University of washington bothell

Analysis of an Institute

Future Generations Graduate School and Tostan

Holly Teige

6/5/2012

This paper provides an evaluation of Future Generations Graduate School in an effort to identify best practices and possible drawbacks of their program. The goal of this work is to inform the development of a training institute under development by Tostan.

This paper is intended to provide a detailed evaluation of Future Generations’ Graduate School

(FGGS) in an effort to extract best practices for potential inclusion in a training institute model

for Tostan, a non-government organization operating out of Senegal. Their philosophy and

practices parallel those of development theorists Paulo Freire, Martha Nussbaum, and David

Ellerman. Throughout this paper I will bring together community development concepts and

educational theories and will show how the two organizations parallel. This analysis will

provide context for why certain aspects of Future Generations Graduate School’s (FGGS) model

can be replicated within a Tostan training institute. After an overview of Tostan, I will describe

FGGS’s approach to community development and non-formal education. Understanding

Tostan’s approach will provide the context for thinking about how Tostan might build its training

institute. FGGS offers training that could be useful to Tostan as it thinks about the kind of

institute it wants to develop. After descriptions of Tostan and FGGS I will identify the best

aspects of from FGGS’s work but I focus primarily on including philosophy of development and

how it structures its program including the curriculum, the classroom design and evaluation

practices. It is here this paper diverges from previously written reports on institutes. In this

analysis a strong focus is placed on the benefits to end-user recipients of the training being

gained by FGGS students when they return to their communities and apply the knowledge

gained. Truly this is the measure of the efficacy of any program. Does it work once it’s been

undertaken? This very question about assessment is critical to my analysis of FGGS; I will also

identify which components of the program development, curriculum, and evaluation are most

effective and relevant for Tostan. Finally, a formal recommendation for actionable steps to

include the identified practices and additional areas of interests for Tostan will be offered.

Teige, H. 1

The research conducted to prepare for this paper included analyzing education approaches,

human and community development theories, and for Tostan and FGGS I used several resources.

These include but certainly are not limited to such works as ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ written

by Paulo Freire an educational theorist, ‘Creating Capabilities’ by Martha Nussbaum reviewing

her theory of human development, and David Ellerman’s synthesis of development theories in

‘Helping People Help Themselves.’ In addition I studied multiple theses and articles including a

very helpful one co-written by Dr. Diane Gillespie and Tostan’s founder Molly Melching. I was

also fortunate to be granted unique access into the online classrooms within FGGS to evaluate

the design of the courses and student behavior. The FGGS Course Catalog was also helpful as

was the website with information on all aspects of the application process and a great deal of

information regarding the school and its history. Finally, I interviewed both the Dean of FGGS,

Mike Rechlin, and Kim McLennan, an alumnus; these interviews offered the greatest insight into

the program.

PROGRAM REVIEW

Tostan is a non-profit organization based in Senegal. Founded in 1973 and formalized as an

non-governmental organization in 1991, Tostan focuses on community-led development using

non-formal education (Gillespie & Melching, 2010). The use of non-formal education involves

working together with students to create the curriculum based on learning goals they participate

in establishing. Community-led development distinguishes itself from more traditional

development efforts in its inclusion of the participants in deciding which changes need to be

made. Unlike many other well-intentioned non-government organizations Tostan does not come

into a community with a rigid set of expectations. Instead communities are expected to co-create

their journey and are a part of the dialogue of development from the very beginning. The Tostan

Teige, H. 2

philosophy is evident in their methodology from the initial interaction with a community. Once

approached by a community interested in its program, Tostan begins a dialog to best understand

what the people in the community are looking to get out of Tostan’s involvement as well as to

get clarity on what Tostan is able to offer. Currently Tostan’s curriculum is a full thirty months

of immersive dialog between community members and guided by a Tostan-trained facilitator.

The first eighteen months of the training focuses on human rights, healthcare, and democracy.

The second portion focuses on project management, literacy, and financial skills. Throughout all

of this the community is participating as both a larger unit representing the entire village as well

as individuals. Discussion is a regular occurrence and often the topics are generated by the

participants themselves as they discover new issues to talk about.

Several community organizations have approached Tostan for training on how to use the proven

indirect non-formal education and community-led development models Tostan has implemented

to help get their message out with Tostan’s methods. This rise in demand for training spurred

research into the possible development of an training program Tostan would use to teach other

organizations how to operate from a human-rights and community-led development perspective.

