maurits spoelder. ma eid. the conceptualisation of quality education in zambia
TRANSCRIPT
Background – Why a focus on quality?
Untangling the concept of quality in
education.
Quality education in Zambia.
Methodology, approach and method.
Research findings.
Discussion.
Why Quality?
Economic Growth
Social Justice
Human Right
“Successful quality improvement has two elements (Fullan, 2000). The first is a shared vision among educators in the country on the process of teaching and learning, which makes explicit the pedagogical assumptions regarding how children learn, what level of performance is expected and which instructional strategies are effective under which conditions. This provides the foundation for a “culture of quality,” which will guide the “what” of a quality improvement program. The second is a strategy of implementation, providing the “how” of the reform program.” (Verspoor ed, 2005, p. 324)
The following research question is adopted: What conceptualisations of quality education do
national and international educational stakeholders in Zambia hold?
The sub questions addressed are: Is the quality goal prioritised in comparison to other
educational goals?
Which interventions are most prioritised to achieve quality education development?
To what degree is there a shared consensus on the concept of quality between stakeholders?
What are some of the key implications for policy and practice?
“No general theory as to what determines
the quality of education has been
validated by empirical research.”
UNESCO, EFA-GMR (2005, p. 228)
Quality education traditions since 1960‟s:
Quality
Paradigm
Research Focus Evaluative
focus
Learning
tradition
Development
theory
Underlying Political
Philosophy
Economist School
effectiveness
School Input-
Output
Behaviourist Human Capital
Theory
Utilitarianism/
libertarianism
Humanist/
Educationalist
School
improvement
Classroom Process Humanist Human
Development/
Human Rights
Liberalism/
cosmopolitanism
Same story different names:
Fuller and Clarke (1994, p.120); Riddell (2008, p.13)
A 4 pillar approach to quality:
Relevance – education should be relevant
to context, need and society.
Efficient – in setting standards and meeting
these standards.
Something special – quality education
should go beyond the usual expectations.
Inclusive – education for all (Stephens, 2003)
Source: UNESCO (2005, p. 36)
From input- output (economist) to input-process-outcomes influenced by a context (humanist/educationalist).
Context specific – political, economic, cultural.
Human rights based – equity and justice.
Link with wider socio-economic development goals as Democracy. Poverty, Human rights.
Education as part of a PRSP.
Zambia and all the nations that adopted the EFA Framework, are therefore not only confronted with the challenge of achieving good quality UPE, but also with a challenge to achieve improved equity, and equal opportunity to learn (Verspoor, 2008, p. 18). The contemporary debate within quality education and its relationship to international development thus links education to equity, to equal opportunities to learn and to a person‟s „ability to reach a valuable state of living‟ (Sen, 1993, p. 30)
“Zambia has achieved major results in
expanding primary education in quantitative
terms….However, a relative shift of focus
towards increasing the quality of education
seems warranted.”
IOB (2008, p.148)
Underinvestment in education.
Development of education expenditure as a % of GDP (1998-2006)
Source: MoE (various sources)/computation IOB (2008)
* Contributions to the MoE budget
HIV/AIDS rate is 9.2% = 1.1 million (UNAIDS, 2008) let to OVC.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
GDP 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.8
External* 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.3
Total 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.1
External
contribution
22% 28% 29% 29% 28% 38% 32%
Enrolment from 1.6 M in 1999 to 2.7 M in 2006. UPE in 2002.
In 2006, PTR 44:1 on basic level.
Pupil: classroom ratio = 79:1 (IOB, 2008, p. 74)
Source: IOB (2008, p.84)
Changes in literate scores between SACMEQ I and II
Source: Postlethwaite (2004, p.7)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Nigeria
Zanzibar
Gambia
Niger
Zambia
Côte d'Ivoire
Togo
Senegal
Burkina Faso
Namibia
South Africa
Mali
Malawi
Botswana
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Madagascar
Uganda
Mauritius
Morocco
Kenya
Tunisia
MLA-Equivalent Test Scores (% correct)
Percentage of correct answers on math and language tests of fourth graders
Source: Verspoor (2008, p.16) and Mingat (2005)
Test and examination scores on primary level have remained stable.
This is remarkable as PTR, pupil classroom, and pupil textbook ratios increased.
However, fluctuations are high at a provincial level which questions the available data used.
Hardly any gender differences
Source: IOB (2008)
Only 30% pass the minimum threshold of 40% in examination tests in English and Maths.
10094
88
30
100
68 67
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cohort NER Completion Learning
Primary 2007
Primary 1999
Source: UIS and UNESCO(2009); IOB (2008)
RQ: ‘What conceptualisation of quality
education do national and international
educational stakeholders in Zambia hold?
Qualitative methodology – exploration.
Grounded theory approach – a theory
of education quality should be
grounded in the local context of Zambia.
Interview method – 17 respondents
Ministries
• MoE – standards and assessment.
• MoE – curriculum development centre.
• MoE – examinations council.
• MSTVET – vocational education and training
• Provincial education office
Schools
• Urban school low economic area
• Urban school high economic area
• Rural school
Civil Society
• Zambian National Union of Teachers (ZNUT)
• Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Authority (TEVETA)
• Zambia National Education Coalition (ZAMNEC)
Cooperating Partners
•Embassy of The Netherlands.
•Irish Aid
•UNICEF
INGO‟s
•USAID
•JICA
•Save the Children Norway
Substantive and formal theory.
Constructivist approach (Chamaz, 2000)
Codes, categories and properties.
Espoused theory (Schön & Argyris, 1974).
Methodological triangulation.
The following research question is adopted:
(A) What conceptualisations of quality education do
national and international educational stakeholders in
Zambia hold?
