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

Social Education and Popular Education: A View from the South


Spider Art by Claire

Rosa-María Torres
 
Closing conference AIEJI XVII World Congress
“The Social Educator in a Globalised World”
Copenhagen, Denmark, 4–7 May 2009
(edited transcript of original presentation)

Introduction

When I was invited by AIEJI (International Association of Social Educators) to be a keynote speaker of this world conference, I had only vague ideas of Social Education. I thought of it as a foreign, European concept and movement, distant from the realities, thinking and practices in the South (“developing countries”). Accepting this invitation was therefore for me both an honour and a research and learning opportunity.

I learned that this is an evolving European construct, with specificities in each country, with an ongoing internal debate about its nature, dimensions and purposes, and with growing presence in countries in the South. There is no European consensus on the denomination and definition of Social Education and on social professions in general. Socialpædagogen, the biweekly magazine of the Danish National Federation of Social Educators circulated at this congress, highlights diverse Social Education experiences throughout the world "working with children, young people and adults who need special care due to physical or mental disabilities, or social problems." One distinctive feature of Social Education is that it deals with vulnerable groups and with the entire lifespan.

It was not easy to find references to Social Education programmes in Africa and Asia. References were also scarce in Latin America and the Caribbean, beyond the hub created by AIEJI’s world conference held in Montevideo-Uruguay in November 2005. In Latin America, Uruguay is the country that has embraced Social Education in the most visible manner, taking the French model as initial source of inspiration. ADESU - Asociación de Educadores Sociales del Uruguay
is an active national association. Nearly 300 professional Social Educators have been trained over the past few years. Many of them are working in diverse intersections between government and non-government, academic and action-oriented programmes. Last week I was in Uruguay invited by the Ministry of Education and happened to meet some of them. There must be something good in this profession that is able to attract such bright, critical and socially committed young people.


There are activities in Brazil associated to the Popular Education movement. The Department of Education of the University of Sao Paulo, for example, has organized a series of International Encounters on Social Pedagogy, with the idea of institutionalizing it in Brazil as a profession linked to non-formal education, NGOs, and social programmes (See Portal de la Pedagogía Social . See also Associação dos Educadores e Educadoras Sociais do Estado de São Paulo - Aees SP). Through informal conversations with Latin American participants in this congress, other activities have surfaced: a Social Pedagogy programme started by a private university in Argentina; a small group operating in Chile; in Nicaragua, an institution that trained social educators for over two decades is not operating any more but there are ongoing activities linked to institutions in Spain. In general, it becomes apparent that initiatives termed Social Education in Latin America still have little visibility.

Social Education and Social Pedagogy

The term Social has come to be added, in several fields, to mean different or alternative

- The World Social Forum (WSF), organized by progressive forces in the South and in the North, was launched in 2001 and was held for the first time in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Since then, the WSF is run in parallel to the World Economic Forum held in Davos.
- Social Economy is expanding as an international movement with roots and practices in the South. It proposes an alternative economic model to the neoliberal model. Social/Solidarity Economy is a work-centred economy that places people at the centre, is concerned with solving the needs of all and with preserving ecological and social equilibrium, promotes human solidarity, collaboration and networking rather than individual or corporate accumulation of profit or power. (See for example RILESS, Red de Investigadores Latinoamericanos en Economía Social y SolidariaNetwork of Latin American Researchers in Social and Solidarity Economy). In some cases, a Social and Solidarity Pedagogy is associated to such alternative economic initiatives ( See, for example, the Programa Pedagogía Social y Solidaria organised by the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de la Economía Solidaria - DANSOCIAL in Colombia).
- Social movements have emerged in many countries as a new important social and political actor, especially in Latin America.

As for Social Education, the term in Germany and in the Nordic Countries continues to be Social Pedagogy, a tradition of progressive thinking and practice, often associated to, or translated as, "community education." Here is an explanation of the differences between both concepts, found in a leaflet available at a stand of this conference:

’Social Education’ is the official translation of the Danish term ‘Socialpædagogik’. In this module we will use the term ‘Social Pedagogy’ as it indicates the fact that social pedagogical care work embraces much more than what is usually conceived as ‘Social Education’. ‘Social Pedagogy’ provides a unifying concept of work with people in many formal and informal institutional settings.” (Social Education and Pedagogy in Denmark”, VIA University College, Peter Sabroe, Department for Social Education, leaflet).