To help in this effort research was done on existing training programs at organizations around

the world. One concern, raised by David Ellerman is the potential for large organizations to see

a successful model in a smaller organization and trying to extract it for their own purpose,

potentially distorting it in the process. The risks associated with training other organizations on

Tostan’s methods should be carefully considered when proceeding with the development of a

training institute. More details on recommendations around this issue are outlined in the closing

of this paper.

Teige, H. 3

Future Generations Graduate School offers a Master of Arts degree in Applied Community

Change and Conservation as well as a Master of Arts degree in Applied Community Change and

Peacebuilding. Both degrees include a strong focus on how to help communities develop in a

sustainable manner. The philosophy is evidenced in the institution’s mission statement, “Future

Generations teaches and enables a process for equitable community change that integrates

environmental conservation with development.” The programs “call upon the students’

creativity, knowledge, and interpersonal skills to develop workable strategies for change that fit

the ecology, economy, and values of a particular locale. This process seeks to empower

communities to own their futures.” (Future Generations Graduate School, 2011)

Future Generations Graduate School prepares its students to create change within the

organizations and/or communities they are serving by using community- and human-

development theories learned during the two-year degree program. During this time the students

are also required to attend four one-month long residential practicums with on-site community

work in India, Africa, Haiti, and the United States. During these site visits students apply the

content they have been studying and in many cases are given opportunities to dialog with peers

to develop the necessary insight to generalize the new skills from the site community to their

own organization and/or community (McLennen, 2012).

When FGGS was first established in 2003 the focus was on extending the work being done by

the Future Generations non-profit organization. According to FGGS Dean Mike Rechlin the idea

was to take the skills at play in the efforts of the organization as it was going into the

communities it served and expand on them in a way that could be developed into a curriculum

teachable in a way accessible to students from multiple cultures. Some requirements were clear:

the solution would require a structured learning program, a set of required and preferred

Teige, H. 4

outcomes, and selection criteria for the learners and/or students. Several structural models were

considered and ultimately the planning committee chose a formal school mode based in North

Carolina and operating as a non-profit educational arm of the Future Generations organization

itself. This design gave the organization’s donors and board of directors the most confidence in

the stability and long-term sustainability of the new program while still meeting the requirement

of teaching others to make a difference using the FGGS model.

FGGS next considered the types of students who would be best positioned to succeed in such a

structured model. Once the audience was identified it would determine the learning level and

further define the type of material required and skill of the teachers necessary to help students

learn the development methods so important to the foundation of Future Generations. With these

and other factors in mind the planning committee considered such issues as whether they would

be offering a certificated program or a formal degree, and at one point, according to Rechlin,

they considered doing both. A certificated program didn’t offer enough to comprehensively

support all of the material the organization felt was crucial to conveying the core values of the

planners. At the time there was some doubt as to whether a full curriculum could be developed

that would serve to meet the educational requirements of a degree program detailed enough to

attract graduate students. Future Generations staff began an informal survey of previous

volunteers and existing staff and determined there was interest in a solution with more weight

and reliance than a certificate. The organization then began committing to curricular planning.

Again the issue of an audience came into play, fortunately there was already survey data

available and from that the planners determined the prime audience to be existing professionals

already working with communities in poverty.

Teige, H. 5

Next conditions and qualifications were developed around who would be allowed into the

program. As Rechlin recalled, the organization decided to enroll twenty-four students so that

they could get to know each other and thus create long-term professional and personal

relationships that are so important for networking between organizations within their

communities but interest was high enough to expect ongoing demand for enrollment. The

decision was made to allow adopting a rolling registration model and accepting students every

quarter. This still allowed students to remain with their cohort from the beginning and provided

the best opportunity for widespread distribution of the FG model and values. Even with this

higher enrollment there were enough applicants the school could afford to be selective about

whom it accepted. FGGS application requirements include proficiency in English, reliable

access to the Internet, own a portable computer, and be sponsored by an existing community

organization willing to support the student through the two-year education plan. The students

typically are sponsored by the organization they were working in. It is the student’s

responsibility to provide for all resources required outside of the residential site visits (Future

Generations Graduate School, 2011) This includes securing Internet access although according to

Dean Rechlin Internet access is one area where students typically benefit from being sponsored

by a local non-profit they can work with. The Internet component is crucial to student success

due to the lack of a brick-and-mortar school building. Future Generations Graduate School is

nearly completely online and has no physical classrooms. There is an administrative office in

North Carolina for the purposes of staff oversight and management of the entire program but it

shares space with the Future Generations organization itself. This model has allowed students

from around the globe to participate in the program without ever entering a classroom while

Teige, H. 6

supporting the community sense using online “classrooms” with discussion boards and shared

workspace.

