
as well as mutual respect for each other's interests.
|
|
| |
| Historical
Perspectives |
| |
|
| The concept
of community partnership is not new. This becomes especially
clear if one takes a perspective of centuries rather than years.
Prior to the 20th century, most formal education was provided
by private individuals or by religious bodies. The notion that
governments should take responsibility for education only grew
during the 19th century, reaching a peak in the mid-20th century
(Archer 1984; Green 1997). When colonial governments decided
to take an increasing role, in many cases they commenced by
aiding the schools provided by missionaries and other religious
and voluntary groups (Bereday & Lauwerys 1966; Cummings & Riddell
1994). In this sense, partnership has a long history. |
| |
|
| The notion
of state responsibility for education was fuelled by various
international conventions. For example, the 1948 United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights included the clause (Article 26)
that elementary education should be compulsory. This was followed
by a similar clause in the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of
the Child (Principle 7). Flowing from and contributing to such
declarations was a view that education could only be made compulsory
if the state was willing to provide access free of charge and
in sufficient volume. Such sentiments were enshrined in the
constitutions of various countries, particularly ones gaining
sovereignty during the initial decades following World War II.
|
| |
|
| Accompanying
this perspective, moreover, was a widespread view, particularly
in newly-independent countries, that the state should take the
lead role in education in order to promote national unity and
to underwrite basic standards. Partly for this reason, the authorities
in some countries nationalized all non-government schools. |
| |
|
| By the
1980s, however, the world had witnessed a fundamental shift.
In part this was linked to arguments favoring privatization,
which had its stronghold in the economic sphere but flowed over
to the social sector. Government operations, it was argued,
tended to be inefficient and unresponsive to changing circumstances,
and private enterprises were said to be more client-centered
(James 1989; Kitaev 1999). For governments in low-income countries,
the possibility of greater contributions to education by the
private sector held out the prospect of increased sharing of
the heavy load of operating education systems. This perspective
was reflected in the 1990 Jomtien Declaration. It was echoed
three years later in the Delhi Declaration (UNESCO 1994), which
emanated from an Education for All summit of leaders in nine
high-population countries. The preamble of the Delhi Declaration
(clause 2.8) included the statement that: |
| |
|
education
is, and must be, a societal responsibility, encompassing
governments, families, communities and non-governmental
organizations alike; it requires the commitment and participation
of all, in a grand alliance that transcends diverse opinions
and political positions.
|
| |
| Although
governments still saw themselves as the principal actors, they
did not see themselves carrying the burden alone. Widespread
perceptions accorded an increasingly prominent place to non-government
actors. |
| |
|
| The role
of the state underwent shifts in relatively prosperous societies
as well as in less developed ones. In England, for example,
the influential 1967 Plowden Report stressed the importance
of parental support for children in schools. A movement of Parent-Teacher
Associations (PTAs) gathered strength and focused on cooperation
between schools and homes. By the late 1960s many Local Education
Authorities were appointing parent governors to schools, and
this trend gathered strength in the 1970s. The 1980 Education
Act took reform further still, requiring schools throughout
the country to have governing bodies which included parents
(Kogan et al. 1984). |
| |
|
| Parallel
developments were evident in other relatively prosperous countries.
In Australia and the USA, reforms were based on democratic principles
which argued that participants in education systems had the
right to greater recognition (Dimmock et al. 1996, p.6). Parental
participation also became more prominent in France, Italy and
the German Federal Republic. Beattie's (1985) analysis of these
countries argued (p.228) that parental participation was attractive
to governments because it appeared to be inexpensive but could
provide strategic benefits. On the one hand were educational
benefits arising from closer liaison between schools and homes;
and on the other hand were political and administrative benefits
because problems could be removed from the overcrowded central
agenda and resolved, often more effectively, at lower levels. |
| |
|
| The shifts
in industrialized countries inevitably influenced patterns in
less developed ones. Although the reforms in Western Europe,
North America and Australasia emphasized parental inputs, attention
was also given to links between schools and broader communities
(Ryba & Kallen 1975). The contexts were of course substantially
different in less developed countries (Houghton & Tregear 1969;
King 1976; Sinclair with Lillis 1980; Johnson 1997); but at
least some policy-makers considered links between schools and
communities to be important for financial, pedagogic, political
and other reasons. |
| |
|
| However,
the 1980s and 1990s brought qualitative shifts in the types
of actors involved in the education sectors of less developed
countries. As noted above, one particular feature of this changing
pattern was the growth in the number and activities of NGOs.
These were not all of equal credibility, and critics have noted
the existence of opportunistic, self-interested NGOs as well
as philanthropic ones. Moreover, even well-meaning NGOs may
lack competence to achieve their goals, and can contribute to
fragmentation and mis-direction of resources. Nevertheless,
Bowden's (1997, p.4) historical review suggested that "the suspicion,
even antagonism that has existed towards NGOs over many years
is lessening". He added: |
| |
|
NGOs
rely more on government for their funding than ever before,
and for achieving basic NGO aims in many areas of development.
