rethinking the mainstream; liberating education for ...itacec.org/earthquake/paper oxcon final sept...

Rethinking the ‘Mainstream’: Liberating Education for Livelihoods

Baela Raza Jamil : Education Specialist Sudhaar ITA Alliance

&Save the Children UK

UKFIET International Conference Learning & Livelihood September 15, 2005

University of Oxford, UK

Rethinking the Mainstream : Learning & Livelihood. UKFIET International Conference, Oxford 2005 1

Rethinking the ‘Mainstream’: Liberating Education for Livelihoods

Education and learning have been classically conceived as a lifelong non-discriminatory discourse on rights as entitlements, human security and spirituality1. It is also seen as the most significant explanation for poverty, both in terms of income and capabilities (PRSP 2003, Sen 2000 ). The framework within which learning is delivered in developing countries remains severely constrained and operationally divisive. Conceived as a continuum of learning for all, its delivery has repeatedly encountered a fragmented approach on account of the following qualifiers: for whom, where, what and how. In this conceptualization the first principles of human survival and sustainable development have become compromised holding back progress on entitlements and poverty alleviation. The sub-altern categories of non-formal and in-formal education, juxtaposed against the grand (often over-rated) images and assumptions of formal mainstream education, are struggling for survival and space. No where is this dilemma more widely present than in the developing countries where formal education and learning service delivery continues to lag behind social expectations. Based on UNDP, World Bank, IMF and OECD estimates, South Asia has 46 million primary school-age children out of school, about 60 per cent of whom are girls. Education and learning has been substituted by school education, often restricted to government primary schools (Torres, 2001). Such an interpretation fails to address learning needs of all the children and households even at the basic primary level. The failure of the formal system, recipient of highest resources to education, to enroll and sustain students has led to alarming levels of miss outs and drop outs. These in turn, become available as cheap exploitative labor. Out of approximately 352 million economically active children in the 5-17 age group, about 246 million were working under exploitative circumstances, accelerating poverty, illiteracy and denial of human rights2.

The paper will be developed around the concerns raised above, as the global rallying towards Education For All (EFA) goals and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) gathers momentum in 2005, also seen as the first trimester goal post to 2015!. Many have critiqued the MDGs for their limited scope and oversight of rights and entitlements (Alkire 2004, Parakrama 20053), as evidence on widening gaps between the rich and poor is recorded by the UN agencies and governments alike. The 2005 milestones of EFA and MDGs provide us with an opportunity to un-bundle the ‘mainstream’ and unshackle it as an anchor strategy for EFA and livelihoods.

Sections I of the paper will provide a brief profile of Pakistan. Section II of the paper will deconstruct what the mainstream means. Section III will illustrate the argument by highlighting experiences of a child labor education initiative, being implemented in Pakistan, called Addressing Child Labor through Quality Education For All (ACLQEFA), is a four year (2002-2006) project, funded by the US Department of Labor. Section IV or the concluding part of the paper will present concrete recommendations to the international education and policy community for liberating education for livelihoods.

1 Islam’s non-discriminatory position on knowledge as a fundamental right for all, as a lifelong learning pursuit for women and men alike from cradle to grave for human evolution, development and to reach ‘God’: Sura ‘IQRA’ (READ) Al Quran. 22 ILO: Every Child Counts-New Global Estimates on Child Labour, April 2002.3 Meeting by SNV on MDGs in Zones of Conflict (Nepal 2005), Arjuna highlighted that: MDGs remain top-down indicators; provide a diversion from other fundamental concerns; Process and priority issues not given any prominence in MDG agenda (“How” , “Why”, “For Whom”); Not formulated in structural terms or rights-based discourse [“win-win” scenarios simplistic?]; MDGs as safe and manipulable Lowest Common Denominator (LCD); low in :analyses, correlation across goals & cross-cutting ones


I. Profiling Pakistan Pakistan is home to 152 million people (World Bank 2005). The proportion of population below 15 years of age is 43.4%. Rural population is 67.5% and the average household size is 6.8 persons per household4. Pakistan has a federal government that comprises several ministries and divisions. A similar pattern of administration exists at the four provincial government level. Under the Local Governments Ordinance 2001, power has been devolved to all 108 District Governments that are now authorized to undertake district-based planning, management and administration. The 2001 Ordinance does not as yet include the federally administered tribal belt of over 3 million impoverished inhabitants, living adjacent to Afghanistan, sandwiched between tribal political agents and civil administrations of provincial and national governments. The government estimates show that in 2000-01, 32.1% Pakistanis were living below the poverty line. This implies that over forty five million people in Pakistan live in absolute poverty. In Pakistan half the adults are illiterate, about 20 million children (5-14 years) are out of schools, 63 million people are without basic health facilities, 54 million are without proper sanitation, and 17 million do not have access to clean drinking water5. Infant mortality rate in Pakistan was 91 per 1,000 live births in 1998, compared to 70 for India, and 68 for low income countries (UNDP, 2003). Child mortality rate (under 5 years) is as high as120 per 1000 for Pakistan compared to 107 for low income countries. The poor lack access to basic needs such as education, health, clean drinking water and proper sanitation. Such deprivation undermines their capabilities, limits their opportunities to secure employment, and results in social exclusion. Pakistan Human Condition Report 20026 highlights that in 1998-99, income distribution was severely skewed with top 20 per cent of the population getting 50 per cent of the national income while the bottom quintile sharing only 5 per cent of the national income. The poorer the family the greater the possibilities to send children into labour and even hazardous work.

On the positive side, some developments need to be factored in the analysis. The government has achieved and initiated significant milestones. i) The regional peace, repatriation and healing process with India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh; ii) Reduction in debt repayments which accounted now account for 32 % of GDP instead of 50%; iii) Reduction in population growth rates from 2.5% to 1.9%; iv) Achieving an economic growth rate of 8.4 % in 2004-2005, and a projected momentum up to 2010, leading to a 12% increase in per capital income from $ 657 in 2003-04 to $ 736 in 2004-057; v) Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005/6 linked to EFA/MDGs/PRSP, as a sector wide plan to address access and quality at all levels from primary to tertiary, and shift in focus of government as the sole provider to a financier and facilitator; vi) Enhanced GDP allocation to education from 1.6% to almost 3 % 8and vii) Enhanced women’s political representation to 33% and 17% at local and federal levels. These 4 National Census 1998.5 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper; UNDP Report 1998 and 2002; World Bank Report 2002 quoted in Human Development in South Asia 2002-Human Development Center-Pakistan6 Report prepared by Center for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution (CRPRID), Government of Pakistan7 Economic Survey of Pakistan 2004-05, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan. 8 Ministry of Education, 2005.


developments are aiding Pakistan in implementing its home grown poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) finalized and approved in 2003. To sustain positive initiatives, it is imperative that Pakistan revisits and upgrades its human resource strategy through a more imaginative, gender responsive, holistic and mainstreamed approach to achieve substantive equity and poverty reduction.

