Maurits Spoelder

mauritsspoelder@gmail.com

Background – Why a focus on quality?

Untangling the concept of quality in

education.

Quality education in Zambia.

Methodology, approach and method.

Research findings.

Discussion.

Why Quality?

Economic Growth

Social Justice

Human Right

“Successful quality improvement has two elements (Fullan, 2000). The first is a shared vision among educators in the country on the process of teaching and learning, which makes explicit the pedagogical assumptions regarding how children learn, what level of performance is expected and which instructional strategies are effective under which conditions. This provides the foundation for a “culture of quality,” which will guide the “what” of a quality improvement program. The second is a strategy of implementation, providing the “how” of the reform program.” (Verspoor ed, 2005, p. 324)

The following research question is adopted: What conceptualisations of quality education do

national and international educational stakeholders in Zambia hold?

The sub questions addressed are: Is the quality goal prioritised in comparison to other

educational goals?

Which interventions are most prioritised to achieve quality education development?

To what degree is there a shared consensus on the concept of quality between stakeholders?

What are some of the key implications for policy and practice?

“No general theory as to what determines

the quality of education has been

validated by empirical research.”

UNESCO, EFA-GMR (2005, p. 228)

Quality education traditions since 1960‟s:

Quality

Paradigm

Research Focus Evaluative

focus

Learning

tradition

Development

theory

Underlying Political

Philosophy

Economist School

effectiveness

School Input-

Output

Behaviourist Human Capital

Theory

Utilitarianism/

libertarianism

Humanist/

Educationalist

School

improvement

Classroom Process Humanist Human

Development/

Human Rights

Liberalism/

cosmopolitanism

Same story different names:

Fuller and Clarke (1994, p.120); Riddell (2008, p.13)

A 4 pillar approach to quality:

Relevance – education should be relevant

to context, need and society.

Efficient – in setting standards and meeting

these standards.

Something special – quality education

should go beyond the usual expectations.

Inclusive – education for all (Stephens, 2003)

Source: UNESCO (2005, p. 36)

From input- output (economist) to input-process-outcomes influenced by a context (humanist/educationalist).

Context specific – political, economic, cultural.

Human rights based – equity and justice.

Link with wider socio-economic development goals as Democracy. Poverty, Human rights.

Education as part of a PRSP.

Zambia and all the nations that adopted the EFA Framework, are therefore not only confronted with the challenge of achieving good quality UPE, but also with a challenge to achieve improved equity, and equal opportunity to learn (Verspoor, 2008, p. 18). The contemporary debate within quality education and its relationship to international development thus links education to equity, to equal opportunities to learn and to a person‟s „ability to reach a valuable state of living‟ (Sen, 1993, p. 30)

“Zambia has achieved major results in

expanding primary education in quantitative

terms….However, a relative shift of focus

towards increasing the quality of education

seems warranted.”

IOB (2008, p.148)

Underinvestment in education.

Development of education expenditure as a % of GDP (1998-2006)

Source: MoE (various sources)/computation IOB (2008)

* Contributions to the MoE budget

HIV/AIDS rate is 9.2% = 1.1 million (UNAIDS, 2008) let to OVC.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

GDP 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.8

External* 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.3

Total 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.1

External

contribution

22% 28% 29% 29% 28% 38% 32%

Enrolment from 1.6 M in 1999 to 2.7 M in 2006. UPE in 2002.

In 2006, PTR 44:1 on basic level.

Pupil: classroom ratio = 79:1 (IOB, 2008, p. 74)

Source: IOB (2008, p.84)

Changes in literate scores between SACMEQ I and II

Source: Postlethwaite (2004, p.7)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Nigeria

Zanzibar

Gambia

Niger

Zambia

Côte d'Ivoire

Togo

Senegal

Burkina Faso

Namibia

South Africa

Mali

Malawi

Botswana

Cameroon

Zimbabwe

Madagascar

Uganda

Mauritius

Morocco

Kenya

Tunisia

MLA-Equivalent Test Scores (% correct)

Percentage of correct answers on math and language tests of fourth graders

Source: Verspoor (2008, p.16) and Mingat (2005)

Test and examination scores on primary level have remained stable.

This is remarkable as PTR, pupil classroom, and pupil textbook ratios increased.

However, fluctuations are high at a provincial level which questions the available data used.

Hardly any gender differences

Source: IOB (2008)

Only 30% pass the minimum threshold of 40% in examination tests in English and Maths.

10094

88

30

100

68 67

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cohort NER Completion Learning

Primary 2007

Primary 1999

Source: UIS and UNESCO(2009); IOB (2008)

RQ: ‘What conceptualisation of quality

education do national and international

educational stakeholders in Zambia hold?

Qualitative methodology – exploration.

Grounded theory approach – a theory

of education quality should be

grounded in the local context of Zambia.

Interview method – 17 respondents

Ministries

• MoE – standards and assessment.

• MoE – curriculum development centre.

• MoE – examinations council.

• MSTVET – vocational education and training

• Provincial education office

Schools

• Urban school low economic area

• Urban school high economic area

• Rural school

Civil Society

• Zambian National Union of Teachers (ZNUT)

• Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Authority (TEVETA)

• Zambia National Education Coalition (ZAMNEC)

Cooperating Partners

•Embassy of The Netherlands.

•Irish Aid

•UNICEF

INGO‟s

•USAID

•JICA

•Save the Children Norway

Substantive and formal theory.

Constructivist approach (Chamaz, 2000)

Codes, categories and properties.

Espoused theory (Schön & Argyris, 1974).

Methodological triangulation.

The following research question is adopted:

(A) What conceptualisations of quality education do

national and international educational stakeholders in

Zambia hold?