In other contexts, differences are made between Social Education and Social Pedagogy. Again, there is no consensus on the use of these two terms in Europe.

Social Education and Popular Education

While the term Social Education is not familiar in most countries in the South, its practice is widely extended. In fact, in every region in the world we may find specific and endogenous emancipatory education movements. In Latin America, Educación Popular - Popular Education - is rooted especially among civil society organizations. Just like with Social Education, there is not one single definition and there are various trends within the Popular Education movement. Many associate it with Paulo Freire; others consider it a development that preceded and surpassed Freire, and that is nurtured by many sources. Many link it to adult and non-formal education; others consider Popular Education an embracing category applied to children, youth and adult education, in and out of school.

The term popular refers to the socio-economic status of learners/participants, to the context and to the purpose: promoting awareness, social participation and organization for people’s empowerment and social transformation. What defines the popular educator is his/her social and political commitment, not his or her educational and professional background. Popular educators often work as volunteers or with very little remuneration, and with some short training. Training and professionalization of popular educators are old requests.

The table below is an attempt to compare Social Education and Popular Education in their respective contexts. 


Comparison between Social Education and Popular Education


Social Education
(Europe/Denmark)
Popular Education
(Latin America)
Historical context
1940s – wake of World War II
AIEJI (International Association for Social Educators). Original name Association Internationale des Éducateurs des Jeunes Inadaptés - created in 1951.

“From charity, assistencialism and philanthropy to social wellbeing as a human right.”
1960s-1970s – wake of Latin American military governments and dictatorships.

Brazil, Paulo Freire’s ideas and work.

Human liberation and emancipation.

Religious groups and churches involved.
Original target population
Homeless and orphaned children in the wake of World War II.
Illiterate adults (by 1950s half of the adult population in the region were illiterate).
Current target population (historical perspective)
Children
Adolescents
Youth
Adults (disabled)
Third age
Adults
Youth
Adolescents
Children
Families
Communities
Social movements
Characterisation of target populations
Ill-adjusted, maladjusted or poorly adjusted
Troubled
Disabled
Homeless
Marginalised
Excluded
At risk
With special needs
Poor
Marginalised
Illiterate
Semiliterate
Low schooling
Characteristics of educators
- Emphasis on professionalization and on continuous education and training.
- Defence of employment and of working conditions.

- Little attention to professionalisation or career development.
- Diverse training opportunities offered, often short. A few universities and NGOs offer university degrees.
- Often work on voluntary basis.
Organisation of educators
Organised in unions and/or professional associations.
National, European and international organizations.
- Not organised in unions or professional associations, sometimes organised in local associations.
- Local, sometimes national and also international organisations (i.e. CEAAL - Consejo de Educación de Adultos de América Latina, NGO network).
- Social movements have their own Popular Education bodies and programmes.
Identified similar occupations
Social workers, teachers, nurses, psychologists, therapists.
Teachers, social workers, extension workers, community agents, community leaders, cultural animators.
Work environments
Mainly non-formal education, non-school environments
Areas of work
Specialised education
Conflict mediation
Sociocultural animation
Adult education
School education
Environmental education
Leisure education
All potential areas
Purposes
Adaptation
Participation
Citizenship
Social change
Social justice
Awareness (Conscientisation)
Participation
Organisation
Empowerment
Social change
Political change
Social justice
Culture of rights
Principles
Dialogue
Respect
Participation
Learners' voices
Dialogue
Respect
Participation
Learners' voices
Dimensions of work
Pedagogical, social, political and ethical




   Elaborated by Rosa-María Torres

In the South most educators are ‘social educators’

The majority of educators in ‘developing countries’, within and outside the school system, deal with problematic socio-economic contexts and with major challenges facing individuals, families, groups, local communities and national societies.