In addition, bilateral and multilateral agencies are increasingly
incorporating the community-oriented approaches of NGOs
in their projects.
|
|
| Bowden
observed that this increased cooperation is linked to the fact
that all parties seem less certain of their roles, and of the
solutions to the problems that they face. Awareness and tolerance
of the weaknesses and strengths of NGOs on the one hand, and
of governments and aid agencies on the other, is strengthening
the dialogue. |
| |
|
| Again,
however, the consequences are not all entirely positive. As
Bowden pointed out (p.4), many NGOs are becoming contractors,
losing in the process their NGO focus. Approaches to community
mobilization, group development, and the concentration on the
very poor, Bowden observed, are being replaced by skills in
proposal-writing and project management. This suggests that
partnerships may not always be entirely beneficial to all concerned. |
| |
|
| Commentary
on historical perspectives must also include remark on the collapse
of communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. At the time
of the 1990 Jomtien conference, the cracks and their implications
were only beginning to become apparent. However, trends accelerated
rapidly, with the result that half a decade later only a handful
of old-style communist regimes remained in power. The collapse
of communism brought an even more dramatic change in the role
of the state in those countries than in longstanding-capitalist
countries. Most governments in former-communist countries had
neither the inclination nor the resources to maintain their
previously centralized control of education. In most such societies,
at least part of the gap was bridged by entrepreneurs. Communities
of various kinds also mobilized themselves for self-help initiatives,
realizing that if they did not, then the shortfalls in quantity
and quality of education would be even more severe (Heyneman
1997; UNICEF 1998a). Some other countries, such as the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and
the People's Republic of China, remained officially socialist
but in practice became heavily dominated by market economics
and by strategies in education which resembled those of their
former-socialist counterparts (Gannicott 1998). Thus the overall
framework at the end of the 1990s gave independent actors, operating
either on their own or in partnership with governments, much
greater place than had been the case a decade earlier. |
| |
|
|
Box
4: The Changing Role of the State
The World Bank is among agencies which have noted the
changing role of the state and its implications for
partnerships. The Bank's 1999 Education Sector Strategy
observed (pp.2-3) that: Governments are becoming less
the direct producers and providers of goods and services
and more the facilitators and regulators of economic
activity…. In education, government still plays a leading
role -- and most likely always will - especially in
the financing of primary and secondary education. But
other entities are involved and likely will become increasingly
so in the decades ahead…. The vital question now is
not whether other-than-government roles in education
will expand - they will - but rather how these developments
should be incorporated into countries' overall strategies.
Partnerships will be crucial.
|
|
| |
| Participation
and Partnership: Distinctions and Forms |
| |
|
| Ladders
and Matrices |
| |
|
| As noted
above, many analysts consider the concepts of participation
and partnership to be related but not synonymous. Partnership
is commonly considered a stronger form of activity than participation.
|
| |
|
| However,
some analysts have considered participation to be a broad umbrella
term which includes several types of activity including partnership.
|
| |
|
| A seminal
paper by Arnstein (1969) in the field of planning presented
what she called a ladder of citizen participation (Figure 1).
The eight rungs of the ladder were divided into three groups.
At the bottom level, manipulation and therapy were really considered
to be non-participation. The next three rungs - informing, consultation
and placation -- were considered degrees of tokenism. Partnership
was the label on the sixth rung, which was placed in the group
of citizen power. However, it was not considered so strong as
delegated power or citizen control. |
| |
|
| Figure
1: A Ladder of Citizen Participation (not available) |
|
|
|
The model
is useful to the present discussion for two reasons. First,
it distinguishes partnership from weaker forms of participation.
In these weaker forms, endeavors to promote participation
may amount to little more than window dressing. As Arnstein
observed (p.216):
There
is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual
of participation and having the real power to affect the outcome
of the process.