The sub questions addressed are:

(B) Is the quality goal prioritised in comparison to other

educational goals?

(C) To what degree is there a shared consensus on

the concept of quality between stakeholders?

(D) What are some of the key implications for policy

and practice?

Conceptual thoughts on

quality education

1. The purpose of quality e.g. economical/

social/ personal

2. Input/ outcome

based approach

3. Measurement

of quality

4. Relevance of learning

Nationally there are mixed thoughts on the Q concept.

Ministry level: mainly an input-economic approach. Inputs like

teachers, infrastructure, materials are prioritised.

“Basically the simple way is training that meets the minimum

standards and needs of the trainers and the society. What I

mean by this is that I should be getting the relevant skills, the knowledge that will help me to become a carpenter for

example. So If I‟m going to do carpentry I should be in a

situation where I should have a qualified instructor and equipment. I should have all these basic things and

appropriate experience to learn and train.”(MSTVET transcript 111-117)

NGO‟s take an output based approach looking at what has been examined/learned.

Schools take mixed input-output approach to Q.

Learning should be relevant for society.

Pupils should be able to apply their skills.

Which possibly explains the high focus on reading, life and technical skills by national stakeholders.

Generally, the process of teaching and learning is ignored by the national stakeholders!

Q is directly linked to learning outcomes. Focus on reading, writing and mathematics. Teachers, materials and school

management are key factors for Q.

Q education is for socio-economic development.

Q includes but goes beyond examination.

Education should be also be measured in society:

“If you look at Zambia, then people get jobs, but people fail to

do the job. I think there should be a third dimension where a

mechanism should work out and go into the workplaces to find out how prepared the graduates are if they finish

school.”

(JICA transcript 286-290)

Nationally there is a focus on access and expansion targets, mainly UPE/MDG 2. Interventions are targeted towards teachers, infrastructure and material.

Vertical gap between FNDP and reform programme.

Internationally, Q is the most important. Focus on teacher, pupil and school management/leadership.

The debate on access/quality is moving and a shift towards Q is taking place.

Strong harmonisation between National

and International stakeholders.

National partners acknowledge the low

level of Q.

Discussion on how to improve.

International partners sometimes have

different thoughts but follow the FNDP

reform programme.

Educational thinking is dominated by the

HCT which undermines certain aspects of

HR‟s and social justice. An amelioration of

the three approaches is possible

As an evaluative tool, the CA could be of

interest as it could incorporate contextual

factors and produce a “richer” form to

measure Q and its barriers for development

(Brighouse & Unterhalter, 2010; Robeyns,

2005; Yates, 2007).

Q reforms are unpopular with politicians

and other educ. stakeholders(Grindle,

2004).

“Scaling up by focusing down” (Samoff,

J., Sebatane, E. M. and Dembélé, M.,

2001)

To achieve equity groups sometimes

have to be treated unequal (Gardner,

1961; Oxenham, 2005; Samoff, 2007).

Barrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J. and Ukpo, E. (2006), Review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality in education. Bristol: EdQual.

Beeby, C. E. (1966), The Quality of Education in Developing Countries.

London and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Johnson, D. (ed.) (2008), The Changing Landscape of Education in Africa. Quality, equality and democracy. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Riddell, A. (2008), Factors Influencing Educational Quality and Effectiveness in Developing Countries: A Review of Research. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

Stephens, D. (2003), Quality of Basic Education. Background Paper for Global

Monitoring Report 2003/4 - Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality.

Paris/ Oslo: UNESCO.

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. M. (2007), Education Quality - Research Priorities and Approaches in the Global Era. Bristol: EdQual.

UNESCO. (2004), EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 - The Quality

Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.

Verspoor, A. M. (ed.) (2005), The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.

Brighouse, H. and Unterhalter, E. (2010), 'Education for Primary Goods or for Capabilities?'. In H. Brighouse and I. Robeyns (eds), Measuring Justice. Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2006), 'Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education'. Journal of Human Development, 7 (3), 385-395.

Robeyns, I. (2005), 'The capability approach: a theoretical survey'. Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93-117.

Robeyns, I. (2006), 'Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital'. Theory and Research in Education, 4 (1), 69.

Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2007), Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Unterhalter, E. (2008), 'Social Justice, Development Theory and the Question of Education'. In R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (eds), International Handbook of Comparative Education (pp. 771-790). Netherlands: Springer.

Barro, R. J. (2001), 'Human Capital and Growth'. American

Economic Review, 91 (2), 12-17.

Hanushek, E. A. (2005), Economic outcomes and school

quality. Paris: UNESCO IIEP/ International Academy of

Education.

Hanushek, E. A. and Wöβmann, L. (2007), The Role of Education

Quality in Economic Growth. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Kingdon, G. (2006), 'The Return to Education'. In D. A. Clark

(ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. London:

Edward Elgar.

Neri, F. (2001), Schooling Quality and Economic Growth:

Economics Working Papers 01-05: Department of Economics,

Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong.

Copenhagen Development Consulting. (2007), Review of the

Ministry of Education Sector Plan Zambia. Lusaka: Copenhagen

Development Consulting.

Donge van, J. K. (2007), 'Flexible SWAps for Strategic Policy-making:

Reflections on the Zambian Experience'. Development Policy

Review, 25 (4), 473-494.

IOB. (2008), Primary Education in Zambia: IOB Impact Evaluation no.

312. The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Policy and

Operations Evaluation Department (IOB).

MoE. (2007), National Implementation Framework 2008-2010. Lusaka:

Ministry of Education (MoE)/ Government of the Republic of Zambia

(GRZ).

World Bank. (2007), Implementation Completion and Results Report

of Zambia's Basic Education Subsector Investment Program.

Maputo: World Bank.