The situation of rights denied to the a large portion to the population in many countries in the South presses the public school system, and educators working in it and on its margins, to deal with unsatisfied basic needs of the school population (i.e. food, health, affection, security, etc.), whose satisfaction would normally correspond to the State and to the family. This erodes the school’s main teaching-learning mission and further jeopardises the quality of educational provision. Thus, the borders between social workers and educators as well as between social action and political action, tend to be thin and blurred. 

When poverty affects the majority of the population, economic and social exclusion/inclusion imply massive phenomena that go beyond well-intentioned small-scale interventions or focused ‘alleviating poverty’ policies. Poverty is a structural condition that, as such, requires major changes in the current economic, social and political model that leads to massive exclusion and poverty. Such model and its change is no longer national in scope; it has been deepened and globalised, thus requiring global alternative thinking and concerted action. Social educators and other progressive forces in the North and in the South need to work together in the building of a new global ethics that fights social injustice and promotes equality at local, national, regional and global level. Democratizing global awareness, global protest and global solidarity vis à vis the most vulnerable majorities and minorities in the world is at the very heart of the efforts towards global social networking.

The objective is not only good quality education for all, but good quality of life for all

However, the notions of ‘quality of life’, ‘welbeing’ or ‘prosperity’ are not universal. The traditional ‘developed’/’non-developed’ or ‘less developed’ dichotomy used to classify countries, is being revised. ‘Human development’ and human satisfaction and realization are not linear categories defined between more or less and measurable by universal quantitative indicators; they are cultural, social and political constructions shaped in concrete historical circumstances.

The notions of ‘quality of life’ and ‘personal satisfaction’ adopted by the Gallup Worldwide Quality of Life Survey are not necessarily perceived as such in countries in the South. Gallup’s ‘quality of life’ places consumption
at the centre. The question asked in the survey is: “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your standard of living, that is, with all the things you can buy and do?.” On the other hand, the concept of Buen Vivir (‘Good Living’, Sumak Kawsay in Quechua indigenous language) in the Andean countries in Latin America places harmony at the center and is defined by three relational dimensions: harmony with nature, with oneself, and with others.

Global networks, global solidarity

In a globalised world, the role of agents of social change acquires also a global dimension, a global dimension that honours diversity, equality, inter- and multi-culturality, and rejects universal models, homogenous policies and perpetual hegemonic North/South relationships and ‘cooperation’ patterns. The wider the scope and the territories reached throughout the world, the greater the need to acknowledge and incorporate diversity to vision and to practice in all spheres.

The new challenges posed by the many world crises – the development crisis, the financial crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the ecology crisis, the work crisis, the education crisis – call for radical rethinking, reshaping and re-articulation of education and learning systems worldwide. They also create new opportunities and urgencies for networking and solidarity, configuring new frontiers that challenge conventional ‘developed’/’less developed’ and North/South distinctions. The time is ripe for stronger multidisciplinary, trans-sectoral and inter-institutional linkages as well as for more and better-coordinated work with organized groups, families and communities rather than with isolated individuals.

There are conditions for effectively adopting Lifelong Learning (LLL) as a new global paradigm for education and learning, overcoming the dual educational agenda -- LLL for the North and primary education for the South. Social Education is well positioned in this endeavor: learning beyond the family and the school system, an ageless category and a continuum.

The alternative and alterative nature of Social Education

The world has become a hostile and uncertain place to live for the majority of the world’s population. Inequality within and between countries is growing. In many regions and countries (both developing and developed), the battles against poverty, unemployment, hunger, school dropout, and others are not making progress. For millions of people, and especially for the most disadvantaged, the word future does not entail hope anymore.

In this context, the room for Social Educators is likely to expand. Many will view it as a damage-control device, ready to fill in the holes left by education and learning systems that are not doing their job properly -- the family, the school system, mass media, politics. Not accepting such remedial and compensatory role implies among others assuming an explicit political role vis a vis the need for systemic and structural change at local, national, regional and world level.