II. Deconstructing the Mainstream

i. Challenging the term ‘mainstream’ from a social policy perspective has been undertaken by several academics and practitioners recently (Torres, 2001, 2005, Hoppers 2001 and Alkire 2004). Some have questioned the epistemological and literal meaning of the words ‘mainstream’ and ‘non-formal’ in English as well as in local languages (Jamil, 1997). Mainstream conjures up images of a strong central healthy flow of water, within which rivulets/streams from the sides merge as a preferred positive attraction. Non-formal, on the other hand has a negative prefix attached to the word ‘form’ . Both terms, when translated in local languages fall thin on account of their underlying assumptions which contradict the essence of both non-formal and mainstream. In ‘Urdu’ language non-formal is translated as ‘Ghair Rasmi; or away from custom, when it is meant to be just the opposite, promoting flexibility and conformity to local traditions as its first principle. Neither the assumptions of non-conformity to ‘form’, nor the notion of ‘healthy’ pertaining to the mainstream can be sustained in our existing education systems globally, where learning processes are severely undermined and inequitably distributed within the mainstream formal education systems.

Is mainstream merely a minimalist interpretation of moving from non-formal to formal schools (and that too government schools) with an illusion that the latter represent quality, or is it a more comprehensive interpretation placing mainstream inclusively and systemically. Mainstream through a minimalist lens has meant that the formal schools (government and non-state) are seen as providers of standards, whilst the non-formal learning sites have become low cost, ‘ghettoised’ remedial programs suffering from a deliberate and chronic lack of resources and attention. Poverty in Pakistan, estimated at 32.1 percent is largely attributable to no or low access to education, learning and training opportunities, compounded by a divisive hierarchical approach to learning options. The traditional under-funding of non-formal and literacy programs , between 2-5% in South Asia continues in spite of the fact that it is sometimes the only service delivery option on account of sub-optimal and underperforming formal education systems. Findings on students and teachers low performances in mainstream schools illustrated in several studies of South Asia (Kardar, 2005; Khawaja Das, 2004 Education Watch Reports, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, The Pratichi Study, 2001, Probe Report 1999). Households in turn are left bewildered in terms of choice with respect to, both state and non-state provision (DfID, Irvine, 2004).

The pursuit of ‘mainstream’ from a transitional non-formal perspective has yielded uneven results. This trend is widely prevalent in the South Asian region, home to almost one fourth of the global population and a majority of illiterates and the unschooled. Undermining the trend is the poor tracking of students enrolled in non-state systems in general and non-formal centres/schools in particular (Ministry of Education Pakistan, 2004, NCERT, India 2005). This is yet another planning bottleneck which is thinning out the mainstream challenge of EFA. The mainstream de facto is considered only as government provision at the primary and elementary levels. Such a divisive and emaciated approach to NFE and ‘mainstreaming’ suggests that there is a flaw in conceptualization and the strategy needs to undergo rethinking if lifelong learning and livelihoods need to be linked to a positive engagement with globalization and sustainable poverty reduction. Torres poignantly reminds us of the North South entitlements double speak.


While non-formal education is in increased demand and supply in the North, as a lifelong complementary education path for all, in the South it continues to be associated with remedial education for the poor (2001 p. )

The call today must be for Basic Quality Education For All as the overarching first principle of social policy. The umbrella term needs to be qualified through an alternative lexicon so that the debate should not be restricted merely to the re-conceptualization of formal, non-formal and in-formal as complementary entities for mainstreaming (ADEA 20019), but, more boldly in repositioning the ‘mainstream’ altogether as an inclusive comprehensive enterprise of education and life long learning within a dynamic global framework.

ii. The lexicon of Rethinking the Mainstream Some commonly used terms which are equally applied to the formal and non-formal education delivery systems are presented to consider why mainstream for the education sector is to be repositioned. The unpacking of the terms is presented below.

ii. i Mainstream :

Mainstream is used in education and planning from a variety of perspectives.

I. In context of delivery systems it simply means the passage from non-formal to formal education system.

II. Under special needs education it refers to inclusivity and means to i) To integrate (a student with special needs) into regular school classes and ii) To incorporate into a prevailing group. ( American Heritage Dictionary: 2004)

III. In gender discourse mainstreaming implies systemic integration of all gender policy, planning, budgeting, audit and implementation within all sectors and departments/ministries .

IV. In social policy documents from the developed countries, mainstreaming for equality or

equity is more strategic and broader.

"`Mainstreaming' equality is ..concerned with the integration of equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices into the every day work of Government and other public bodies from the outset, involving .. policy actors in addition to equality specialists. In other words, it entails rethinking mainstream provision to accommodate gender, race, disability and other dimensions of discrimination and disadvantage, including class, sexuality and religion." ( Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee 2002)

Mainstream, cannot be a minimalist agenda but a comprehensive one juxtaposed against the definitions of basic learning needs, as inclusive, multi-sectoral, dynamic and context specific. .

ii.iii Basic Quality Education For All [BQEFA]. Since Jomtien (1990) interpreting the meaning of ‘basic learning needs’ to achieve quality of life as written out in Article 1 of the declaration, has been the most ubiquitous pursuit.

“Every person — child, youth and adult — shall be able to benefit from educational opportunities designed to meet their basic learning needs. These needs comprise both 9 “Mainstreaming NFE: Moving from the margin and going to scale” during the ADEA Biennale (Arusha, Tanzania, 7-11 October 200 ).


essential learning tools (such as literacy, oral expression, numeracy, and problem solving) and the basic learning content (such as knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes) required by human beings to be able to survive, to develop their full capacities, to live and work in dignity, to participate fully in development, to improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions, and to continue learning. These… are countries and cultures (specific), and inevitably, change with the passage of time…

However in the same document, there is a compromise. A shift from quality access to simple restricted ‘access to primary schooling’ occurs in Article 5 ‘ The main delivery system for the basic education of children outside the family is primary schooling’.

In 2000 at Dakar, Jomtien’s broader position on basic learning needs was reinforced and enhanced. It adopted a rights based transformative approach (UDHR /CRC) inspired from the Delors Report (1996). Dakar included all children, youth and adults for addressing “ basic learning needs in the best and fullest sense of the term, is an education that includes learning to know, to do, to live together and to be.. so that they can improve their lives and transform their societies (Dakar 2000). Since then, there has been an overall shift in focus from education to learning and from lifelong education to lifelong learning. LLL acknowledges essentially two inter-related facts, that it is lifelong (not confined to a particular period in life) and that learning is life wide (not confined to school and to schooling).

Box I Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen on the value of educationEducation ... can be seen to be valuable ... to ... a person in at least five distinct ways.

1. Intrinsic importance: Being educated ... is [a] valuable achievement[...] in [itself], and the opportunity to [gain it] can be of direct importance to a person’s effective freedom.

2. Instrumental personal roles: A person’s education ... can help him or her do many things - other than just being educated ... that are also valuable. [It] can, for instance, be important for getting a job and more generally for making use of economic opportunities. The resulting expansion in incomes and economic means can, in turn, add to a person’s freedom to achieve functionings that he or she values.

3. Instrumental social roles: Greater literacy and basic education can facilitate public discussion of social needs and encourage informed collective demands (e.g., for health care and social security); these in turn can help expand the facilities that the public enjoys, and contribute to the better utilisation of the available services.

