k mine response edu laws narrative
DESCRIPTION
k Mine Response Edu Laws NarrativeTRANSCRIPT
1
Myanmar/Burma Indigenous Network for Education in Karen Areas (MINE – Karen areas)
Response to
The Republic of the Union of Myanmar National Education Law
and
The Basic Education Law of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2nd Draft (2014)
31 August 2014
Myanmar/Burma Indigenous Network for Education (MINE) Karen areas include:
• Karen Education Department (KED) • Karen Refugee Committee Education Entity (KRCEE) • Karen Teacher Working Group (KTWG) • Karen Women’s Organization (KWO)
2
1. Introduction
1.1. The four organizations represented in this document welcome the chance to provide feedback on the drafts of the National Education Law as well as the Basic Education Law. We are heartened to see the inclusion of several qualitative, inclusive and progressive education measures. We would also like to express appreciation in being able to provide insight and our perspective in other aspects of the draft laws where we believe further discussion and clarity would be to the benefit of all. We submit this response for your consideration.
1.2. Myanmar’s National Education Law (NEL) was passed by Parliament on July 31st, 2014. It is currently awaiting approval from the President. The second draft of the Basic Education Law (BEL) has been circulated for review and comment. Our organizations represent the interests of Karen people and the administration of Karen basic education across Eastern Myanmar/Burma and in refugee camps in Thailand.
The scope of work represented by the collective organizations here includes: • Administration of education for Karen refugees in Thailand. • Administration of the Karen national education system within Karen
areas of Eastern Burma including Karen State, Mon State, Bago (East) Region and Tanitharyi Region.
• Administration of early childhood care and development for Karen children across Eastern Myanmar/Burma and in the refugee camps
• Provision of pre-‐service and in-‐service teacher training and education assistance in the form of students’ and teaching materials, sports equipment for schools and teacher subsidies provided to over 1500 Karen Schools.
1.3. Our response to the National Education Law and Draft Basic Education
Law has been developed based on our collective experience working for education of the Karen people. Our response is also informed by this group’s experience and understanding of the situation of other indigenous groups and organizations in Myanmar through our membership with the Myanmar/Burma Indigenous Network for Education (MINE).
1.4. Due to time constraints we have not provided an exhaustive assessment
of the two laws, but have focused our comments on our most pressing concerns, namely: • Implementation of a Mother Tongue Based -‐ Multilingual Education
(MTB-‐MLE) system across Myanmar/Burma. • Decentralization of the education system and the strengthening of
local administration. • Use of culturally relevant, locally developed school curriculum.
1.5. We have also highlighted 2 other areas of the education laws, namely:
• Teachers;
3
• Types of schools 2. Mother Tongue Based – Multilingual Education (MTB-‐MLE)
2.1. The MTB-‐MLE approach supported by this group is based on
international research and best practice and leads to the best possible learning outcomes for the children of Myanmar/Burma. We believe that all children should be supported through the basic education system to be proficient in Myanmar, the language of the Union, their own Mother Tongue (if not Myanmar) and the official language of ASEAN, English. The Draft Basic Education Law (BEL), Section 3 (f) promotes proficiency in Myanmar language and improved proficiency in ethnic languages. Current drafting of this section promotes Myanmar language as having primary importance over a child's own mother tongue. Drafting should reflect equal importance of proficiency in child's Mother tongue and Myanmar language to support child's well-‐being and ability to prosper as a citizen of the Union of Myanmar.1
2.2. We welcome the inclusion of BEL Section 4 (g) that contemplates the use
of ethnic languages as medium of instruction. The same point is later made in Section 19 (g) when dealing with the implementation of curriculum. We oppose BEL Section 4 (f) stating that Myanmar is the medium of instruction at the basic education level. However, the drafting of the law promotes Myanmar as language of instruction with local languages being secondary and does not support an MTB-‐MLE approach. In our view, mother tongue as language of instruction is of primary importance to ensure positive student-‐learning outcomes and is not simply a supplemental tool in the transmission of the curriculum.
2.3. NEL Sections 43 apparently provides for Myanmar-‐English bilingual
education with NEL Section 44 including ethnic languages by arrangement at the Region/State level. This seems to contradict BEL Section 4 (g). This package of laws does not go far enough toward promoting the importance of the mother tongue as language of instruction as part of an MTB-‐MLE approach. We recommend amending BEL Section 4 (f & g) by combining them to create a single subsection as follows: "Myanmar language and local language are the medium of instruction in basic education school, pursuant to an MTB-‐MLE approach. Language and method of instruction will be determined based on needs of local students."
2.4. Children perform better in all subjects and develop increased proficiency
in other languages when taught in their mother tongue. Mother tongue languages should be used as medium of instruction in lower primary school. Where Myanmar is not the mother tongue of students, Myanmar
1 “Language and education: the missing link-‐ How the language used in schools threatens the achievement of Education For All;” Helen Pinnock with research by Gowri Vijayakumar; Save the Children UK and CfBT Education Trust; 2009. See more at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Language_Education_the_Missing_Link_1.pdf
4
should first be introduced as a subject and then added as an additional language of instruction in later years. Students whose mother tongue is Myanmar should also learn an ethnic language as a subject in school to promote common understanding amongst all groups within Myanmar’s diverse Union.2 3
2.5. Local community based school management bodies, alert to the ethnic
make-‐up and needs of the local community, should determine the languages to be taught in schools, the languages of instruction and the way that the languages of instruction should be managed in a multilingual classroom. MTB-‐MLE would be facilitated by decentralization of education management, both of which should be embedded in the law. Decentralization is discussed below.