In fact, all education should be social, empathetic, relevant, contextualised, differentiated, responsive to specific needs and cultures, aimed at enhancing learners’ critical thinking, empowerment, autonomy, participation and organisation for personal and social transformation. Being alternative is not enough; the real challenge is becoming also alterative -- a social, political, pedagogical and ethical force that pushes others towards major changes in all these spheres.

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


Rosa-María Torres

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

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

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




































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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¿Aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida en el Norte y educación para todos en el Sur?




Rosa María Torres

Text in English: Lifelong Learning for the North, Education for All for the South?

Resumen de la exposición (en inglés) en la Conferencia Internacional sobre Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida “Perspectivas Globales en Educación” (Pekín, 1-3 Julio 2001)


Más allá de la retórica de la ‘Sociedad de la Información’ y la ‘Sociedad del Conocimiento’, estamos viendo ensancharse, antes que reducirse, la brecha entre el Norte (los ‘países desarrollados’) y el Sur (los ‘países en desarrollo’) en términos de conocimiento, investigación, educación, aprendizaje, desarrollo de la ciencia y la tecnología. De hecho, paradigmas diferentes de desarrollo educativo vienen proponiéndose para el Norte y para el Sur por parte de la ‘comunidad internacional’.

El Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida (ALV) - "desde la cuna hasta la tumba" - viene siendo adoptado en el Norte como principio organizador de la economía, la sociedad y la educación. Por otro lado, Educación Primaria y Educación Básica – entendida como determinado número de años de escolaridad – viene prescribiéndose para y en los países del Sur. No obstante, ésta no es la educación básica que se acordó en la Conferencia Mundial de Educación para Todos (Jomtien, Tailandia, marzo 1990), donde se lanzó la Educación para Todos (EPT) y se adoptó una “visión ampliada de la educación básica”, entendida no como ampliación del número de años de escolaridad sino como ampliación de la visión: "una educación capaz de satisfacer las necesidades básicas de aprendizaje de todas las personas”, niños, jóvenes y adultos, dentro y fuera del sistema escolar, y a lo largo de la vida. Dichas necesidades básicas de aprendizaje (NEBAs) son necesariamente diversas en diversos contextos y momentos, y cambian a lo largo del tiempo. Así se planteó en Jomtien.

La Educación para Todos no cumplió las metas hasta el año 2000, según se evaluó en el Foro Mundial de Educación (Dakar, abril 2000). Se decidió por ello extender el plazo hasta el 2015. En Dakar se ratificaron esencialmente las seis metas establecidas en Jomtien. No obstante, la Educación para Todos - coordinada a nivel mundial por la UNESCO - siguió replicando la misma visión estrecha y los mismos sesgos identificados en la década de 1990-2000. La meta reina siguió siendo la Meta 2: educación primaria para niños y niñas. Esta acaparó la atención y el presupuesto de las demás metas, sobre todo las vinculadas a la primera infancia y a la edad adulta.

Jomtien: 1990-2000

Dakar: 2000-2015

1. Expansión de la asistencia y las actividades de desarrollo de la primera infancia, incluidas las intervenciones de la familia y la comunidad, especialmente para los niños pobres, desasistidos e impedidos.
1. Expandir y mejorar el cuidado infantil y la educación inicial integrales, especialmente para los niños y niñas más vulnerables y en desventaja.
2. Acceso universal a la educación primaria (o a cualquier nivel más alto considerado "básico") y terminación de la misma, para el año 2000.