4. Instrumental process roles: The process of schooling can have benefits even aside from its explicitly aimed objectives, namely formal. For example, the incidence of child labour is intimately connected with non-schooling of children, and the expansion of schooling can reduce the distressing phenomenon of child labour.... Schooling also brings young people in touch with others and thereby broadens their horizons, and this can be particularly important for young girls.

5. Empowerment and distributive roles: Greater literacy and educational achievements of disadvantaged groups can increase their ability to resist oppression, to organise politically, and to get a fairer deal. The redistributive effects can be important not only between different social groups or households, but also within the family, since there is evidence that better education (particularly female education) contributes to the reduction of gender-based inequalities.

These influences need not work only for the person who receives education.... There are also interpersonal effects. For example, one person’s educational ability can be of use to another (e.g., to get a pamphlet


read, or to have public announcement explained....

From Drèze and Sen 1995, pp. 14-15

The more confining interpretations on basic education are provided by the International Standard Classification of Education. It restricts the term basic education to embrace two education levels: primary education (“first stage of basic education”) and lower secondary education (“second stage of basic education”), comprising normally between 8 to 10 years of schooling (UNESCO 1997 B).

Countries in the South Asian region define ‘basic learning needs’ according to their own contexts, aspirations and resource constraints. For India, basic education target includes the age group from 5- 14 years, whilst for Bangladesh and Pakistan the target is five years of primary education. In Pakistan ‘ katchi’ or one year pre-primary (ECE) is increasingly being incorporated as the basic education challenge. Countries influenced by the rates of return arguments so aggressively promoted by the World Bank in the last quarter of the twentieth century, have become prisoners to the myth in spite of evidence to the contrary. The National child labour survey (1996) conducted by the Federal Bureau of Statistics in Pakistan found 3.3 million of the 40 million children (5-14 age group) to be economically active on full-time basis. Of these 73 per cent (2.4 million) were boys and 27 per cent (0.9 million) girls. One third of the working children are literate which shows that mere primary completion is not an effective deterrent to child labour and poverty.

The reduction of education to school education is so strong that even the official world commitment to an “expanded vision of basic education” agreed upon at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, in 1990, was generally understood and translated as primary education (Torres, 2001).

Once defined as a restricted category, the limited scope becomes embedded in the dominant vision, policy and planning provisions.

ii.iii. Policy : Policy is a statement of aims, purposes, principles or intentions, which serve as continuing guidelines for management in accomplishing objectives20. The policy documents on education comprising national policies on education, national plans of action (NPAs) on EFA, poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs) sector strategies for Fast Track Initiative (FTI). These provide varying space for the levels and delivery options of formal and non-formal education. The latter is however included as a marginal10 or residual category across various departments (social welfare, women’s development, non-formal and literacy directorates, labor department etc.). There is often no linkage that is explicitly made between formal and non-formal other than the ideal of ‘mainstreaming’ to government or formal schools and NFE is seen as a bridging strategy. This oversight persists in spite of the huge challenge of reaching 100 percent Net Enrolment Rate (NER) at the primary level, gender equality goals, whereby a large number of children and youth continue to be denied basic education, and with 20 to 50

10 In FTI preparatory guidelines and indicators, NFE is excluded.


percent drop out rates in all South Asian countries. Quality of basic ‘school’ education remains a key challenge and NFE policy, planning and budgets leaves a lot to be desired.

Recently some countries have started making explicit policy and implementation provisions for the linkage under various EFA country wide initiatives. India ‘Sarva Sikhshya Abihyan’ (SSA), Kenya Education Policy and NPA (2003 & 2004) and Pakistan are a case in point. However, in Pakistan the linkage plan is present in the NPA for EFA but the systems for inter and intra-departmental collaboration, fungibility in allocated budgets and utilization remains disconnected (NPA EFA Pakistan 2001-2015, ESR Action Plan 2001-2005/6).

ii.iv. Planning : Planning involves dealing on aims and objectives, selecting to correct strategies and program to achieve the aims, determining and allocating the resources required and ensuring that plans are communicated to all concerned. Like policy, the trends in planning for formal and non-formal are segregated institutionally under different departments/ministries, or sections with a regimented pecking order, whereby the department of NFE /literacy are rarely given a chance to present their case forcefully. Strategic planning for EFA/MDGs entails intra-sectoral and inter-sectoral interaction, which is noticeable by its absence.

ii.v Resource allocations and utilization11. Resources for education in South Asia vary from 4 to 1.5 percent. These are inadequate compared to needs and are often under-counted as they are spread across several departments responsible for education provision. Budgets are spread across recurrent salary, non-salary recurrent, development and special grants. Formal education receives the lion share to fund salaries and little is spared for quality learning provisions. Only a small percentage is available for non-formal and literacy segments which desperately require attention on account of large population, children, youth and adults who are out of school and deprived of basic literacies. In Pakistan, annual Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) for non-formal and literacy rarely exceeds 3 percent of the total development budget, with often uneven trend of cuts and under-spend over previous years. This trend is also widely prevalent in the region. In India and Bangladesh, actual resource provision remains meager for NFE, but planning and policy are more inclusive.

ii.vi Institutional Provision : entails the space, inputs and support services for setting up the formal and non-formal education programs eg. Infrastructure support, furniture, textbooks, learning materials, teacher recruitment, training; monitoring and other compensatory interventions such as free textbooks, stipends, feeding programs etc. Institutional provision for the purpose of life long learning, includes a variety of programmes and types of education fitting the national context, such as regular education, adult education, formal education, non-formal education, initial education, continuing education, distance education, open-education, life-long education, part-time education, dual systems, apprenticeships, technical-vocational education, training, special needs education http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced. Formal education comprised “regular school and university education”; non-formal education (NFE) comprised “out-of-school and continuing education, on the job training, etc.”; and informal education comprised “family and socially directed learning”. A fourth category, experiential learning, was added to embrace “learning by doing, self-directed learning,etc.” (UNESCO 1991:17-18). However, the notion of education has remained strongly associated with formal education, that is, with schooling and school education.

11


http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced

Education reform generally refers to school reform and education policy refers to policy addressed to the school system. Education and learning that take place outside the school system. – tend to remain intangible and invisible, and continues not to be contemplated in education diagnoses and prospects, policies and statistics (Torres 2001).

Diversity in institutional provision for education is being accepted by governments who see themselves in the neo-liberal perspective as not the sole providers but as financiers and facilitators. In this capacity the non-state assisted and non-assisted sector is emerging as a key player with low accountability or regulation standards. The NFE programs are proto-types of non-state or non-elite private sector, some graduating to become private sector providers with modest user charges (Irvine 2004). The NFE programs under various schemes such as the Education Gaurantee Scheme (EGS) Alternative Innovative Education (AIE) in India, child labor NFE centers etc., have become more outgoing in terms of diversity of locations in the community, in public sector facilities including government schools in the afternoons through NGO-ized providers. NFE from being traditionally set up for primary accelerated education programs are beginning to upgrade themselves into middle level provision through independent or government sponsored schemes in the South Asian region. The inevitable lags between implementation and integration in policy, planning and budgets remain a recurrent reality.

Torres has been a consistent critic of the divisive and myopic responses to the call for EFA and its expanded vision. She has aptly highlighted this issue in dichotomized typologies.