3. Decentralization
3.1. NEL Section 57(a) makes central government ministries responsible for the supervision and management of basic education schools. The Basic Education Council, established and made responsible by BEL Section 8(a) for basic education level management, is made up of members predominantly from the Central Government as stipulated in Section 8(b). BEL Sections 24 & 25 make most aspects of school management the responsibility of the relevant Central Government Ministries. The laws should be revised to devolve responsibility, ensuring that the education system in Myanmar remains responsive to the needs of local communities and people. We are advocating for school-‐based management under local school boards, made up of parents, teachers, school principals and other respected community members and leaders. These school boards would provide management support with oversight from different levels of government.4
3.2. BEL Section 23 allows for some distribution of duty by aligning with the Regional Administration Organizations, which are defined in BEL Section 2(aa). There are well-‐developed education systems organized by Non-‐State Actor Education Departments that fall outside of the definition in Section 2 (aa). These existing administration structures should be recognized, supported and developed under a decentralized national education system and not replaced or overridden.5
2 “Closer to Home: How to help schools in low-‐ and middle-‐income countries respond to children’s language needs;” Helen Pinnock, et al; Save the Children UK and CfBT Education Trust; 2011. See more at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-‐library/closer-‐home#sthash.cJxejbOs.dpuf 3 “Mother Tongue as Bridge Language of Instruction;” World Bank and SEAMEO (South East Asian Ministers of Education Organization); 2011 .See more at http://www.seameo.org/images/stories/Publications/Project_Reports/MT_compendium_Final_Book-‐08-‐05-‐09.pdf 4 "Local participation in school management improves accountability and responsiveness, and fosters resource mobilization" Education and Decentralization; Jennie Litvack. See more at http://www.ciesin.org/decentralization/English/Issues/Education.html 5 "EQUIP2 State-‐of-‐the-‐Art Knowledge in Education: A Guide to Education Project Design Based on a Comprehensive Literature and Project Review: Decentralization;" John C. Weidman and Robin DePietro-‐Jurand; USAID. See more at: http://www.epdc.org/sites/default/files/documents/EQUIP2%20SOAK%20-‐%20Decentralization.pdf
5
3.3. Section 4 (m) of the NEL makes the path to decentralization dependent on a subjective assessment, which will be made at the central level, about the readiness of education staff to support decentralization. The path to decentralization should be considered at the outset and included within the NEL and BEL. The law should support capacity development of education staff to implement a decentralized system, but their readiness should not be a precursor to the decentralization.
4. Local Curriculum
4.1. We welcome the inclusion of NEL Section 39 (f and g) that provides for standard setting at the national level and development of curriculum at the local level. We are further encouraged by the inclusion of Section 39 (h) which suggests the curriculum be relevant and related to the real lives of students and their communities. However, Section 39 needs to be clarified and extended to ensure genuine and full local participation in the contextualization of the curriculum.
4.2. BEL Section 19(i) dictates Region/State responsibility for textbook development. However, given the ethnic and linguistic diversity of most States/Regions, a more localized/decentralized approach is required to respond to the diverse range of needs. The development of ethnic textbooks should include full participation of knowledgeable people from local areas.
4.3. Despite the provision for local curriculum development in the NEL, the BEL in Chapter 6 sets up a highly centralized Basic Education Curriculum, Syllabus and Text Book Committee. The Committee, which is comprised mainly of members coming from central level of government, is responsible for the full range of curriculum development and the BEL does not allow for any local representation or input into curriculum development, despite Sections 39 (f and g) of the NEL mentioned above in paragraph 4.1. Section 18 (b)(ii) allows for the performance of curricular syllabus duties by forming curriculum teams at the Region/State level, however, Chapter 6 should be revised to allow for curriculum development locally.
5. Teachers
5.1. We are concerned with NEL Section 50 (c) which overlooks the value of existing teachers from ethnic areas who often have had extensive internationally recognized teacher training; significant skills and experience; and, strong knowledge of and relationships with students and communities in which they are involved but do not hold government recognized certification. This is also a crucial issue for returning refugee teachers whose qualifications should be recognized upon their return.
5.2. NEL Section 53 centralizes assignment of duties and responsibilities of
teachers. The central government ministries are far removed from the day to day running of schools and are poorly placed to do this. This
6
should occur at the local school level or by school boards charged with oversight of local schools.
6. School Types
6.1. NEL Section 34 and BEL Section 7 describes school types. However,
neither law clearly acknowledges or makes provision for the existence of Community Schools or National Schools. Community Schools are autonomously organized and managed by individual communities. National Schools are similar to Community Schools but are under the administration of ethnic Non-‐State Actors' department or other ethnic nationalities' organizing bodies. The law should acknowledge these school types and should also revisit and clarify the definitions of existing school types in s.34. Further, the development of the national education system should be built around the existing education management structures, bodies and schools and not override them. It is therefore crucial that the NEL and BEL recognize these schools and develop a plan for education in ethnic areas with them.