2. Asegurar que, para el año 2015, todos los niños, y especialmente las niñas y los niños en circunstancias difíciles, tengan acceso y completen una educación primaria gratuita, obligatoria y de buena calidad.
3. Mejoramiento de los resultados del aprendizaje de modo que un porcentaje convenido de una muestra de edad determinada (por ejemplo, 80% de los mayores de 14 años) alcance o sobrepase un nivel dado de logros de aprendizaje considerados necesarios.
3. Asegurar la satisfacción de las necesidades de aprendizaje de jóvenes y adultos a través del acceso equitativo a programas apropiados de aprendizaje de habilidades para la vida y para la ciudadanía.
4. Reducción de la tasa de analfabetismo adulto a la mitad del nivel de 1990 para el año 2000. El grupo de edad adecuado debe determinarse en cada país y debe hacerse suficiente hincapié en la alfabetización femenina a fin de modificar la desigualdad frecuente entre índices de alfabetización de los hombres y de las mujeres.
4. Mejorar en un 50 por ciento los niveles de alfabetización de adultos para el año 2015, especialmente entre las mujeres, y lograr el acceso equitativo a la educación básica y permanente para todas las personas adultas.
5. Ampliación de los servicios de educación básica y de capacitación a otras competencias esenciales necesarias para los jóvenes y los adultos, evaluando la eficacia de los programas en función de la modificación de la conducta y del impacto en la salud, el empleo y la productividad.
5. Eliminar las disparidades de género en la educación primaria y secundaria para el año 2005, y lograr la equidad de géneros para el 2015, en particular asegurando a las niñas acceso a una educación básica de buena calidad y rendimientos plenos e igualitarios.
6. Aumento de la adquisición por parte de los individuos y las familias de los conocimientos, capacidades y valores necesarios para vivir mejor y conseguir un desarrollo racional y sostenido por medio de todos los canales de la educación -incluidos los medios de información modernos, otras formas de comunicación tradicionales y modernas, y la acción social- evaluándose la eficacia de estas intervenciones en función de la modificación de la conducta.
6. Mejorar todos los aspectos de la calidad de la educación y asegurar la excelencia de todos, de modo que todos logren resultados de aprendizaje reconocidos y medibles, especialmente en torno a la alfabetización, el cálculo y las habilidades esenciales para la vida.

La escolaridad obligatoria ha venido ampliándose en el mundo, a menudo coincidiendo con lo que varios países denominan hoy educación básica. No obstante, las metas internacionales para la educación en el Sur vienen achicándose cada vez más.

En 1980, el Proyecto Principal de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (PPE) (1980-2000), coordinado por la Oficina Regional de la UNESCO (OREALC), se propuso llegar al año 2000 con cero analfabetismo y nueve años de educación general. En 1990, la Educación para Todos se propuso reducir la tasa de analfabetismo a la mitad hasta el 2000 y, después, hasta el 2015. Además, el tradicional énfasis sobre la infancia (versus la edad adulta) en términos educativos pasó a cargarse del lado de las niñas, en nombre de la equidad de género.

Los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (ODM), acordados también en el 2000 y también con plazo 2015, y cuya agenda multisectorial es la que vino a marcar la pauta a nivel mundial, abandonaron el concepto de educación básica, retomaron el de educación primaria y redujeron ésta a cuatro años, sin ninguna atención a la calidad y utilidad de dicha escolaridad (cabe recordar que el indicador para "educación primaria" dentro de los ODM es “supervivencia al quinto grado”). ¡Ningún país del mundo tiene una educación primaria de 4 años!.

Lo cierto es que la “visión ampliada de la educación básica” adoptada en Jomtien en 1990 en el marco de la Educación para Todos, no fue asumida por los propios socios internacionales de la EPT: UNESCO, UNICEF, PNUD y Banco Mundial. Las recomendaciones de política educativa para los “países en desarrollo” siguieron centrándose en niños y niñas, educación formal y escuela primaria - e incluso en las estadísticas de acceso y matrícula, confundiendo "universalización de la educación primaria" con universalización del acceso a la educación primaria – y entendiendo, en fin, básico como mínimo. La Educación para Todos fue convertida en Educación Primaria para Todos los niños, primero, y en Cuatro Años de Escuela Primaria para Todos, después. En medio del despliegue retórico de la ‘Sociedad del Conocimiento’, la aspiración para el Sur, en definitiva, bordea hoy lo que muchos consideran el umbral del llamado ‘alfabetismo funcional’.