EDUCATION FOR ALL (Jomtien)Proposal Response

1. Education for all 1Education for children (the poorest among the poor)

2. Basic education 2. Schooling (and primary education) 3. Universalizing basic education 3. Universalizing access to primary education 4. Basic learning needs 4. Minimum learning needs 5. Focusing on learning 5. Enhancing and assessing school

performance 6, Expanding the vision of basic education

7. Basic education as the foundation for lifelong learning

8. enhancing the environment of Learning

6. Increasing the duration (number of years ) of compulsory schooling

7. Basic education as an end in itself

8. Enhancing the school environment 9. All Countries 9. Developing Countries 10. Responsibility of countries (govt and civil society) and the international community

10. Responsibility of countries

Torres 2000 a.

ii.vii Curriculum, is defined in terms of content, method, purpose and evaluation12. It is a combination of the intended or planned course and the actual educational experiences of the learner in a learning context/space. Curriculum is seen in terms of the Core-Curriculum; Co- Curricular or Enrichment Activities:; Common Curriculum: Common curriculum usually implies

12 A Dictionary of Education, edited by P.J. Hills. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1982.


a compulsory pattern of learning for all pupils. It tends to emphasize syllabuses, textbooks, learning levels and time allocation leading to terminal or summative assessments. Both formal and NFE increasingly converge in terms of texts and support materials/activities. Infact the NFE appear to have more space in supplementary or additive learning materials with more relaxed scrutiny systems than the formal education program.

ii.viii Competencies are defined as the ability to apply to practical situations the essential principles and techniques of a particular subject matter field. 13 The most concrete form of judging those abilities are through learning milestones, both quantitative and qualitative, referred to as Learning Assessment14 . Learning assessments can be obtained through various techniques, e.g. assignments, projects, continuous assessment, objective type tests, final examinations and other standardized tests, etc. In the formal system in Pakistan no formal competencies have been agreed upon such as minimum learning levels (India), outcomes based education (OBE) in South Africa, etc. to pin down accountability for formal or non-formal, state and non-state education delivery systems alike. In Pakistan cross country assessment for grades 4 and 8 is being developed through the “ National Education Assessment System(NEAS) which have excluded focus on NFE. NFE programs require such assessments to qualify for mainstreaming to formal schools. Learning competencies are at the heart of a quality education enterprise. In Pakistan this remains a central challenge.

619 Students and teachers were surveyed in 104 schools in six representative districts of Punjab ..targeted to class four students with content completed at grade three level. Of these, 70 per cent were unable to score even 30 per cent in maths and only six per cent were able to score more than 50 per cent. In Urdu around 42 per cent of the students did not get pass marks (which were pitched at a mere 30 per cent) and 28 per cent scored more than 50 per cent marks.

The same tests were administered to teachers. More than 18 per cent of the teachers were unable to score even 50 per cent in the same maths test, while a mere 31 per cent managed to get more than 75 per cent despite reliance on textbooks and collaboration …Teachers who were matriculates were able to attain an average of just 56 per cent, compared with the average of 69 per cent obtained by teachers who were graduates for the basic concepts that children in Grade 3 are expected to know!

(Kardar & Khar, Dawn April 8,2005 )

ii.ix Monitoring and Research : Monitoring is a management function and is integrated in implementation to track progress of project/program against pre-defined benchmarks and milestones. Education Management Information Management Systems (EMIS) serve to map the quantity and quality of education facilities, enrolments, teachers availability, learning materials and local governance. However, EMIS often focuses only on government facilities, excluding non-state provision, both formal and non-formal, undermining the coverage of education initiatives. NFE programs increasingly have their own EMIS often more rigorous than the formal one to track learners across non-formal and formal education systems.

13 Dictionary of Education, edited by Carter V. Good; Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, New York/New Delhi. 14 International Directory of Education, by G. Terry Page & J.B. Thomas, p26. Kogan Page, London


The above core concepts would be elaborated through evidence from a case study of a project Addressing Child Labor through Quality Education for All (ACL_QEFA)” in Pakistan (2002-2006)15 and its specific instruments, conceived within the mainstream framework of comprehensive education planning.

III Matching Experiences from Pakistan – ACLQEFA

iii.i US Department of Labour-Education Initiative project. Addressing Child Labour through Quality Education for All (ACLQEFA) is a US Department of Labour project , being implemented in two districts of Punjab (Kasur and Sheikhupura), Pakistan by Save Children-UK and its implementing partners. The project aims to provide non formal education, mainstreaming, literacy and vocational training options to 8000 working children prioritizing children in worst forms of labour, and 2000 non working siblings at risk of entering the child labour market. The preventive aspect of the project is working with the two district governments16 for capacity building of district education and literacy departments, vocational training institutes, and improvement in quality of education in all the government schools through district education planning and implementation. The project supports the provincial government in developing district education plans for eight additional districts. The project, unlike the usual child labor projects under the global International Program for Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) which focus only on non-formal provision, is designed to improve the quality of primary education simultaneously in formal government schools. The two pronged approach was undertaken to increase sustained access to education for child labor or those at risk of entering it..

The Education Initiative(EI) provides direct and indirect support to the identified working children in target districts in Punjab by facilitating access to non formal education, mainstreaming, literacy and pre-vocational skills, financial support for continuing education, vocational and apprenticeship opportunities. The focus is on improving the quality of education through interventions in government schools, capacity building of the Education Department, improving Education Management Information Systems, active community and children’s participation, and District Education Planning. Advocacy is undertaken with district, and provincial governments for institutionalizing long-term, sustainable mechanisms for continuation of similar activities through bottom-up planning, efficient use of available resources, allocating more funds to the education services and their efficient use. A particular focus is on internal and external resource mobilization, and linking up with the government’s plan of EFA (Education for All) and poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) for a more coherent approach to deal with child labor.”17 The strategy ensured at the outset a mainstreamed framework for policy, planning, institutional provision, curriculum assessment and monitoring.

iii.i Policy for institutional provision : Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) were signed with the two target district governments, agreeing on the policy provision of allowing NFEs /literacy centres to be located wherever there was a government school present in the morning or afternoons. Implicit in this agreement was the principle that where possible, mainstreaming will be taking place iteratively throughout the year on the basis of students’ merit from NFE to formal delivery options and not as was traditionally done after completion of grade V by NFE students.

15 Awarded to Save the Children UK and implemented by an alliance of two national NGOs in the districts of Kasur and Sheikhupura, Punjab, Pakistan.

16 Sheikhupura and Kasur Districts of the province of Punjab, Pakistan . 17 “Project Design for Addressing Child Labour through Quality Education in Punjab Province, Pakistan,”


iii.ii Service Delivery : Establishing 260 NFE centers for a potential three year program, within easy access of child laborers was the first task. Preference was to open NFE centers in a government school and to target any government school (up to elementary level) in the vicinity for school improvement. 239 formal government schools located near the 260 NFE centers were targeted for a range of interventions.