|
| |
|
| Arnstein
illustrated this point with a French poster (Box 5) drawn to
explain a student-worker rebellion. The poster asserted that
participation without redistribution of power is a meaningless
and frustrating process for the powerless. It allows the powerholders
to claim that all sides were considered, but makes it possible
for only some of those sides to benefit. As such, it is likely
to maintain the status quo. |
| |
|
| Box
5: Participation and the Status Quo (not available) |
| |
|
| The second
reason why Arnstein's ladder is useful to the present discussion
is that it shows the upper limits as well as the lower limits
of partnership. Thus rungs seven and eight take citizen power
to such extremes that balances are reversed. At the highest
rungs of the ladder, governments and other actors are likely
to be treated by citizen groups to only token or weaker forms
of participation. It is useful to note the possibility of this
type of situation in the field of education. Where communities
and other agencies running schools are so powerful, the situation
cannot really be called partnership any more than it can at
the lowest rungs of the ladder. A case can be made in some settings
for more government inputs and controls on communities to ensure
coherence in education systems and protection of the poor. |
| |
|
| The ladder
is of course only a simplified model (Fagence 1977, p.125);
and Arnstein herself conceded (1969, p.217) that the real world
of people and programs might have 150 rungs with less sharp
and 'pure' distinctions among them. Nevertheless, the fact that
the ladder has proved useful in the specific domain of education
has been demonstrated by the work of Shaeffer (1992a, 1992b,
1994) and Reimers (1997). |
| |
|
|
Shaeffer
(1994, pp.16-17) devised a slightly different ladder for analysis
of participation in the education sector. His ladder was influenced
by Arnstein's, but had seven rather than eight rungs. They
were:
7. participation
in real decision-making at every stage - problem-identification,
feasibility-study, planning, implementation, and evaluation;
6. participation
as implementers of delegated powers;
5. participation
in the delivery of a service, often as a partner with other
actors;
4.
involvement through consultation (or feedback) on particular
issues;
3. involvement
through the contribution (or extraction) of resources, materials,
and labor;
2. involvement
through attendance and the receipt of information (e.g.
at parents' meetings), implying passive acceptance; and
1.
the mere use of a service such as a school.
|
| |
| Shaeffer,
viewing involvement as a weaker form of activity than participation,
commenced three of the four lower rungs on his ladder with the
word involvement and only the top rungs with participation.
Shaeffer's goal at that time was to analyze participation rather
than partnership. However, the word partner did explicitly appear
in the fifth rung. |
| |
|
| Reimers
(1997, p.150) built on this work and sought to make understanding
more concrete. He devised a matrix (Table 1), in which aspects
of Shaeffer's rungs were placed along the horizontal axis and
some specific functions in the education sector were placed
along the vertical axis. The matrix could be used in comparison
of education systems. However, this would not just be a matter
of placing ticks in boxes. Some functions are arguably more
important than others, and therefore should not be treated as
if they are equal. For example, textbook distribution is largely
a mechanical process, whereas curriculum development addresses
more deeply the content of education. |
| |
|
| Table
1: Matrix of Dimensions and Degrees of Community Participation
in Education (not available) |
| |
|
| Reimers
argued that the matrix could be used first to map the starting
and ending points in a process of management reform, and second
to define the different stages needed to progress in that continuum.
For instance, he suggested, it might be unrealistic to expect
communities of parents who have traditionally lacked a voice
in the conduct of school affairs to play a significant role
in school organization just because they have been given a checkbook
to pay the teachers' salaries. However, transferring this function
to communities might be a sensible starting point to increase
the competencies of local communities and their sense of efficacy,
and gradually to change the skills and attitudes of parents,
teachers and administrators. |
| |
|
| Examples
of Application |
| |
|
| El Salvador |
| |
|
| Reimers
(1997) used his framework to analyze a reform in El Salvador
called Educación con Participación de la Comunidad (Education
with Participation of the Community) or EDUCO. The model was
based on a community self-help initiative that had operated
during a 1980-92 civil war. During the war, communities had
realized that they could not expect assistance from the government,
and had hired their own teachers for children in schools that
had been closed. In 1988, about 1,000 such community groups
were operating. However, the system was unstable because communities
had no formal contracts with teachers, and teacher assignments
were frequently interrupted when the associations' funds dried
up (World Bank 1994). |
| |
|
| EDUCO was
launched in 1991 as a way to expand access to preschool and
junior primary education in rural areas. Initially, the primary
education part covered only the first three grades. In the first
year of the scheme, six experimental projects were established.
Parents were organized into Asociaciónes Comunales para la Educación
(Community Education Associations, or ACEs), which were legal
entities able to receive government funds in exchange for provision
of services. The Ministry gave each ACE enough funds to hire
a teacher and purchase limited supplies, helped with organization,
and provided training. By 1992, 958 ACEs operated 1,126 classrooms
for 45,000 students in all 14 departments in the country. Plans
were devised not only to spread the model to further parts of
the country but also to expand the EDUCO schools to all six
primary grades (World Bank 1994, p.2). |
| |
|
| Reimers
observed (1997, p.158) that results concerning participation
were mixed. Community associations successfully managed the
responsibilities delegated to them by the Ministry; but in EDUCO
sections that were opened in existing schools, the community
associations were to a great extent managed by school principals.