Detrás de esta agenda dual - una para el Norte y otra para el Sur - está la mentalidad de déficit con que suele pensarse al Sur, desde el Norte y desde el propio Sur, convencidos ambos de que el Norte va siempre “adelante” y el Sur siempre “atrás”, y que lo que le toca a éste último es “alcanzar” al Norte siguiendo los mismos pasos que éste siguió en su propio recorrido para llegar donde está.

Es desde esta lógica que, por ejemplo, el Banco Mundial recomendaba en los 1990s a los “países en desarrollo” una reforma educativa gradual, a implementarse por peldaños: primero los niños, luego los jóvenes y al final los adultos; primero reforma de la educación primaria, luego de la secundaria y algún día de la terciaria, ignorando con ello el carácter sistémico del sistema educativo, del cambio en educación, y del propio desarrollo de un país. Un error más del Banco Mundial, que hoy vuelve a reiterar en su Estrategia 2020 para la Educación "Aprendizaje para Todos". Ningún país avanza solamente con alfabetización y acceso universal a la educación primaria. Es más: ninguna de estas metas es posible a menos que se trabaje simultáneamente en el desarrollo de la educación secundaria y universitaria, en donde se forman (o malforman) los docentes y los profesionales encargados de hacer realidad una oferta educativa de calidad desde los primeros años de vida de una persona. Es, en definitiva, toda la sociedad la que debe avanzar para hacer posible una educación de calidad para todos.

De cualquier modo, a la Educación para Todos, tanto en Jomtien como en Dakar, le hizo siempre falta una comprensión holística de la educación, del aprendizaje y del sistema escolar como un todo – educación inicial, primaria, secundaria y terciaria - en relación a la propia educación básica y a las necesidades básicas de aprendizaje de la población. Las seis metas están formuladas de manera aislada, como si no existieran superposiciones e interconexiones entre ellas. Alfabetización y educación básica de adultos aparecen como dos metas, cuando en verdad la primera es parte de la segunda, más amplia y abarcadora. Las metas ubicadas a los extremos de la "edad escolar" - primera infancia y edad adulta - han sido sistemáticamente marginadas en la EPT y esta debilidad reconocida cada año en los Informes de Seguimiento de la EPT en el Mundo. Evidentemente, la Educación para Todos no es el marco apropiado para desarrollar, ni conceptual ni operativamente, el paradigma del Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida, que atraviesa a todos los niveles educativos, incluye los aprendizajes informales y se extiende, en fin, como indica su nombre, a lo largo de toda la vida.

Sociedad del Conocimiento para Todos implica Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la Vida para Todos. El Norte sabe y reconoce esto para sus naciones y ciudadanos, y le imprime un carácter propio. El Sur debe empeñarse en incorporarlo, superando las metas aisladas, definiendo sus propias pautas, luchando contra los dobles estándares y contra la inequidad regional y global.