Table 1 : NFE Locations : Government, Donated & Rented Total NFE in

Government schools

Donated/Rented

SKP 131 64 67KSR 129 77 52Total 260 141 119

141 NFE centres or 54% of the total were located in government schools. All 141 formal schools with high deficits in furniture, infrastructure, learning, sports materials, and minor repairs became beneficiaries of shared resources from the NFE centres.

iii.iii Education planning is actively undertaken at the district level. Since the implementation of the 2001 Devolution Plan, education is a district subject. As fiscal devolution has not been completed districts are dependent upon provincial and federal resources and grants. The project planning for ACLQEFA was integrated within the District Education Plan (DEP). The DEP is a medium term (three years) planning tool developed with government and non-government stakeholders at the district level. The targets set for three years are reviewed and updated annually. A District Education Plan covers the following areas : situation analysis, vision, objectives/targets, strategies with respect to education and literacy and across the delivery spectrum of formal and non-formal education systems and provision up to college level. The DEP process is chaired by the district government leadership, viz., mayor and the administrative head who coordinate the planning across the relevant departments. Thus at the project’s outset, a tone was set of working across formal and non-formal departments and delivery systems as a logical requirement for the district to achieve its vision and targets towards quality education for all. Whilst the 260 NFE centres were recipients of attention and inputs, the 239 formal schools have been improved through a number of systematic interventions to sustain the newly enrolled NFE students as well as attract enrolments of at risk and out of school children. These interventions are designed for holistic school based improvements.

Table 2 :Support/inputs for Formal Government and NFE centres in ACLQEFA Project Attributes /Inputs Formal NFE Numbers 239 schools 260 centres Location Purpose built government building 141 govt. schools; community

donated rented place Number of teachers At least 2-6 1 Timings AM PM /AM (if possible ) HRD: Training i. Teachers

ii. Head Teachers iii. Community Capacity Building

In-Service 10 days(subject based)

6days (for Managers) 2 days SC training

7 days – Pre-service20 days Follow up & Remedial

2 days QEFA Training

Curriculum Government prescribed textbooks Government prescribed textbooks and


& Support Materials

and Urdu Medium

Science Kit

Urdu Medium. Remedial and supplementary materials

Teaching Kit for Primary Grades designed by the formal Govt. program

Assessment System

&Recognition/ certification

Six monthly/ annual Scholarship exams for class V. Quarterly monitoring of selected schools as per project monitoring plan

Quarterly and derived from item pools of NEAS

MoU with Dept of Ed to conduct assessment and give certificates for NFE & assist mainstreaming 2122 mainstreamed

School Enrichment Activities

In 115 formal schools . This entails:Summer Schools (4 weeks), Health, Reading and Hobby Clubs, Recreational activities & IT Literacy

NFEs continue to work into the summer break & are supported by Health clubs, Recreational visits, and IT literacy for NFEs in govt. schools.

Education Fund At Risk Children @ Rs. 1200 per child

Mainstream Children @ Rs. 1200 per child

Community Strengthening for sustainability

School Council Training Citizen Community Board (CCB) registration & training

Quality Education For All (QEFA) Groups Mothers CommitteesCCB registration and training

Annual planning School Development Plans (SDPs) in 4400 schools in two districts

No SDPs in NFEs ..

Infrastructure & furniture Support

Grants for infrastructure and furniture/ electricity w/community sharing

Furniture for NFE minor infrastructure, mats, utilities, learning materials etc.

iii.iv Curriculum, Quality Support & Assessment : All NFE syllabi/textbooks are the same ones as used in the government schools, with some supplementary support and repackaged materials. Quality support is extended through a variety of systematic mechanisms/inputs across both formal and non-formal programs. These are:

– Teacher Training and follow up support – Remedial program in NFE centers– Provision of teaching kits– School Enrichment Program– Improvement of class room environment

The assessments tools for NFEs were developed under the project derived from the mainstream National Education Assessment System (NEAS) item pools for primary level. In the case of one district, the Department of Education was asked to form assessment teams to take NFE students’ tests for credible certification. Once this was done students could be mainstreamed expeditiously from the NFE system

iii.iv Monitoring Learning & Learning Environments & Interactive Teaching : Monitoring of quality learning is undertaken rigorously and regularly to track learning and learning


environments in both formal and NFE centers alike. All monitoring tools of formal and non-formal education capturing dimensions of delivery of inputs, learning processes community mobilization, teacher training, learners assessments, classroom climate, and performance are robustly designed for both NFE and formal schools. Monitors are trained in both districts to track schools and learning assessments of teachers and students alike. These records are well maintained and feedback is provided to the training managers to improve NFE performance through regular training and follow up schemes. Project assesses quality education in selected NFE, Literacy and formal government schools thru:

– Students Mastery – Teachers Mastery– Classroom environment– Interactive teaching

The instruments are similar but subject based monitoring is restricted to maths and Urdu (national language) in NFE centres compared to four core subjects in formal government schools. Results for the most recent monitoring round four (April – June 2005) are presented below.

Table 3 : Students Performance in Formal Schools

Indicator(Current) Period-4

Planned BaselineKSR SKP Total

English 68.50 38.88 56.66 84.00 64.00

Math 83.15 73.68 79.60 78.00 58.00

Science 70.45 54.54 62.50 71.00 51.00

Urdu 77.70 54.95 67.95 71.00 51.00

Table 4 : Students Performance in NFE Centres



Maths 35.79 31.93 33.86 49.00 19.00

Urdu 58.74 53.51 56.13 59.00 29.00

NFE centres have lower student baselines catering for child labor and at risk siblings, compared to formal schools. Progress is tracked with rigor. In Maths and Urdu the NFE centres have progress 15 percent and 27 per cent points whilst formal schools progress over the same period is 22 and 17 percent respectively. In the case of formal schools there has been slippage of 7 percent in English over the baseline period, reflecting poor and fragile second language competency levels of rural teachers.

Table 5 : Classroom Environment & Teaching in Formal Schools



CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT 53.33 58.64 55.68 63.00 43.0




ACTIVE TEACHING 54.15 57.41 55.75 77.00 57.0

Table 6 : Classroom Environment & Teaching in NFE centresCLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT 70.31 71.68 70.98 81.00 51.0

ACTIVE TEACHING 71.52 72.09 71.80 92.00 62.0

In the case of learning environment and interactive teaching NFE centres are 15 percent points ahead of their counterparts in formal schools illustrating a case of value added of NFE and learning possibilities across delivery systems.

iii.v Community Mobilization for school improvement planning: This is being addressed in the project through three parallel but linked groups: i) School Councils in formal government schools like the PTAs and SMCs. The government of Punjab has notified an enhanced role for this body to manage non-salary recurrent expenditures of US $ 240 annually and development expenses of up to US $ 6600 annually for school improvement work. The implementation of this initiative is just beginning. ii) Quality Education For All Group (QEFA Group) Under the project the QEFA group is to represent parents of children in NFEs and to link school councils of the entire village and not just one school, to address mobilize for learning needs of all. iii) Citizen Community Boards (CCBs) are a legal entity under the new Local Governance Ordinance 2001. CCB is a registered body for developmental work and have access to district development budgets comprising 25% of the non-lapsable total district development budget annually. School Councils and QEFA Groups can legitimately be registered as CCBs. To date, 40 or 50% of the target 80 CCBs have been registered and trained under the project. The level of community engagement for sustaining improvements may be measured through its contributions. The total amount of resources towards infrastructural improvement projects in government schools mobilized by the community is 22.29% of the total US $ 58,000.