Community associations in EDUCO schools played a larger role
than their counterparts in traditional schools in providing
materials and supplies; but schools of both types were equally
likely to have parents' associations, and the nature of supervision
by the Ministry was similar. Reimers added (p.160) that: |
| |
|
| The EDUCO
experience also teaches us that school autonomy and local participation
are not panaceas and that they are outcomes of insufficiently
understood processes more than they are conditions that can
be produced by decree. The fact that spaces are opened for participation
does not mean that those spaces will be occupied, and that the
resulting quality of education will be better. |
| |
|
| Nevertheless,
other evaluations have shown significant effects of community
ownership on teacher motivation, and some effects on academic
achievement (Jimenez & Sawada 1998; Sawada 1999). The EDUCO
model could be considered one of quite strong partnership, because
significant powers were granted to the communities while retaining
government involvement and financing. |
| |
|
| Papua
New Guinea |
| |
|
| In a very
different part of the world, a reform which was in some ways
similar to that in El Salvador was embarked upon in Papua New
Guinea. As in El Salvador, a significant part of the context
was scarcity of government resources and a desire to increase
enrolment rates, though the model did not arise from civil war. |
| |
|
| The reform
arose out of a 1991 Education Sector Review which had been critical
of the education system's inadequate coverage, low retention
rates, and irrelevant curricula (Tetaga 1993). Despite its relatively
small population of 4.5 million, Papua New Guinea is a diverse
society with over 800 indigenous languages. Prior to the reform,
some communities had operated vernacular preschools on a self-help
basis, but the whole of the mainstream school system used English
as the medium of instruction. The reform aimed to increase the
scope for vernacular-medium instruction, and also to lengthen
the cycle of basic education. |
| |
|
| Papua New
Guinea's national education system was created in 1970 by bringing
together the various separate education systems operated by
churches and other bodies (Smith 1975). The reform gave the
government a stronger role, and in this respect was a type of
centralization. The government took over responsibility for
macro-level planning, and also paid teachers on a unified salary
scale. However, churches and other voluntary bodies still played
major consultative and organizational roles, and thus became
partners in the unified system. In 1995, for example, only 47.0
per cent of primary schools were owned by the government, and
almost all the others were formally owned by churches even though
they operated within the public education system. |
| |
|
| Strong
traditions of community participation were also evident at the
school level. Each school was required to have a Board of Management
with community members, and communities were responsible for
major parts of the physical infrastructure of their schools.
|
| |
|
| Prior to
the 1990s reform, the structure was 1+6+4+2, i.e. one year of
preschool education, six years of primary schooling, four years
of junior secondary, and two years of senior secondary schooling.
The reform grouped the year of preschool education with the
first two years of primary education, and called it the elementary
level. The next stage was six years of primary education, leading
to Grade 8. Students who continued took two years of junior
secondary and two years of senior secondary schooling. This
gave a basic structure of 3+6+2+2. The architects of the system
envisaged that for some time the old and new systems would operate
in parallel, with one phasing in and the other phasing out.
|
| |
|
| Table 2
shows the distribution of powers and responsibilities for elementary
education following the reform. Most striking was the fact that
communities and agencies (meaning churches or other sponsoring
bodies) could decide on the language of instruction. This was
consistent with the previous arrangement for vernacular preschools,
but was a sharp change from previous practice concerning the
mainstream school system. In the previous system of vernacular
preschools, most teachers were selected and paid by the communities
and agencies. In the new elementary school system, communities
and agencies are responsible for selection of the teachers,
subject to approval at higher levels, but finance for salaries
is received from the national government. |
| |
|
| Table
2: Distribution of Powers and Responsibility for Elementary
Education, Papua New Guinea (not available) |
| |
|
| Source:
Papua New Guinea (1994a). |
| |
|
|
The planners
of the reform placed considerable stress on community roles.
For example, one document (Papua New Guinea 1994b, p.4) stated
that:
Community
involvement will become easier. Those communities that are
demanding expansion can much more easily provide bush material
classrooms and other needed infrastructure for the village
based Elementary Schools…. Also, [effective involvement of]
communities in building and managing the educational solutions
to problems that they have been pressing the government to
resolve for them is likely to ease some of the political pressure.
Participation builds ownership and a better understanding
of the true nature of the educational problems facing the
country.
|
| |
|
| However,
initial evaluation suggested that this type of statement was
over-idealized and simplistic. In some parts of the country,
the early years brought decline in participation. Some communities
which had previously been willing to operate vernacular preschools
now felt that such operation was the responsibility of the government
(Institute of National Affairs 1997, p.22). |
| |
|
| Nevertheless,
significant elements of partnership on Shaeffer's scale were
evident in the fact that communities could recruit teachers,
subject to higher level approval, and that government financing
for salaries and supplies was matched by community financing
of buildings and land. Also, significant partnership was evident
in the choice of language for instruction, and then in the development
of materials for the curriculum (Josephs 2000, pp.22-26). The
model showed clear domains in which government and communities
worked together for a common purpose. |
| |
|
|
| Return
to contents |
| |
| |
| |
|