Otros escritos de la autora relacionados con el tema

Over Two Decades of 'Education for All' (2011) ▸ Más de dos décadas de 'Educación para Todos' (2011)
El Banco Mundial y sus errores de política educativa (2011) ▸ The World Bank and its mistaken education policies (2011)
▸ América Latina: cuatro décadas de metas para la educación (1980-2021), 2010
ç▸ "Educación en la Sociedad de la Información", en: Alain Ambrosi, Valérie Peugeot y Daniel Pimienta (coord.), Palabras en juego, Enfoques culturales sobre las sociedades de la información, C&F Editions, Caen, Francia, 2005.
▸ Justicia educativa y justicia económica: 12 tesis para el cambio educativo, Movimiento Internacional de Educación Popular y Promoción Social 'Fe y Alegría' /Entreculturas/AECI, Madrid, 2005.
▸ Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education, Sida Studies 11, Sida, Stockholm, 2004.
▸ Aprendizaje a lo largo de toda la vida: Un nuevo momento y una nueva oportunidad para el Aprendizaje y la Educación Básica de Adultos en el Sur. Estudio encargado por la ASDI (Agencia Sueca para la Cooperación Internacional), Estocolmo, 2002.
▸ "¿Qué pasó en el Foro Mundial de Dakar?", en: Perfiles Educativos, N° 83. México: CESU-UNAM, 2000; Educación de Adultos y Desarrollo, Nº 56, IIZ-DVV, Bonn, 2001.
▸ “Ayuda internacional basada en el conocimiento: ¿la queremos?, ¿la necesitamos?" (versión resumida), en: Varios autores, Otro lado de la brecha: Perspectivas Latinoamericanas y del Caribe ante la Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información, RedISTIC- Red sobre de Impacto Social de las TIC, 2004. (español, inglés, francés y portugués)
▸ “‘Cooperación internacional en educación en América Latina: ¿parte de la solución o parte del problema?, en: Cuadernos de Pedagogía, Nº 308, Barcelona, diciembre 2001. Monográfico sobre “La educación en Latinoamérica”.
▸ "Comunidad de Aprendizaje: Repensando lo educativo desde el desarrollo local y desde el aprendizaje". Ponencia presentada en el Simposium Internacional sobre Comunidades de Aprendizaje, Barcelona Forum 2004 (Barcelona, 5-6 Octubre 2001).
Una década de "Educación para Todos": La tarea pendiente, IIPE-UNESCO Buenos Aires, 2000; FUM-TEP, Montevideo, 2000; Editorial Popular, Madrid, 2000; Editorial Laboratorio Educativo, Caracas, 2000.
- Uma década de Educação para Todos: A tarefa por fazer. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora, 2001.
- One Decade of "Education for All": The Challenge Ahead. Buenos Aires: IIPE UNESCO, 2000.
La educación según el Banco Mundial. Un análisis de sus propuestas y métodos, Miño y Dávila /CEM, Buenos Aires, 1997. (en coautoría con J.L. Coraggio)
▸ "Improving the Quality of Basic Education? The Strategies of the World Bank", in: Stromquist, N.; Basile, M. (ed.), Politics of Educational Innovations in Developing Countries, An Analysis of Knowledge and Power, Falmer Press, NewYork-London, 1999.

* Resumen original en inglés incluido en: Medel-Añonuevo, Carol (editor), Integrating Lifelong Learning Perspectives, UIE/UIL, Hamburg, 2002.

Para saber más
▸ Observatorio: Mitos y metas de la 'Educación para Todos' (1990-2000-2015)
▸ European Commission: Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme (Sep.18, 2011)

Rosa María Torres del Castillo (Ecuador). Pedagoga y lingüista, con amplia experiencia en investigación y asesoría educativas a nivel latinoamericano y mundial. Ha sido entre otros Directora Pedagógica de la Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización “Monseñor Leonidas Proaño” en el Ecuador (1988-90); asesora principal en la Sección Educación de UNICEF en Nueva York y editora del boletín Education News de ese organismo (1990-96); Directora de Programas para América Latina en la Fundación Kellogg (1996-98); investigadora en el IIPE-UNESCO Buenos Aires (1998-2000) y Ministra de Educación y Culturas en el Ecuador, designada por el Movimiento de Unidad Plurinacional Pachakutik (2003). En el 2000 fue parte del grupo de especialistas convocados por UNESCO para trabajar en la preparación de la Década de Naciones Unidas para la Alfabetización (2003-2012) y estuvo a cargo de la redacción del Documento Base de dicha Década. En 2006-2009 trabajó como investigadora y asesora institucional del CREFAL (México). Por encargo del UIL-UNESCO preparó el informe regional sobre la situación de la educación de personas jóvenes y adultas para la VI Conferencia Mundial de Educación de Adultos (CONFINTEA VI, Belém, Brasil, dic. 2009). Desde el 2000 coordina el Pronunciamiento Latinoamericano por una Educación para Todos. Es autora de numerosas publicaciones. Ha coordinado varias redes y espacios virtuales. Blog personal OTRA∃DUCACION


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there is something called «development knowledge»?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is «good» knowledge expert knowledge?

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

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

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

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

Is «expert» knowledge good knowledge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few final conclusions and recommendations

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

What can international agencies do to assist the South?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other texts from Rosa María Torres 

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

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...