Table 7: Resources for Infrastructure Projects- Contributions disaggregated District Description ACL-

QEFA Project Funds

SC Contri bution

In Rs. (US $ 1 = Rs. 61)

Community ContributionIn Rs. (US $ 1 = Rs. 61)

Total

Kasur Amount Rs. 1,335,900 238,300 385,950 1,960,150%Age 68.15% 12.15% 19.69% -

Sheikhupura Amount Rs. 978,900 170,050 395,202 1,544,152%Age 63.40% 11.01% 25.59% -

* Total Community Contribution = 22.29% (KSR + SKP)

iii.iv Mainstreaming Strategy: The mainstreaming strategy was elaborated as a number of sequenced steps to ensure that the children could move from NFEs to formal schools.


SEQUENCE OF MAJOR STEPS FOR MAINSTREAMING

Identify Government Schools in target areas of child labor prevalence

Document admission criteria in govt. schools

Identify NFE children to be mainstreamed : shortlisting children with 40-60% marks to be mainstreamed preferably in groups

Develop cost sharing package for mainstreaming with parents/community

Organize individual motivation meetings with parents and QEFA groups

Finalize mainstreaming package with each family individually.

Costs of books, stationery, school bags to be covered and also in some cases uniforms through the Education Fund.

Implement mainstreaming with support of government school teachers motivating them to be

supportive, child friendly and caring

Develop and implement follow-up strategies to sustain & track mainstreamed children

The location of NFE within the formal schools was an accelerator for enrolment and mainstreaming targets and strategies. Instead of the targeted enrollment of 8,000 children aged 5-12, 9,087 NFE students were actually enrolled by February 2004 (a 14% increase over expectations). The project design predicted only 275 of the students would be mainstreamed by the midterm evaluation, but actually 2122 were registered, almost 8 times more than anticipated. This unexpected increase in students mainstreamed highlights how successful the strategies have been in pursuing EFA goals through the two pronged approach towards formal and NFE delivery systems simultaneously. Of the 2122 students mainstreamed, 60% were from NFEs located in government schools (1269)compared to 40 %(853) from NFEs in community and rented locations.

Mainstreamed Students from NFEs in Govt & Community Locations


853 1269953

The students who mainstreamed across primary grades (1-5 or 6) the variations were far more diverse from NFEs in government schools compared to NFEs at community sites. Access to formal schools may have played an important role in greater empathy by and between the teachers of government school and NFE centers to admit children flexibly across primary grades.

Table 8 : Diversity of Mainstreamed Students:NFE to Formal Schools

Center PlaceNo of ChildrenMainstreamed

Grade Mainstreamed

Donated/Community (# 119 46% ) 250 1

561 2

78 3

7 4

2 5

Total 853

Govt. School (# 141 54 %) 414 1

699 2

127 3

20 4

8 5

1 6

Total 1269 Grand Total 2122

9 NFE centres have been fully mainstreamed and all students successfully enrolled in government schools. It is no coincidence that these NFE centres were located in government schools.

Mainstreaming has been accompanied by a follow up plan with formal school teachers to ensure that they are empathetic towards the children enrolled with positive attitude and interaction with children. A tracking database for each child is in place for monitoring performance and motivational level of the students.


Other than 260 NFE centres, 98 literacy centres were also established catering to 2000 learners of 12-14 years of age, a majority of them being girls. 40% if the centers were located in government school buildings as well converting the government primary schools into community learning centres in the afternoons for a optimized use for the local community’s education and learning needs. The literacy program is of one year duration, comprising reading, writing, numeracy, post literacy materials and pre-vocational skills. The latter is arranged at the door step for the girls or at the vocational training institutions for boys, with a view to supporting job placement or linkage with micro-credit programs for self-employment. At the district level this has meant working across literacy and education departments as well as the Technical Educational Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA).

The project has practically managed to bring multiple options for a disadvantaged household in terms of education, learning and training, at its doorstep. At the local level this has meant options for improving livelihoods for a family, through a range of learning possibilities, in the formal schools, in NFE and in literacy centres. This was mobilized through a civil society technical intermediary, the Sudhaar-ITA Alliance, as implementing partners of Save the Children UK. It is totally possible to envisage the same service delivery through a district government window, as part of its mainstreamed education and lifelong learning program. The project has been fortunate to have coincided with the implementation of a province wide sector reforms program designed by the government of Punjab. The government has negotiated a loan from the World Bank for the 10 year program. It has resulted in substantial increases in education funding amounting to 25% in allocations for out-of-school children in Sheikhupura District, or 50% growth in budgets for primary education in both districts. The overall enrolment in Punjab has increased by 13% within one year of the Punjab Education Sector Reform Program (PESRP) compared to the previous trend of less than 2 percent a year. Girls’ enrolment in grades 6 to 8 in the low-literacy districts receiving stipends of approximately US $ 20 annually, increased by 23 percent. Recent household survey data shows that net primary enrolment rates increased from 45 percent in 2001 to 58 percent in 2004/05. This translates into one million more children enrolled in Punjab schools since the launch of the reform program which has just completed its second year of implementation (World Bank 2005)

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

The concurrent strategy to address formal, non-formal and literacy as expanded learning and livelihood choices for a household paid healthy dividends. The project catered for children engaged in child labor and at risk between the ages of 4 to 14 who could be supported for a range of education and learning experiences. Although mainstreaming was initially practiced from a minimalist interpretation, as a bridge between non-formal and formal, it has since been subjected to a more comprehensive treatment for upgrading the Education Initiative, not simply as a response to child labor but to broader challenges of education and learning.

Mainstream is now seen as an umbrella framework to accommodate the entire spectrum of education policy, planning, financing and provision. This was not a hidden agenda but implicit in the project design and formal negotiations with the district and also the provincial governments. Coincidentally the provincial political leadership was keen to give space to partners of EFA. It had declared at its highest level, education to be its number one priority, for ‘an educated Punjab


for all’, with incentives of free education up to grade X, free textbooks up to grade X in government schools and stipends for girls at the middle school level in selected poverty districts. Figure I below illustrates the early imaging of a repositioned ‘mainstream’ framework from mere bridging to sustainable livelihoods.

Figure I Mainstream Repositioned from Bridging to Sustainable Livelihoods

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & LITERACY Shift from a Provider only to a financier and facilitator for all EFA Partners

The shifts from mainstreaming traditionally after primary completion, to iterative/ongoing mainstreaming as well as location of NFE and literacy sites in government schools for mutual benefit to address missing facilities were possible due to the policy and implementation space provided by the newly established district governments. This position in turn was duly supported by the provincial departments of education and NFE/Literacy.

Resources and strategies meant for one project have been able to have a wider optimizing influence across the education and literacy/NFE sectors which are gender and child sensitive as a result of the program and institutional synergies. To date the project has not supported non-state provisions for mainstream education options. However, this can be negotiated with the US Department of Labor as well as the Government of Pakistan.