Upon enrollment students begin a series of courses and are given log in information to access

them. Typically there is a short window where students gather online and introduce themselves

before they are contacted by a professor; on line they find the first of what would be dozens of

reading and/or writing assignments in the coming years. The student are able to use this

information immediately in their sponsoring organizations but the benefit of the online cohort

gives the added support of a space where they can discuss with colleagues problems and

brainstorm and plan solutions. In essence the students are able to come together to focus on

assisting one another’s organizations using the passion and intellect of two dozen dedicated and

educated professionals all interested in supporting one another which offers additional insights

that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible for organizations to obtain on their own

through hiring consultants. This is one reason the model works so well at attracting

professionals while requiring organizational background support; it is not just the student who

sees immediate benefit and growth. While at this point no information has been available about

the impact of the program on a specific organizations there is anecdotal evidence from interviews

reflects this benefit.

Another requirement is the cost, something Tostan will seriously need to consider alongside the

academic requirements. Future Generations Graduate School costs approximately $17,000 per

year and for many individuals who lack organizational support that amount is not only

unreasonable but may also be out of reach. Most of the students who do apply for the program

though are already working with non-profit organizations some of which are operating on a

shoestring budget. This is something the planning committee kept in mind setting up a

Teige, H. 7

scholarship fund that while small in size compared to other graduate school programs still offers

some support to applicants dedicated to learning the curriculum and creating change.

Scholarships are limited to the neediest and are able to partially fund tuition. Students are also

expected to have their own laptop, something the school has been known to help with in an

emergency but again this is rare. Rechlin did share, “We don’t ever want access to one of the

least expensive parts of this program to be a block for someone. If a $100 laptop can be shipped

to an impoverished child we can certainly get one to the Future Generations student who might

help that child” (Rechlin, 2012).

Once they identified the student population the faculty created a mission statement for FGG and

the learning goals; once these were created they developed a curriculum (See appendix for

mission statement and goals.) Although the guidelines for instruction are fairly traditional in

their classroom application the mission and goals are decidedly non-conforming to typical

graduate programs. The mission of FGGS is focused on creating change through education

guided by community-led goals and partnership with organizations involved in similar work.

Like many Master’s Degree programs FGGS places a high priority on students’ ability to learn

how to think critically in order to most effectively analyze and address issues. In addition,

FGGS teaches students to understand development issues as they are applied to individuals,

communities, and the environment. The intent is to inform the future behaviors of students in a

way that creates positive and sustainable change in the world. Further, FGGS instructs students

on communication skills to assist in their work as ‘agents of change’ in their communities

through facilitation and community support. This emphasis on communication also involves

specific training on organizational management in areas of fundraising and grant-writing,

enabling FGGS graduates to contribute not only to the programmatic goals but also to the

Teige, H. 8

financial success of their organizations. FGGS also gives students the skills needed to research

and evaluate problems using methods that create dynamic and comprehensive solutions.

As outlined in the program curriculum FGGS’ learning outcomes center around critical thinking,

human and community development, program design and evaluation, communication, and

research skills. These were the core points around which the curriculum was built. Instructors

were sought from multiple specialties and selected based on their familiarity with the course

focus as well and experience in teaching in a multi-mode environment including significant

online classroom management.

Once students begin the program they sign into their classrooms using internet connections and

equipment, often supplied by their sponsoring organization. Like many online classes they log in

and provide an introduction, sharing resumes and contact information. This creates a sense of

community that draws students together as a team and facilitates the previously mentioned peer-

based problem solving model used to benefit not just the four Future Generations residential sites

but the individual programs the students represent. Students continue to work together in a

traditional classroom format with coursework and guided interaction. In this program the

coursework is often directly related to the organizational backgrounds and projects the students

are working on already in their careers. Kim McLennen, an FGGS alumnus, reflected on her

experience, “I began working with Whirlwind Wheelchair Int. as a physical therapist helping

them coordinate the distribution of rough terrain wheelchairs in Haiti five months after the

earthquake. I stayed on and trained staff at ProsthetiKa.org in prosthetics and orthotics and as a

rehabilitation coordinator at Hopital Albert Schweitzer.”

Teige, H. 9

Like many educational degrees the students are expected to apply the skills they are learning but

FGGS students are able to utilize the residential practicums to put their knowledge to the test.