The sub questions addressed are:
(B) Is the quality goal prioritised in comparison to other
educational goals?
(C) To what degree is there a shared consensus on
the concept of quality between stakeholders?
(D) What are some of the key implications for policy
and practice?
Conceptual thoughts on
quality education
1. The purpose of quality e.g. economical/
social/ personal
2. Input/ outcome
based approach
3. Measurement
of quality
4. Relevance of learning
Nationally there are mixed thoughts on the Q concept.
Ministry level: mainly an input-economic approach. Inputs like
teachers, infrastructure, materials are prioritised.
“Basically the simple way is training that meets the minimum
standards and needs of the trainers and the society. What I
mean by this is that I should be getting the relevant skills, the knowledge that will help me to become a carpenter for
example. So If I‟m going to do carpentry I should be in a
situation where I should have a qualified instructor and equipment. I should have all these basic things and
appropriate experience to learn and train.”(MSTVET transcript 111-117)
NGO‟s take an output based approach looking at what has been examined/learned.
Schools take mixed input-output approach to Q.
Learning should be relevant for society.
Pupils should be able to apply their skills.
Which possibly explains the high focus on reading, life and technical skills by national stakeholders.
Generally, the process of teaching and learning is ignored by the national stakeholders!
Q is directly linked to learning outcomes. Focus on reading, writing and mathematics. Teachers, materials and school
management are key factors for Q.
Q education is for socio-economic development.
Q includes but goes beyond examination.
Education should be also be measured in society:
“If you look at Zambia, then people get jobs, but people fail to
do the job. I think there should be a third dimension where a
mechanism should work out and go into the workplaces to find out how prepared the graduates are if they finish
school.”
(JICA transcript 286-290)
Nationally there is a focus on access and expansion targets, mainly UPE/MDG 2. Interventions are targeted towards teachers, infrastructure and material.
Vertical gap between FNDP and reform programme.
Internationally, Q is the most important. Focus on teacher, pupil and school management/leadership.
The debate on access/quality is moving and a shift towards Q is taking place.
Strong harmonisation between National
and International stakeholders.
National partners acknowledge the low
level of Q.
Discussion on how to improve.
International partners sometimes have
different thoughts but follow the FNDP
reform programme.
Educational thinking is dominated by the
HCT which undermines certain aspects of
HR‟s and social justice. An amelioration of
the three approaches is possible
As an evaluative tool, the CA could be of
interest as it could incorporate contextual
factors and produce a “richer” form to
measure Q and its barriers for development
(Brighouse & Unterhalter, 2010; Robeyns,
2005; Yates, 2007).
Q reforms are unpopular with politicians
and other educ. stakeholders(Grindle,
2004).
“Scaling up by focusing down” (Samoff,
J., Sebatane, E. M. and Dembélé, M.,
2001)
To achieve equity groups sometimes
have to be treated unequal (Gardner,
1961; Oxenham, 2005; Samoff, 2007).
Barrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J. and Ukpo, E. (2006), Review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality in education. Bristol: EdQual.
Beeby, C. E. (1966), The Quality of Education in Developing Countries.
London and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, D. (ed.) (2008), The Changing Landscape of Education in Africa. Quality, equality and democracy. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Riddell, A. (2008), Factors Influencing Educational Quality and Effectiveness in Developing Countries: A Review of Research. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Stephens, D. (2003), Quality of Basic Education. Background Paper for Global
Monitoring Report 2003/4 - Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality.
Paris/ Oslo: UNESCO.
Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2007), Education Quality - Research Priorities and Approaches in the Global Era. Bristol: EdQual.
UNESCO. (2004), EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 - The Quality
Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
Verspoor, A. M. (ed.) (2005), The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.
Brighouse, H. and Unterhalter, E. (2010), 'Education for Primary Goods or for Capabilities?'. In H. Brighouse and I. Robeyns (eds), Measuring Justice. Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2006), 'Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education'. Journal of Human Development, 7 (3), 385-395.
Robeyns, I. (2005), 'The capability approach: a theoretical survey'. Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93-117.
Robeyns, I. (2006), 'Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital'. Theory and Research in Education, 4 (1), 69.
Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2007), Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Unterhalter, E. (2008), 'Social Justice, Development Theory and the Question of Education'. In R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (eds), International Handbook of Comparative Education (pp. 771-790). Netherlands: Springer.
Barro, R. J. (2001), 'Human Capital and Growth'. American
Economic Review, 91 (2), 12-17.
Hanushek, E. A. (2005), Economic outcomes and school
quality. Paris: UNESCO IIEP/ International Academy of
Education.
Hanushek, E. A. and Wöβmann, L. (2007), The Role of Education
Quality in Economic Growth. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Kingdon, G. (2006), 'The Return to Education'. In D. A. Clark
(ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. London:
Edward Elgar.
Neri, F. (2001), Schooling Quality and Economic Growth:
Economics Working Papers 01-05: Department of Economics,
Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong.
Copenhagen Development Consulting. (2007), Review of the
Ministry of Education Sector Plan Zambia. Lusaka: Copenhagen
Development Consulting.
Donge van, J. K. (2007), 'Flexible SWAps for Strategic Policy-making:
Reflections on the Zambian Experience'. Development Policy
Review, 25 (4), 473-494.
IOB. (2008), Primary Education in Zambia: IOB Impact Evaluation no.
312. The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Policy and
Operations Evaluation Department (IOB).
MoE. (2007), National Implementation Framework 2008-2010. Lusaka:
Ministry of Education (MoE)/ Government of the Republic of Zambia
(GRZ).
World Bank. (2007), Implementation Completion and Results Report
of Zambia's Basic Education Subsector Investment Program.
Maputo: World Bank.