The District Education Plans (DEPs) modestly undertaken for six districts to date have led to the possibility of province wide replication with an enhanced alignment to planning and budgeting at district and provincial levels. However, much more needs to be done to upgrade the policy on mainstreaming as an inclusive frame for EFA across multiple provision of both state and non-state actors. This issue is being raised across the globe. It must go beyond the movement for linking formal and non-formal for a more holistic approach to education and learning gains which can lead to poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.

Rethinking the Mainstream : Learning & Livelihood. UKFIET International Conference, Oxford 2005

Scope _= M A I N S T R E A M Life Long Learning Options

EducationECE/Pri/Mid/Hi/College/Univ.

Literacy / Skills/CreditTechnical-voc.

NFEECE/Prim/Middle

WORKP LA C E

19

Gender sensitive, child-centred & InclusivePublic ………………& Private Options

Linkages w/ Technical Education, Safety Nets& Community Development Departments

In Africa the debate has a lively one pursued by the Association for the development of Education in Africa (ADEA). One of the eleven working groups on Non-Formal Education has been actively engaged in a policy dialogue on formal and non-formal linkages . ADEA has held working sessions on NFE and Mainstreaming NFE ‘moving from margin to scale “ It is well recognized that In Africa, and in other parts of the world, adult education continues to be intimately linked to NFE, and both share the same fate of lack of resources, visibility and social prestige”. The common agenda is to mobilize integrated action leading to a holistic learning system inclusive of all learning modalities. The acceptance of Lifelong Learning (LLL) as a need for all and as an organizing principlefor education and learning systems in the 21st century applies to both developed anddeveloping countries embracing traditional and contemporary knowledge systems in the ‘management of the socioeconomic, spiritual and ecological facets of life’ (Hoppers, 1999)

Rethinking the mainstream, liberating education for livelihoods and poverty reduction hinges on a higher ordered public policy definition of the mainstream, to include provisions from non-formal to formal, inclusive learning needs and gender. The Scottish Parliament’s statement sets the tone for attaining equality and substantive equity in an unequivocal manner.

"`Mainstreaming' equality is … integration of equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices into the every day work of Government and other public bodies from the outset,…. it entails rethinking mainstream provision to accommodate gender, race, disability and other dimensions of discrimination and disadvantage, including class, sexuality and religion." ( Scottish parliament Equal Opportunities Committee 2002)

Liberating the mainstream thus requires political and social commitment, a strategic vision and holistic approach for comprehensive human resource development.

iv. ii Key Recommendations. The recommendations in order of priority are to: 1. Bring all education planning under one policy umbrella with multiple education, learning and skills windows (from ECD to tertiary), ensuring the state’s role to shoulder responsibility of education as a public good for poverty reduction and other critical externalities for social capital, through expanded learning and livelihood options. This would need two qualifiers, viz., a) purging the current divisions in education provision which consistently fragment and weaken quality of learning, and b) design standards of learning which are transparent and accessible to all providers and learners for accountability. 2. Ensure enhanced financing and resources for education across the spectrum with fungible and flexible budget lines, reinforcing the role of the state as a financier and facilitator for education provision through partnerships. 3. Expel the notion of non-formal and replace it with life basic education or lifelong learning (inclusive of NFE and literacy pre-vocational education provisions). 4. Technical/vocational skills education to have a focused planning and implementation window5. Set up separate financing windows for school education and post secondary /tertiary education with internally fungible systems, available to state & non-state providers for optimized outreach. 6. Provide maximum support to disadvantaged groups through a diversity of approaches, inter-departmental coordination and partnerships for substantive distributive and transformative equity.

A comprehensive approach to repositioning of mainstream for sustainable livelihoods must become the centre-piece of a convincing poverty reduction strategy. This will be fueled by strong economic growth prospects as projected for Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other emerging countries. For the developing and ‘fragile’ states the same principles can be applied to the


resource basket available inclusive of assistance from development partners. The repositioning will be underpinned by a diversified approach to education and learning to accommodate learners in diverse circumstances, ensuring quality and equity in a rapidly evolving, yet coherent and diversified education system.

Cited References

ADEA (2000) . “Mainstreaming NFE: Moving from the margin and going to scale” during the ADEA Biennale Arusha, Tanzania, 7-11 October 2000 .

Ahmed. M (2005), Beyond Access: Engendering Quality with Equity Lessons from the Bangladesh Experience at Accelerating Girls’. Paper presented at Education in South Asia: Beyond 2005, Bangkok, 7-9 February 2005

Alkire, S (2004) Resourcing gender equality in education: thinking through rights Preliminary draft, prepared for Beyond Access #3: Resources for Gender Equality and Quality Education

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2204) Fourth Edition Copyright by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Andrabi, T., J. Das, A. I. Khawaja, and T. Zajonc. “Religious School Enrollment in Pakistan: A Look at the Data.” (www.econ.worldbank.org/41363) p. 34.

CAMPE, Education Watch 2003/4: Quality with Equity – The Primary Education Agenda, forthcoming.

CAMPE, Education Watch Report 2001, Renewed Hope Daunting Challenges – State of Primary Education in Bangladesh, Dhaka 2002.

CAMPE, Education Watch Report 2002, Literacy in Bangladesh – Need for a New Vision, Dhaka, 2003

Dakar Framework of Action (2000). UNESCO. Dreze, J. and A. Sen. 1995. India Economic Development and Social Opportunity. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Economic Survey of Pakistan 2004-05, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan.

Federal Bureau of Statistics (1996) National Child Labor Survey. Pakistan Federal Bureau of Statistics (2000) Private Sector in Education. Pakistan Government of Pakistan (1998) National Population Census 1998.

Government of Pakistan (2002) Center for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution (CRPRID). Planning Commission. Islamabad


http://www.econ.worldbank.org/41363

http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/

Gthenya TWQambul (2004) Breaking the Boundaries to Achieve Quality EFA : National Strategies for Mainstreaming Non-Formal Education in Kenya. Keynote Address ICSEI Conference in Barcelona Spain

Hills P. J ed. (1982) A Dictionary of Education. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Hoppers,W. J. Moulton & Osman (edit)1999. The Dynamics of Non-Formal Education Volume II Papers presented at the Pre-Biennial Symposium and Exhibition Johannesburg, South Africa, 1-4 December 1999, ADEA Working Group on Non-Formal Education, Commonwealth Secretariat. UK

Human Development Centre (2002) Human Development in South Asia 2002-HDC Pakistan.

Huxley, C. Frederick (2005) INDEPENDENT MIDTERM EVALUATION of “ADDRESSING CHILD LABOR--QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL”, (U.S. Department of Labor and Save the Children-United Kingdom Cooperative Agreement Number (2002): E-9-K-2-0062)

ILO: Every Child Counts-New Global Estimates on Child Labour, April 2002.

Irvine, R. (2004) A DfID supported study

Jamil, B. (1997) Paper delivered at the SAHE Conference August 7-8, 1997, Lahore, Pakistan

Jhingran, D. Beyond resources : http://www.india seminar.com/2004/536/536%20dhir%20jhingran.htm

Kardar, S. & Khar (2005) “Elusive Search for Quality Education,” The Dawn 15 March 2005, p. A-2.