This component helps to bridge the gap between classroom learning and inter-personal dialog in

a face-to-face environment. For a program so focused on communication and community

change this portion of the learning opportunity is critical.

To address the need for hands-on experience in applying on-line learning every three months

students are expected to travel to a Future Generations community service site and participate in

all aspects of the program being applied in that location. For example, after the first course

segment the students gather in Arunachal Pradesh in India where they work in some of the most

remote jungles of the country. Working with the existing Future Generations staff the students

gain practice in helping communities realize democracy, environmental protections, training

women to act as healthcare agents, establish community support groups, and promote use of a

regional health center. As part of these community programs the students also get experience in

teaching residents how to teach others in their region. In this way the values of Future

Generations continue to develop throughout the area and communities, if only by the use of a

shared development vocabulary, are better equipped to support one another through the change

necessary for sustainable growth.

Finally students graduate with a total of eighteen months of class time and four months of

practical experience in the field and they begin applying their coursework to their organizations

full-time. The students work in countries scattered across the globe but because of a continued

community environment maintained by the school students are able to stay connected and further

assist one another through networking and direct support as they continue their work.

Teige, H. 10

It is evident in these statements FGGS is committed to achieving much of the same outcomes as

Tostan strives for as described on their web site, “Tostan's mission is to empower African

communities to bring about sustainable development and positive social transformation based on

respect for human rights.” (Tostan, 2012)

Tostan and FGGS focus on helping communities learn to empower themselves from the inside

out. Both are very intentional in their perspective on the importance of getting on the

community’s level to best understand what the needs are. In fact both organizations reference

this in their materials, “Future Generations sees that the most important reality is the vantage

point of each community,” and “(Future Generations Graduate School, 2011) and, “Tostan

believes that when participants start with what they already know, they can expand and “break

through” to new understandings and practices and easily share with others what they have

learned.” (Tostan, 2012)

THEORIES IN ACTION

In evaluating the techniques of both organizations there are several theoretical approaches being

used together to create overall pedagogical models. In this portion of the paper I will review the

most prominent theories involved and explore how these are incorporated into the organizations.

Tostan’s method of community development is rooted in human rights and the use of an indirect

learning approach. Although Tostan itself does not make these connections, Gillespie and

Melching (2010) illustrate the ways in which liberatory educational practices are embedded in

Tostan’s approach. By liberatory, I mean educational approaches that are student centered and

problem posing. Such emphases are found in the work of Paulo Friere (2000) and John Dewey

(1916). Future Generations’ development approach is also based in human rights although it

Teige, H. 11

takes a broader view of development by including environmental issues, something more in line

with Nussbaum’s human development capabilities theory.

Ellerman brings these theories together as he explores the concept of indirect learning in his

book, ‘Helping People Help Themselves’ (Ellerman, 2006). He identifies the intersections of

these theories among others and finds great strengths while also extracting and evaluating the

drawbacks. For example, Freire makes a point of importance of meeting learners where they are

at, “The starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be

the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people.” (Freire, 2000)

This can be interpreted differently depending on the audience but it is incorporated by Tostan as

seen in their initial visits with communities; Tostan strives to learn the community’s goals and

involve them in every step of the process. The facilitation planning and ongoing dialogues

between community members over the course of the thirty-month program all reflect the

commitment Tostan shows in adhering to their philosophy of letting the participants lead the

dialogue. In fact Tostan begins the community learning opportunities with songs, dance, and

imagery inviting everyone to be a part of the visioning of the future. This exercise brings

participants together and brings common issues to the forefront. Once these issues are identified

facilitators will help initiate in-depth dialogue between community members. This process also

incorporates Freire’s theory, “Utilizing certain basic contradictions, we must pose this

existential, concrete, present situation to the people as a problem which challenges them and

requires a response - not just at the intellectual level, but at the level of action,” (Freire, 2000) as

a tool to stimulate dialog between community members. In Freire’s language, the participants

become “co-investigators”. Together Tostan’s facilitators work to help the community learn to

uncover and reevaluate understandings and presumed knowledge through extensive discourse.

Teige, H. 12

In FGGS the theories of Freire and Dewey are seen as influences in the philosophical

foundations of the program. Both men were strong advocates of letting learners guide the

education process and FGGS seems to use this approach as a guiding principle in much of its

curriculum around community involvement and communication, “Future Generations sees that

the most important reality is the vantage point of each community.” (Future Generations

Graduate School, 2011) Alumnus Kim McLennen mentions as one of the most important

learning lessons from her time at FGGS, “Learning and understanding that local people will

always provide the best solutions. I changed myself so I could become a mentor and a coach and

lost the “expert” approach in my endeavors.”(McLennen, 2012)

Both organizations utilize the capabilities approach to human development introduced by

Amartya Sen (Sen, 1984) and furthered by Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum M. C., 1992). The two

originally worked together on the theory but have since diverged to focus on different

applications of the approach. As a brief summary this approach to development addresses the

need for individuals to have the freedom to choose how they want to act. According to Sen and

Nussbaum this choice is constrained without appropriate social and governmental supports in the

form of capabilities. As an example, a native French-speaking individual may want to learn

English (desire) and have the skill to learn (capacity) but without a teacher and a learning

environment (capability) it is likely little effective learning will take place. In both the FGGS

and Tostan approaches it is Nussbaum’s capabilities-based theory on human development that is

most evident. This is seen primarily in the assertion that sustainable community-led social

infrastructure evolution is critical for the community development necessary to create the

opportunities for individual development. In Nussbaum’s terminology this is called creating a

Teige, H. 13

‘combined capability’, defined as “internal capabilities plus the social/political/economic

conditions in which functioning can actually be chosen.” (Nussbaum, 2011)

Although other philosophies are certainly at play within the organizational frameworks for

Tostan and FGGS it is in the human and community development areas where they intersect.

Based on these similarities and the research thus far the conclusion is FGGS is institutionally

similar to Tostan a strong organizational candidate to be considered when designing the training

institute. In the next section I will briefly outline the recommendations to provide further context

and support the conclusion above.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recommendation #1: Technology integration

Tostan should consider providing supplemental curricular access using technology that is

available to its communities and its students. Particular attention should be provided to laptop

lending or ownership as well as internet connectivity. Although FGGS does have this

component it is too heavily relied upon to be effectively generalized to a Tostan training

institute. In the FGGS model online access is almost exclusively used with only four site

residentials for hands-on experience. Despite the success of their approach within the context of

the FGGS program, individual one- or two-months long community interaction time throughout

the extensive Tostan curriculum is unlikely to be sufficient time to truly integrate the critical

community interaction skills needed for effective community-led development. As FGGS has

shown, a great deal of learning can occur in a mixed-methods learning environment. However, I

recommend against using an approach so heavily weighted toward online learning should Tostan

consider this learning model the key will be striking the appropriate balance between taking

Teige, H. 14

advantage of the efficiency offered by technology while retaining the organizational goals and

mission.

Recommendation #2: Instructor Selection

It is vital Tostan select instructors highly skilled in communication and in ideological alignment

with Tostan’s mission and goals. All candidates should be fully assessed for their personal value

systems and their agreement with Tostan’s organizational tenets as well as those of its directors.

By choosing instructors with similar personal beliefs Tostan will increase the chances of

instructor retention; personal investment in the program model and goals will likely be a far

better incentive than salary alone. As with FGGS I recommend instructors hired by Tostan have

extensive background in theories and applications of human and community development. Such

background provides the necessary authority to convey the curriculum from an experiential

perspective rather than mere academic knowledge. As outlined in the FGGS course catalog,

“Faculty with extensive field experience facilitates student learning and peer-to-peer exchange

through internet-based coursework.” (Future Generations Graduate School)

Recommendation #3: Follow up

Learners seem more likely to come away from the training experience with a positive impression

when they and the instructor are fully invested in the outcome. With this need for investment in

mind another area to consider is tying the instructor’s performance evaluation with the long-term

outcomes of the learners after they return to their communities and begin working with

organizations. In addition Tostan should consider obtaining feedback from the organizations the

learners work for following their training. It is not just the instructors who need incentives;

learners also perform better when given sufficient motivation. Professional certification is a

Teige, H. 15

potential draw to encourage learners to achieve a set level of performance. A certificate model

offers incentive for students to be incentivized beyond a desire for knowledge and increased

skills. Finally, Tostan should consider developing an ongoing follow-up observation system so

program administrators can evaluate the application of the Tostan model once the learner brings

it back to their community as well as a long-term assessment of programmatic retention by the

learner. One way this might happen is to require a regularly scheduled refresher course or even a

minimum number of hours per year of interactive learning via online “webinars” learners could

log into and watch, regardless of location.