Mehta. A (2005) NIEPA, India 2005.

Millennium Development Goals 2015 (2000)

Ministry of Education (2001,2002,2003) Education Sector Reforms - Action Plan 2001-2005/6 Pakistan.

Ministry of Education (2001) NPA EFA Pakistan 2001-2015, Pakistan,

Ministry of Finance (2003) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Government of Pakistan

Page, G.Terry & J.B Thomas ( ) An International Directory of Education. Kogan Page, London

Parakrama, A. (2005) Development and the MDGs in the Context of Conflict“Things bad begun” or “Earnest of success”? at the SNV MDGs Meeting, Kathmandu, June 29, 2005

Pratachi Trust (2002) WORKSHOP ON EDUCATION, EQUITY, AND SECURITY Hotel Taj Bengal, Kolkata January 2-4, 200

PROBE Team. 1999. Public Report on Basic Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.


Scottish parliament Equal Opportunities Committee 2002) http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-ime-02.htm

Sudhaar – ITA Alliance (2002-2005) . Project Documents, Strategy Papers, Technical and Monitoring Reports. Pakistan. www.qefa.pk

Torres R. M (2000 a) One decade of ‘Education for All’: The challenge ahead. Buenos Aires: IIEP UNESCO

Torres, R M (2001) Paper commissioned by the ADEA Working Group on Non-Formal Education for presentation at the session on “Mainstreaming NFE: Moving from the margin and going to scale” during the ADEA Biennale (Arusha, Tanzania, 7-11 October 2001). The final document will be submitted in December 2001.

Torres. M. Rosa (2004) Lifelong Learning in the South: Critical Issues and Opportunities for Adult Education. Prepared for SIDA

UNDP. 2003. Human Development Reports, 2001, 2002 and 2003. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNESCO, The EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4, Paris, 2003

World Bank (2005) Pakistan : Punjab Education Bringing the little girls of Pakistan to school: Punjab province leads the way. Islamabad.

World Bank Report 2002. Washington D.C


http://www.qefa.pk/

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/equal/or-02/eo02-ime-02.htm

)


Rethinking the Mainstream; Liberating Education for Livelihoods

The Twenty First century rolled out with renewed calls for EFA and the Millennium Development Goals (2-3) conceived as synergistic attention getters for world citizenry and leaders in developed and developing countries alike. Poverty reduction, human rights for comprehensive human development and livelihoods are at the heart of global agenda. With reference to education, the challenge of balance, linkage and optimization within formal and non-formal delivery systems has emerged as a critical one. Non-formal Education (NFE), originally designed as a strategy and outreach program to address education as a fundamental universal right for all, has become a significant sector in its own right. NFE is often seen as competing for resources from formal education, but continues to remain an opportunistic fringe phenomenon with low budgets, low cost and often poor quality programs.

The broader policy oriented question that needs to be raised is with respect to what is meant by the term ‘mainstream’? Some have challenged the epistemological and literal meaning of the words ‘mainstream’ and ‘non-formal’ in English as well as in local languages (Jamil, 1997; Torres, 2000). Both terms, when translated in local languages fall thin on account of their underlying assumptions which contradict the essence of both non-formal and mainstream. Neither the assumptions of non-conformity to ‘form’, nor the notion of ‘healthy’ pertaining to the mainstream can be sustained in existing education systems globally where learning processes are severely endangered.

Is mainstream merely a minimalist interpretation of moving from non-formal to formal schools (and that too government schools) or is it a more comprehensive interpretation which looks at mainstream inclusively and systemically. To clarify that further, mainstream through a minimalist lens has meant that non-formal education has become ‘ghettoised’ and suffers from a chronic lack of resources and attention, in spite of the fact that it is a blatant reality on account of underperforming education systems. Findings on students and teachers performances in several studies (Kardar, 2005; Khawaja Das, 2004 Education Watch 2004) households are left helpless in terms of choice for both state and non-state provision.

The pursuit of mainstream from a transitional non-formal perspective has yielded poor results. This trend is widely prevalent in the South Asian region, home to a majority of illiterates and the unschooled. In India, Bangladesh and Pakistan resource provision remains meager for NFE. Undermining the trend is the poor tracking of students enrolled in non-state systems in general and non-formal centres/schools in particular. This is yet another planning bottleneck which is thinning out or weakening the mainstream, which has de facto come to mean only government provision. Such a divisive and emaciated approach to NFE and ‘mainstreaming’ suggests that there is a flaw in conceptualization and the strategy needs to undergo rethinking if learning and livelihoods need to be linked.

Redefining the Mainstream : The Inclusive Framework

The proposal thus being offered for educators and policy makers is to redefine mainstream across a spectrum of education provision with many providers. On a more contemporary note this implies ‘inclusivity’ with key verbs being ‘to integrate’ . and ‘to incorporate’.

Many argue that for the notions of NFE as “alternative” or “complementary”, or those of “mainstreaming” and “going to scale”, lose ground”. New and hybrid forms of education emerging in all countries and regions resist the conventional FE/NFE/IE classification. and


perception of borders between school/out-of-school, State/civil society, FE/NFE, public/private, conventional/ innovative, etc (Torres, 2000) .

The urgency of EFA and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), education requires a bolder approach where the formal and non-formal need to be integrated under the umbrella of ‘ basic quality education for all”. The paper will address the unpacking of Basic Quality Education For All [BQEFA] concept and strategy.

Once conceived along such a continuum the mainstream would entail coverage of ; policy, planning, institutional provision, curriculum, monitoring as value added and resource allocations and utilization18.

A comprehensive approach to mainstream as a systemic strategy to address quality education for all would not simply bring providers under an integrated and coherent umbrella but also liberate the current ghettoisation of NFE. Mainstream when conceived through such a lens has policy, institutional and operational implications which is a major opportunity for synergies and optimization of EFA across departments, ministries and related partners. The liberalization would positively affect its operations, funding and the larger education discourse on EFA and the MDGs.

The concepts above would be elaborated through evidence from a case study of a project Addressing Child Labor through Quality Education for All (ACL_QEFA)” in Pakistan (2002-2006)19 and its specific instruments, conceived within the mainstream framework of comprehensive education planning.

Baela R. Jamil

Chairperson ITA and Education Specialist ACLQEFA

KEY WORDS: MAINSTREAM; NON-FORMAL; FORMAL & PUBLIC POLICY

18 Policy : Embracing state and non-state provision /delivery systems Planning: Engages with and factors all providers of education and literacy Institutional Provision : Diversified delivery options eligible for govt. supported interventions eg. free

textbooks; student stipends for middle schools; teacher training Curriculum : National Curriculum Framework & guidelines Monitoring and value added notion of EMIS : Counting all providers for key education indicators in

Pakistan Resource allocations : Resources for education are fully accounted for, allocated through multiple channels

and departments (Education, NFE, Labor, Social Welfare, Defence, Railways, Safety net programs ). Possibilities for fungibility or sharing across formal and non-formal education departments must be in place especially when they are chasing the same targets of UPE, Early Childhood and Literacy)

19 Awarded to Save the Children UK and implemented by national NGOs in the districts of Kasur and Sheikhupura, Punjab, Pakistan.