Recommendation #4: Community partnership and networking

One area FGGS excels is in the development of a global learning community. The creation of

this community developed organically according to Dean Rechlin but its use has been

incalculable. Students have the ability to stay connected for years after graduation using an

online forum. It is in the networking that perhaps the FGGS model is so easily leverageable by

Tostan. Regardless of all other steps Tostan might come away from this paper with it is the

learners’ ability to connect and work together to cooperatively problem-solve in the years

following their training that will be most valuable to the communities the learners serve. The

ability to support community-led development is at the heart of the Tostan mission. Through

ongoing networking the skills established in training have the potential to influence organizations

throughout the world and for years to come. The future of learning really is online and it is time

for Tostan to consider bringing this into the training model in a substantive and sustainable way.

Recommendation #5: Application selection

Teige, H. 16

FGGS has a rigorous mandatory application process. This is to be expected given its program

design as an education institution but no less important in a potential training institute. To best

insure learners will adhere to Tostan’s approach it will be critical for the organization to confirm

a student’s commitment to the process. It is likely this could be done through the use of a

standard curriculum vitae review. Another possibility is to consider an approach like FGGS and

require the learners be actively working with a non-government or non-profit organization. This

would strongly discourage learners from participating if they weren’t already committed to the

needs of the larger community and prepared to work as hard as possible to learn the skills to be

of better help.

CONCLUSION

In the overall analysis there are several areas within the FGGS training model Tostan could

extract and integrate into a training institute development plan. Despite the in-depth analysis of

FGGS in this paper there is undoubtedly more that could be done. Interviews with additional

alumni, partner organizations with which students work during their education, and ideally some

follow-up with communities receiving the benefits of the training itself; this level of insight

would allow Tostan to better understand the value and portability of the FGGS methods. In

addition Tostan should consider that this evaluation is performed on a program designed as a

school and FGGS is a degree-issuing school intended for individuals already possessing an

undergraduate degree and as a result the program’s approach is designed to focus less on the

actual communities and instead are centered around curriculum, homework, and in comparison

to Tostan’s “on the ground” approach, a nominal amount of time in a real-world setting. Despite

these drawbacks there are still several recommendations outlined above Tostan can and in my

opinion, should consider.

Teige, H. 17

Appendix A

FGGS mission statement and goals:

“The Future Generations Graduate School shares the same mission with its founding and partner organization, Future Generations. 

Future Generations teaches and enables a process for equitable community change that integrates environmental conservation with development.

As an international school for communities offering graduate degrees in Applied Community Change and Conservation, we provide training and higher education through on-site and distance learning. Toward this end, we support field-based research, promote successes that provide for rapid expansion, and build partnerships with an evolving network of communities that are working together to improve their lives and the lives of generations yet to come.

Teige, H. 18

Works CitedCrocker, D. A. (1992, Nov). Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's and Nussbaum's

Development Ethic. Political Theory, 20(4), 584-612.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Macmillan Company.

Ellerman, D. (2006). Helping People Help Themselvers, From the World Bank to an Alternative Philosophy of Development Assistance. University of Michigan Press.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Future Generations Graduate School. (2011). 2011-2012 Course Catalog. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from Future Generations Graduate School: http://www.future.edu/sites/gradschool.future.org/files/GraduateSchoolCatalog2012_2013Color1.pdf

Future Generations Graduate School. (n.d.). Community-based Learning. Retrieved April 04, 2012, from Future Generations Graduate School: http://www.future.edu/curriculum/community-based-learning

Garrett, D. J. (2008, April 29). Martha Nussbaum on Capabilities and Human Rights. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from WKU - A Leading American University with International Reach: http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/nussbaum.htm

Gillespie, D., & Melching, M. (2010). The Transformative Power of Democracy and Human Rights in Non-Formal Education: The Case of Tostan. Adult Education Quarterly, 477-498.

Little, D. (n.d.). Nussbaum's Formulation. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/nussbaum.htm

McLennen, K. (2012, May 16). Alumnus, FGGS. (H. Teige, Interviewer)

Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and Social Justice. International Studies Review, 123-135.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1992). Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism. Political Theory, 202-246.

NUSSBAUM, M. C. (2009). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach and Its Implementation. Hypatia, 24(3).

Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilites The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rechlin, M. (2012, April 27). Dean, Future Generations Graduate School. (H. Teige, Interviewer)

Teige, H. 19

Robeyns, I. (2005, March). The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1).

Sen, A. (1984). Rights and capabilities. In A. Sen, Resources, Values and Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tostan. (2012). Welcome to Tostan. Retrieved March 13, 2012, from Tostan.org: http://tostan.org/

Teige, H. 20